Crop Factor
Jun 23, 2019 03:42:17 #
Ysarex wrote:
They get their facts wrong a little too frequently.
Joe
Joe
Like I said, they're entertaining but Tony often confuses opinion with fact. Every time I watch them there are things he says that I simply dismiss. A lot of the wrong stuff is speculation and that's something most people will get wrong, often. The best course is to stop speculating. What will be eventually will be. I also find Tony to be somewhat of an unnecessary nit picker.
Jun 23, 2019 07:38:00 #
calvinbell wrote:
I have a micro 4/3rds camera and am wondering about the concept of crop factor. Does it affect image quality?
It's kinda like a 350lb NFL lineman and a midget - everything's equal and just fine until the fight starts.
Jun 23, 2019 07:53:45 #
dubyacee wrote:
You know, it seems to me that any time someone asks a simple question on here, it ends up in a pissing contest! People start bragging about their cameras and photographic knowledge and for God's sake, even automobile horsepower. I subscribed to this thing to further my knowledge and interests in photography, not read 5 or more pages of comparing penis sizes. Color me gone!
Thank you please go!
Jun 23, 2019 11:01:34 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Nope.
Sounds like a Northrop myth.
Never needed a different exposure for large format, medium format or 35mm film.
If there was, there would have been a correction factor on a hand held meter. There are not.
(I'm really sure)
Sounds like a Northrop myth.
Never needed a different exposure for large format, medium format or 35mm film.
If there was, there would have been a correction factor on a hand held meter. There are not.
(I'm really sure)
Jim, the part in a quotes should have said, I'm not sure. These phones change things when you speak or type and I missed that. I very seldom will say that I usually say imho, or in my humble opinion.
My thinking was since crop factor is a comparison, that to get the same exposure as a full-frame you would still use the crop factor on the light reading. A crop sensor needs to open the shutter and or shorten the time to get the same light as a full-frame, at least that's what I've read and learned. My thinking was the crop factor of the crop sensor not only affects the field of view it also affects the light. I've read both ways. Am I wrong?
As I stated earlier, I don't worry about it I just compose set it up and shoot. Who in the world is ever going to use the crop factor in real life, like when are two people going to be side by side with a full-frame and a crop and trying to get the same photo and light other than for test.
Jun 23, 2019 11:09:14 #
The in camera meter is measuring the light hitting the metering sensor based on the metering mode regardless of any crop factor. Therefore no adjustment needs to be made by the camera user to account for any “crop” factor...
frankraney wrote:
Jim, the part in a quotes should have said, I'm no... (show quote)
Jun 23, 2019 11:13:15 #
Notorious T.O.D. wrote:
It is a forum...if you get no value from it then by all means perhaps your time is better spent elsewhere. But in life I have found you have to take the good with the rest. And decide what of it you find of value. It will never be all wine and roses I’m certain.
The 80/20 rule applies in almost all human circumstances. The trick is to experience enough to learn the difference between the 20% useful content and the flushable 80%.
Jun 23, 2019 11:17:47 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Thank you please go!
Yep, one has to realize that most folks become more opinionated as each new moon passes them by... Since most of us have seen MANY MOONS pass them by, this is an opinionated bunch with a lot of experience to share and a personal opinion of each one. The Knowledge this group offers far outweighs the pissing contests... Thicken up your skin, type less, read and listen more. If you feel obliged to comment than state your opinion and MOVE ON... Lurking around looking for debate is not productive. If the topic wanders then SO WHAT ? We are supposed to be having fun and sharing experiences... Yea, I had a 409 stuffed into a 55 chevy; it was really cool and I wish I had pics; battery had to go in trunk. If a topic is flowing well in a certain direction then let it flow... As Bebu said, if you don't like it then maybe it is time to leave it.
Jun 23, 2019 11:21:45 #
calvinbell wrote:
I have a micro 4/3rds camera and am wondering about the concept of crop factor. Does it affect image quality?
It does because it needs to be enlarged more when printing or viewing. But on a practical level it may have all the image quality needed for your particular needs.
Jun 23, 2019 11:31:09 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
frankraney wrote:
My thinking was since crop factor is a comparison, that to get the same exposure as a full-frame you would still use the crop factor on the light reading. A crop sensor needs to open the shutter and or shorten the time to get the same light as a full-frame, at least that's what I've read and learned. My thinking was the crop factor of the crop sensor not only affects the field of view it also affects the light. I've read both ways. Am I wrong?
