Crop sensor vs Full frame...extra reach myth?
Apr 5, 2012 10:42:11 #
Nikon13 wrote:
That is sort of a relief. As a relatively new photographer, I never really know what I should be paying attention to and what I can let go. When I hear all the buzz about crop factor and the like I wonder if I am neglecting some huge piece of the puzzle that if known, my pictures would improve greatly. Based on your comment I think if I understood it I would be more "educated" but my pictures would be about the same.
That is sort of a relief. As a relatively new photographer, I never really know what I should be paying attention to and what I can let go. When I hear all the buzz about crop factor and the like I wonder if I am neglecting some huge piece of the puzzle that if known, my pictures would improve greatly. Based on your comment I think if I understood it I would be more "educated" but my pictures would be about the same.
You're right.
I think it's safe to say that when these threads start to concern you and answer some of the things you've been thinking about, THEN it's time to make the "FF vs Crop" decision.
Apr 5, 2012 10:51:40 #
berchman
Loc: South Central PA
rpavich wrote:
quote=Nikon13 br br That is sort of a relief. ... (show quote)
I will never regret my decision to get the full frame Nikon D700 after using the D300, and I hope I won't regret putting the D800 on order and then selling the D300. I always carry two cameras and until I was set straight, I wrongly thought that the D300 was giving me a cheap telephoto.
Apr 5, 2012 10:52:14 #
Apr 5, 2012 10:52:39 #
Apr 5, 2012 10:57:24 #
Mudshark wrote:
THINK LESS......SHOOT MORE.
I have been shooting a lot; see my other posts :)
But...I'm also in the market for a FF camera and I wanted some info...so asking for info seemed like a logical move :)
Apr 5, 2012 11:06:07 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
I come from film. To work with a bigger negative was superior to working with a small negative. I have shot everything from Minox to Crown Graphic. The Crown Graphic shots were always cleaner and more brilliant. I thought the same would hold true for digital and the Rockwell article points this out. I don't care how new the camera is the physics remains the same. Think not, then shoot with a new digital Hasselbad and see the difference between it and a full frame digital 35 sensor.
In short, sensor size makes a difference just as film size made a difference.
As for reach - humbug! The focal length of your lens does not lengthen because of your sensor size. All you do is lose stuff around the subject you shot or you capture less of the image before you. The window example is correct in my view.
In short, sensor size makes a difference just as film size made a difference.
As for reach - humbug! The focal length of your lens does not lengthen because of your sensor size. All you do is lose stuff around the subject you shot or you capture less of the image before you. The window example is correct in my view.
Apr 5, 2012 11:07:19 #
rpavich wrote:
I have been shooting a lot; see my other posts :)
But...I'm also in the market for a FF camera and I wanted some info...so asking for info seemed like a logical move :)
Mudshark wrote:
THINK LESS......SHOOT MORE.
I have been shooting a lot; see my other posts :)
But...I'm also in the market for a FF camera and I wanted some info...so asking for info seemed like a logical move :)
I think you get it.
...and I don't consider you a newbie.
Your posts are usually insightful.
Apr 5, 2012 11:10:32 #
MT Shooter wrote:
A simple fact of lenses is, a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens no matter WHAT body you mount it on. A crop sensor only gives you the "impression" of having a longer lens since you are only shooting a portion of the frame available to you. Its really a very simple concept if you think about it, but so many people try so hard to complicate the issue, its NOT complicated.
I understand the concept and numbers. Does more light get to the sensor on a FX than a DX? If so a FX cropped to a DX 1.5 should be a better picture. Am I right or wrong?
Apr 5, 2012 11:13:59 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I think you get it.
...and I don't consider you a newbie.
Your posts are usually insightful.
rpavich wrote:
I have been shooting a lot; see my other posts :)
But...I'm also in the market for a FF camera and I wanted some info...so asking for info seemed like a logical move :)
Mudshark wrote:
THINK LESS......SHOOT MORE.
I have been shooting a lot; see my other posts :)
But...I'm also in the market for a FF camera and I wanted some info...so asking for info seemed like a logical move :)
I think you get it.
...and I don't consider you a newbie.
Your posts are usually insightful.
Thank you...I had to make sure...a 5D MKII is a lotta cash!
Apr 5, 2012 11:14:04 #
Bill MN wrote:
I understand the concept and numbers. Does more light get to the sensor on a FX than a DX? If so a FX cropped to a DX 1.5 should be a better picture. Am I right or wrong?
I understand the concept and numbers. Does more light get to the sensor on a FX than a DX? If so a FX cropped to a DX 1.5 should be a better picture. Am I right or wrong?
Aperture does not change. 2.8 is 2.8 no matter what camera or lens you use. If you are using a hand-held light meter, there is no conversion scale for lens length, DX, FX, 4x5, Minox format... It doesn't matter. The exposure value is going to be the same.
The second question is harder to answer- you lose resolution when you crop the FX image to DX size.
Apr 5, 2012 11:29:35 #
The extra reach of your crop sensor camera is virtual, not actual. More pixels are concentrated in the area of interest than would be if you just cropped the center out of a full sensor shot. The great advantage of a full sensor is that you reverse the process with a wide angle. A 16mm lens on a 5D will reveal a lot more than on a 7D.
Apr 5, 2012 11:33:27 #
Bill MN wrote:
rpavich asked a very good question and I was learning from GoofyNewfie, MT and others. Why do some people have to throw in a monkey wrench and spoil the whole thread? How can I better my photography if I don't have the large and smaller details?
Maybe I didn't make myself clear about differences with regard to "REACH" between FX an DX sensor cameras. This so called "REACH" difference is a myth. It appears you have more MM of lense because your 3" LCD displays the same image in either case. To demonstrate this, try switching an FX format camera to DX mode and the image appears to zoom only because the LCD display is filled with the smaller image. Does this explain the apparent difference?
To make this even clearer, think about the data going onto an 8" X 10" photo and now think about this data being enlarged from a 4" X 6" print. The enlarging process reduced the pixel resolution significantly. The FX format has more pixels and higher resolution and the new D800 has 3 times the pixel resolution of the older 12 megapixel sensors. Also, each sensor cell is larger, thereby allowing more light to enter it and the geometry of each cell's lens has changed to allow more light to enter the cell. Therefore, you can utilize higher ISOs. The new DSP has also been improved in speed and noise generation. Just look at the file sizes being generated by 12 or 14 bit RAW files from an FX photo versus a RAW DX format file.
Apr 5, 2012 11:42:51 #
kayautho
Loc: Boynton Beach, FL
[/quote] The second question is harder to answer- you lose resolution when you crop the FX image to DX size.[/quote]
This is off the top of my head so I'm more than willing to be corrected...
There is a given amount of pixels in a, say, 12mp full frame shot. When cropped to dx size, there are less pixels available for resolution. If taken in dx to begin with, you get the full 12mp resolution.
This is off the top of my head so I'm more than willing to be corrected...
There is a given amount of pixels in a, say, 12mp full frame shot. When cropped to dx size, there are less pixels available for resolution. If taken in dx to begin with, you get the full 12mp resolution.
Apr 5, 2012 12:11:56 #
davejann
Loc: Portland Oregon
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I'm not mad or upset or trying to rant, I just get... (show quote)
I have a 5D mkII and a 60D and the major difference I see is that the 60D is lighter. Also, my 14mm works better on the 5D.
Dave
Apr 5, 2012 12:18:09 #
Jamers
Loc: Michigan
rpavich wrote:
quote=jenny The subject begun here was quality of... (show quote)
I don't blame you for being out of here...a simple subject has once again been blown out of proportion, any wonder why this world is always at war?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.