Crop factor question (Page 4): That's what I thought. If you have a 24mp ff sensor and crop it to match the sensor size of a APS-C sensor, you are left with 9-11mp.

amehta Loc: Boston

dsmeltz wrote:

I was trying to roughly calculate the portion of the ff sensor used to capture what remains after the ff shot was cropped to look like the 10 MP APS-C shot in the earlier.

That's what I thought. If you have a 24mp ff sensor and crop it to match the sensor size of a APS-C sensor, you are left with 9-11mp.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

amehta wrote:

The crop factor is squared for mp, so it would be about 25mp vs 10mp for APS-C (1.6x) or 22mp vs 10mp for APS-C (1.5x)

This is one of the reasons that I ignore all the numbers and just look through the viewfinder to see what I like....

"Crop factor squared for mp" - my camera has a crop factor of 2, so extending the above sentence, "...or 40mp vs 10mp for 2x".... Sorry, the math doesn't add up for me.
Camera's sensor records (just shy of) 16mp images, and records them exactly as I see them through the viewfinder.
Amehta, or anyone else, I'm not knocking your math, it's just that I don't understand it, and find I don't need it.

dsmeltz wrote:

That's what I thought. If you have a 24mp ff sensor and crop it to match the sensor size of a APS-C sensor, you are left with 9-11mp.

So if I read that right, if you want to crop your images from a full-frame camera, to match the size of the images that my 16mp camera takes, you'd have to start with a (at least) 32mp camera?

Honestly folks, I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to wrap my head around this, but I think I'll give up and just enjoy using the camera.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

amehta wrote:

That's what I thought. If you have a 24mp ff sensor and crop it to match the sensor size of a APS-C sensor, you are left with 9-11mp.

Then if you take a shot with both an 18MP APS-C and a 25MP full frame from the same distance with the same lens and crop the ff shot to match the APS-C shot the APS-C shot has more MP?

amehta Loc: Boston

dsmeltz wrote:

Then if you take a shot with both an 18MP APS-C and a 25MP full frame from the same distance with the same lens and crop the ff shot to match the APS-C shot the APS-C shot has more MP?

Yes.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

bibsthecat wrote:

I always here where people say a crop sensor will give a 300mm lens an equivalent focal lenth of 480 (1.6x300). Would not the focal length still be the same, you would only be using the center part of the lens. If you crop the full frame photo in post processing, would you not have the same result. Thanks and all comments welcome.

The magnification will be the same, the file of view will change with the size of the sensor.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

tamalero wrote:

Dont crop sensor also receive less light coming to them (compared to full frame)?

Crop sensor lenses are usually smaller, with a smaller front element size since they only have to cover a smaller sensor area.They are usually shorter too, so the overall proportion of lens opening to length to sensor size remains about the same. There are some exceptions; the Original Nikon 18-300 3.5-5.6 DX has a 77mm front optic size. The new 18-300 Nikon 3.5-6.3DX has a 67mm filter size, and is shorter overall. I'll bet the original was a modification of the 28-300 Nikon 3.5-5.6FX lens design(?), which is fine with me.

bibsthecat Loc: Cold Spring MN

Thanks to everyone for the replies. Very educational.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I have the answer! Having used both crop-frame and the so-called full-frame for years:

Pick up a camera body - attach lens - go shoot pictures. By some miracle, I get what I see through the viewfinder.

Wow! Who knew?

amehta Loc: Boston

CaptainC wrote:

I have the answer! Having used both crop-frame and the so-called full-frame for years:

Pick up a camera body - attach lens - go shoot pictures. By some miracle, I get what I see through the viewfinder.

Wow! Who knew?

Or, understand it and plan the shoot better. What a concept! :-)

amehta Loc: Boston

Morning Star wrote:

This is one of the reasons that I ignore all the n... (show quote)

There is no problem if you are using one size sensor and you understand what your lenses will do.

FWIW, to get the same pixel density of your m4/3 16mp sensor in a full frame sensor, one would need about 64mp, 4x the 16mp, because the 2x crop factor gets applied twice (16 x 2 x 2 = 64).

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

amehta wrote:

There is no problem if you are using one size sensor and you understand what your lenses will do.

FWIW, to get the same pixel density of your m4/3 16mp sensor in a full frame sensor, one would need about 64mp, 4x the 16mp, because the 2x crop factor gets applied twice (16 x 2 x 2 = 64).

I think 64mp on a full frame with the same sized photo site and same density would be a very noisy sensor, but quite resolute. To make it perform better in low light, I would increase the individual pixel size (photo site) to twice its size, reducing the pixel count to 32mp and having "borderless" edges on each pixel. I'm just speculating here, but I suspect that the images would be beautiful! 😍 :thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

lukan wrote:

I think 64mp on a full frame with the same sized photo site and same density would be a very noisy sensor, but quite resolute. To make it perform better in low light, I would increase the individual pixel size (photo site) to twice its size, reducing the pixel count to 32mp and having "borderless" edges on each pixel. I'm just speculating here, but I suspect that the images would be beautiful! 😍 :thumbup:

A 64mp full frame would be basically as noisy as your beloved E-M1.

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

amehta wrote:

A 64mp full frame would be basically as noisy as your beloved E-M1.

You think we need to go to two and a quarter square or maybe 6X9 sensors ? :roll:

amehta Loc: Boston

TucsonCoyote wrote:

You think we need to go to two and a quarter square or maybe 6X9 sensors ? :roll:

Yes, a 6x7 sensor would be great! And a little expensive. :lol:

TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ

amehta wrote:

Yes, a 6x7 sensor would be great! And a little expensive. :lol:

Hey !....cars cost the price of a house now....why not cameras that cost the price of a car ! ??
I think the Hasselblad qualifies doesn't it?!