My thinking was since crop factor is a comparison, that to get the same exposure as a full-frame you would still use the crop factor on the light reading. A crop sensor needs to open the shutter and or shorten the time to get the same light as a full-frame, at least that's what I've read and learned. My thinking was the crop factor of the crop sensor not only affects the field of view it also affects the light. I've read both ways. Am I wrong?
This causes considerable confusion. Your thinking that the crop "factor" (smaller/larger) sensor also effects the light is correct. However it does not effect exposure. When the topic of total light accumulation is brought up the concern is noise (shot noise) in the photo.
Exposure is defined per unit area not total area so the photographic exposure for a crop sensor and FF sensor both with lenses set to f/5.6 will be the same. Total light recorded by each sensor will be different.
It's raining right now here in St. Louis. If I go grab two cookie baking sheets one 10 X 12 and the other 12 X 18 and place them out in the rain together they're both going to collect water (think of the water as light). After 30 minutes I can go measure how much water is in both cookie sheets. If I measure the depth of the water in each sheet it will be the same and that's exposure. If I measure the total volume of water collected by each sheet it won't be the same and the larger sheet will have collected more water.
Collecting more light "volume" produces a cleaner photo with less (shot) noise because the noise is proportional to the total volume and the crop factor in this case can serve as a measure of the expected noise level. All else equal it is correct to say that we get less noisy photos as we increase sensor size because the larger sensor collects more light which minimizes the apparent noise.
Joe
Jun 23, 2019 11:32:39 #
Yes sir, have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Spending some time here you learn who you appreciate most and who gives solid information. Thank you for your contributions.
burkphoto wrote:
The 80/20 rule applies in almost all human circumstances. The trick is to experience enough to learn the difference between the 20% useful content and the flushable 80%.
The 80/20 rule applies in almost all human circumstances. The trick is to experience enough to learn the difference between the 20% useful content and the flushable 80%.
Jun 23, 2019 12:07:33 #
Ysarex wrote:
This causes considerable confusion. Your thinking ... (show quote)
That's is the simplest explanation of have seen so far. From one Joe to another...well done!
Jun 23, 2019 12:09:54 #
Ysarex wrote:
This causes considerable confusion. Your thinking ... (show quote)
Now I need a cookie!
Good explanation.
Technology and photo receptor size have a lot to do with how much noise you get.
I have a friend with the original full-frame Canon 5D that has awful noise at higher ISO. I’ve used an APS-C sensored Nikon D500 that has better high ISO performance than her 5D. Newer 5D bodies do better.
Jun 23, 2019 13:19:37 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Now I need a cookie!
Good explanation.
Technology and photo receptor size have a lot to do with how much noise you get.
I have a friend with the original full-frame Canon 5D that has awful noise at higher ISO. I’ve used an APS-C sensored Nikon D500 that has better high ISO performance than her 5D. Newer 5D bodies do better.
Good explanation.
Technology and photo receptor size have a lot to do with how much noise you get.
I have a friend with the original full-frame Canon 5D that has awful noise at higher ISO. I’ve used an APS-C sensored Nikon D500 that has better high ISO performance than her 5D. Newer 5D bodies do better.
I made a point in the last sentence I wrote to begin with "All else equal" and in the first paragraph when I first mentioned noise I stuck in (shot noise) as a qualification.
Your comparison of the two cameras a Canon 5D and Nikon D500 is exactly why I did that. The 5D in relative digital camera time is an antique using technology that we're so far past it's disappeared below the horizon. I have a Canon P&S G7 that does better. The noise at high ISO values that plagued the 5D was read noise. The D500 and most modern cameras have put read noise behind us and it's no longer a problem in normal usage -- shot noise is what most of us see now when we see noise in a photo. So all else equal, shot noise diminishes with increasing sensor size.
Joe
Jun 24, 2019 00:17:53 #
Jun 24, 2019 00:34:41 #
Silverman wrote:
If I am correct, "Crop-factor" affects t... (show quote)
There is the argument that a larger sensor should provide a better image, particularly that in low light you will get less noise. Also, if you are printing, the image from a larger sensor (like a larger negative) doesn't need to be blown up as much to get the same size print.
But in the real world, that doesn't mean every large sensor is better than every smaller one. The original DSLRs were mostly DX size or slightly smaller. Then along came "Full Frame" sensors and they were so much better, because they were bigger. I feel comfortable saying that today's MFT sensors probably provide a better image than the original FF ones.
When it comes to digital image quality, today's truth might not be tomorrow's truth. For us hobbyists we do the best we can ... while still enjoying the hobby.
---
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.