Turbo wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.
If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.
A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.
Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
Not so sure about that last paragraph.
My camera has a 7.4-88.8mm zoom (35-400mm 35 equiv.) and I have a 1.8 crop sensor. If I multiply 7.4 x 1.8 I get 13.32, multiply 88.8 x 1.8 I get 159.84. Something's wrong here.
So I went to Wikipedia "Image sensor format" and came up with a chart located about 2/3 down the page called "Table of Sensor Sizes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_formatThe last column in this chart shows the crop factor for a 1.8 crop lens is 4.84. Multiplying 7.4 or 88.8 x 4.84 gives me the right 35mm equivalence (7.4 x 4.84 = 35.86, 88.8 x 4.84 = 429.7).
The specific math to arrive at their crop factor is also discussed on this page.
Please visit this page and post your thoughts on this subject.
Now guys, I certainly didn't want to stir up a hornets nest but this whole croppy thing had me confused.
I might be full of crop with my assumptions too (wouldn't be the first time).
dundeelad
Loc: Originally UK. Current West Dundee, Illinois
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
Rayford2: The only stupid question is the one NOT asked. :-D
rayford2 wrote:
Turbo wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.
If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.
A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.
Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
Not so sure about that last paragraph.
My camera has a 7.4-88.8mm zoom (35-400mm 35 equiv.) and I have a 1.8 crop sensor. If I multiply 7.4 x 1.8 I get 13.32, multiply 88.8 x 1.8 I get 159.84. Something's wrong here.
So I went to Wikipedia "Image sensor format" and came up with a chart located about 2/3 down the page called "Table of Sensor Sizes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_formatThe last column in this chart shows the crop factor for a 1.8 crop lens is 4.84. Multiplying 7.4 or 88.8 x 4.84 gives me the right 35mm equivalence (7.4 x 4.84 = 35.86, 88.8 x 4.84 = 429.7).
The specific math to arrive at their crop factor is also discussed on this page.
Please visit this page and post your thought on this.
Now guys, I certainly didn't want to stir up a hornets nest but this whole croppy thing had me confused.
I might be full of crop with my assumptions too.
quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank y... (
show quote)
You have not said what camera you have but if you have a 4.8x equivalency factor I think you have a LOT smaller sensor than you believed you had.
Would there be a significant advantage or disadvantage to shooting macro with a ff vs. dx? I've heard that the DX format is better for shooting macro...True/false? Why?
MT Shooter wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Turbo wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.
If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.
A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.
Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
Not so sure about that last paragraph.
My camera has a 7.4-88.8mm zoom (35-400mm 35 equiv.) and I have a 1.8 crop sensor. If I multiply 7.4 x 1.8 I get 13.32, multiply 88.8 x 1.8 I get 159.84. Something's wrong here.
So I went to Wikipedia "Image sensor format" and came up with a chart located about 2/3 down the page called "Table of Sensor Sizes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_formatThe last column in this chart shows the crop factor for a 1.8 crop lens is 4.84. Multiplying 7.4 or 88.8 x 4.84 gives me the right 35mm equivalence (7.4 x 4.84 = 35.86, 88.8 x 4.84 = 429.7).
The specific math to arrive at their crop factor is also discussed on this page.
Please visit this page and post your thought on this.
Now guys, I certainly didn't want to stir up a hornets nest but this whole croppy thing had me confused.
I might be full of crop with my assumptions too.
quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank y... (
show quote)
You have not said what camera you have but if you have a 4.8x equivalency factor I think you have a LOT smaller sensor than you believed you had.
quote=rayford2 quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=... (
show quote)
My camera is a Panasonic FZ-50. The published sensor size is 1/1.8.
I used the Table of Sensor Sizes from the link above to arrive at the crop factor. It's about 2/3 down the page.
According to the chart my sensor is 7.18mm x 5.32mm.
It lists the crop factor of 4.84 in the last column of the chart. Multiplying this 4.84 x the true focal lenghts (7.4-88.8) gives me the correct 35mm equivalents as published in my users manual.
The chart identifies this as a crop factor, not eqivalency factor.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong?
rayford2 wrote:
MT Shooter wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Turbo wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.
If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.
A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.
Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
Not so sure about that last paragraph.
My camera has a 7.4-88.8mm zoom (35-400mm 35 equiv.) and I have a 1.8 crop sensor. If I multiply 7.4 x 1.8 I get 13.32, multiply 88.8 x 1.8 I get 159.84. Something's wrong here.
So I went to Wikipedia "Image sensor format" and came up with a chart located about 2/3 down the page called "Table of Sensor Sizes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_formatThe last column in this chart shows the crop factor for a 1.8 crop lens is 4.84. Multiplying 7.4 or 88.8 x 4.84 gives me the right 35mm equivalence (7.4 x 4.84 = 35.86, 88.8 x 4.84 = 429.7).
The specific math to arrive at their crop factor is also discussed on this page.
Please visit this page and post your thought on this.
Now guys, I certainly didn't want to stir up a hornets nest but this whole croppy thing had me confused.
I might be full of crop with my assumptions too.
quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank y... (
show quote)
You have not said what camera you have but if you have a 4.8x equivalency factor I think you have a LOT smaller sensor than you believed you had.
quote=rayford2 quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=... (
show quote)
My camera is a Panasonic FZ-50. The published sensor size is 1/1.8.
