selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

But look at the differences in the center of the image to see if there is a difference due to the format size. The corner-to-corner performance of the two lenses is slightly different.

bleirer

Can you explain where/how he went wrong? I thought in the ISO example he was trying to show how different lenses (equivalent after crop factor) would get same depth of field by applying crop factor to aperture and ISO, which aspect was incorrect? At the beginning he said there is no impact on exposure using different size sensors.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Yes, and subject matter aside, not talking "snapshots"; outside of "composition" / understanding of and proper application of exposure triangle - a scenerio where there is no glaring fault with either the lens or the camera (all things being relatively equal). Movement (subject dependent - shake/vibration/swaying/etc. of camera & too slow a shutter speed for movement of subject), appears to be the biggest enemy of many shooters in this forum. Of the many many fabulous captures I see in this arena, success doesn't seem heavily tied to "sensor size", it appears to be greatly tied to knowledge, ability and application. By the same token, most of the lesser work seems more a case of "didn't try/apply hard enough/didn't know how" than the equipment.

Sharpness is important to me and probably most everyone in this arena (I still have very good vision - w/o correction - I do use "readers/magnifyers" for specialty work, like mini circuit boards, etc) , but is not the sole defining characteristic of a great photo. In terms of "absolutes", bigger sensor wins the day, but in general when looking at posts, I do not find myself saying, gee if only the sensor was larger. My likes/criticisms are generally in terms of subject/intent, composition, exposure, movement........

Regardless of level of equipment, outside of pixel peeping; anyone, any camera, any sensor/lens can duff a photo. Outside of pixel peeping; Well composed, properly exposed, well shot, any reasonably good quality equipment will yield fine photos. You do have to apply what you know.
My$.02

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If there is no difference in exposure, why apply the crop factor to the ISO? If you want to know about the DOF, look at a DOF calculator. To keep the exposure the same you trade off the aperture and the shutter speed.

He's just not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

bleirer

Seriously can you explain his error?

At the beginning he was applying the same lens to different sensors, and there he said no difference in exposure, later he was showing how to get the same field of view and DOF using different focal length lenses, which is where he said crop factor would apply relative to the full frame settings.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

A few months ago, in another UHH thread, I commented about the aperture effect with a cropped sensor lens and camera. I was practically chomped on and spit out on the spot by a number of posters. I wish I would have been aware of Northrup's video. I could have, at least, somewhat defended what I wrote instead of voluntarily eating crow.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

It's a very interesting technical question but, for me, a question without meaning. We see examples every day of really good/great pictures taken on both crop frame and full frame cameras. What I've gleamed from my experiences and years of UHH discussions is that each format has different attributes that favor different types of photography (particularly but not limited to landscape or stationary vs. wildlife or sports just to name a few.) Also there is a general difference between the formats in low light situations.

So for most of us it's more important to consider the type of pictures we like to take when we acquire equipment than it is the format we choose.

I have recently switched from crop to full frame. So far I miss the ease of telephoto but really like the low light and close up quality of the full frame. We'll see what happens with telephoto once I get the proper GAS attack and buy a longer lens.

But I'm not against these comparisons and find them interesting--I just need to add some perspective.

CWGordon

I loved the remarks by CHG CANON.
That said, I believe that the difference between the two (2) sizes is not much until you really need it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

His fallacy is in muddying up the concept of "the same field of view" with two different focal lengths on a full frame and a crop factor camera and then throwing ISO into the mix.

The same field of view is not the same as the same subject size (magnification) for a nearby object. And if you change the focal length subject distance to get the same size object you end up with a different perspective (the relationship between near and distant objects).

You can find out what you need to know with DEPTH OF FIELD CALCULATOR from Cambridge in Colour.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Lucky for you that you had not seen the video. Northrop's videos are often wrong.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A pound of luck isn't worth half as much as a full-frame camera.

maxiu9

I see a difference between the two if I pixel peep, but I would say that might have as much to do with the Tamron lens being (in my opinion) sharper than the f2 on the X100T. The softness of that particular Fuji lens is much more evident on the X100F with the 24mp sensor. I shoot Nikon full frame and also have the X100F and a X-T3. Honestly the only time I see a difference between any of them is in terms of DOF and at high ISO. For general shooting, they take the same images.

dmc Loc: Montgomery, AL

Congratulations Paul on your 14,000th post !!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

How about that!

billwald

Seems to be a difference in contrast, nothing else.