I used the Table of Sensor Sizes from the link above to arrive at the crop factor. It's about 2/3 down the page.
According to the chart my sensor is 7.18mm x 5.32mm.
It lists the crop factor of 4.84 in the last column of the chart. Multiplying this 4.84 x the true focal lenghts (7.4-88.8) gives me the 35mm equivalents as published in my users manual.
The chart identifies this as a crop factor, not eqivalency factor.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong?
quote=MT Shooter quote=rayford2 quote=Turbo qu... (
show quote)
Here is the graphic I use, no 1/1.8" shown, but it does show a 1/1.7" sensor which would be close. Your 4.84x multiply factor would be very close.
MT Shooter wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
MT Shooter wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Turbo wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.
If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.
A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.
Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
Not so sure about that last paragraph.
My camera has a 7.4-88.8mm zoom (35-400mm 35 equiv.) and I have a 1.8 crop sensor. If I multiply 7.4 x 1.8 I get 13.32, multiply 88.8 x 1.8 I get 159.84. Something's wrong here.
So I went to Wikipedia "Image sensor format" and came up with a chart located about 2/3 down the page called "Table of Sensor Sizes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_formatThe last column in this chart shows the crop factor for a 1.8 crop lens is 4.84. Multiplying 7.4 or 88.8 x 4.84 gives me the right 35mm equivalence (7.4 x 4.84 = 35.86, 88.8 x 4.84 = 429.7).
The specific math to arrive at their crop factor is also discussed on this page.
Please visit this page and post your thought on this.
Now guys, I certainly didn't want to stir up a hornets nest but this whole croppy thing had me confused.
I might be full of crop with my assumptions too.
quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank y... (
show quote)
You have not said what camera you have but if you have a 4.8x equivalency factor I think you have a LOT smaller sensor than you believed you had.
quote=rayford2 quote=Turbo quote=Ragarm quote=... (
show quote)
My camera is a Panasonic FZ-50. The published sensor size is 1/1.8.
I used the Table of Sensor Sizes from the link above to arrive at the crop factor. It's about 2/3 down the page.
According to the chart my sensor is 7.18mm x 5.32mm.
It lists the crop factor of 4.84 in the last column of the chart. Multiplying this 4.84 x the true focal lenghts (7.4-88.8) gives me the 35mm equivalents as published in my users manual.
The chart identifies this as a crop factor, not eqivalency factor.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong?
quote=MT Shooter quote=rayford2 quote=Turbo qu... (
show quote)
Here is the graphic I use, no 1/1.8" shown, but it does show a 1/1.7" sensor which would be close. Your 4.84x multiply factor would be very close.
quote=rayford2 quote=MT Shooter quote=rayford2 ... (
show quote)
Thanks, MT. I got a little worried about that.
Turbo wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.
If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.
A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.
Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
Unless you have worn glasses since you were a sprout. Most of us cannot avail ourselves of our peripheral vision and tend to "see" the world as about 85 mm which is where I find myself often using zoom lenses.
Dave
Jer
Loc: Mesa, Arizona
It took me awhile to understand this concept. My first camera was an 8meg Canon XT and I now have a Full Frame 5d mii. I was standing next to a buddy (who has a crop frame). I looked at his LCD and notice that his image showed a closer view than mine. We were using the same lens. Then it hit me that if I cropped my picture I would have the same thing. For example, use an 8 X 10 photo. Measure of 4 X 5 inches, then measure 23 X 36 mm, then cut that one by 3/4. This is a very rough example of what happens with smaller sensors. They really aren't giving you real telephoto. They just are cutting off part of the image give the impression that they have more telephoto power.
pterribledactyl wrote:
Would there be a significant advantage or disadvantage to shooting macro with a ff vs. dx? I've heard that the DX format is better for shooting macro...True/false? Why?
Any given prime lens projects a specific angle of view, which can be focused at the "film plane" or "sensor plane". A DX sensor is physically smaller than an FX sensor. Therefore, when positioned at the same plane, a DX sensor sees a smaller area than an FX sensor, capturing less than the projected angle-of-view, appearing closer.
The advantage is Working distance (WD). In order to capture 1:1 magnification, a full frame sensor (FX) with a 100-mm lens has a WD of approx. 100-mm. A DX sensor captures 1:1 at 150-mm WD (1.5X crop factor) for Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc., and at 160-mm WD (1.6x crop factor) for Canon.
One of the things being lost here is the fact that a larger sensor allows you to have larger photo diodes. There is no inherent value in a full frame sensor aside from the larger photo diodes.
Jer
Loc: Mesa, Arizona
johnr9999 wrote:
One of the things being lost here is the fact that a larger sensor allows you to have larger photo diodes. There is no inherent value in a full frame sensor aside from the larger photo diodes.
They have larger pixels, which translate into better low light photos.
OK you purchase a point and shoot, they say 28mm to 100mm is this equivalent or actual?
rayford2 wrote:
Ragarm wrote:
rayford2 wrote:
Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.
OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.
At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?
Sorry, I meant to say "35mm equivalent" so all pictures would have the same comparable image dimensions.
Thank you for posting.
quote=Ragarm quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hate... (
show quote)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
