Crop factor is a hindrance?

[night86mare]

In response to Lomo's claim that the 'extra reach' in crop will be useful in birding? That's not true.

Rashkae's comment was in response to a similar birding claim as well.

i believe in being objective.

until the day that you can crop the center of a FF camera output and it will look the same as a APS-C camera output, i think "extra reach" is fair enough, given that there are scenarios where APS-C uncropped might do better than FF cropped.

to say that something is not true when it's in fact, debatable, is not being objective.

see this discussion on the subject, william porter seems to explain what i 'm driving at pretty well there.

read this as well, which makes some sense, but i'm not sure if it's true; it says:

Another positive affect is that almost all lenses are much sharper in the middle and softer on the edges. How can this be a good thing? Well with a camera that has a crop factor you only get the center of what the lens sees (unless it’s a lens designed for crop factors as described above). So with a crop factor you only get the center and therefore the best performance from your lens.

what is DEFINITELY true is that focal length does not change, that is simply a set characteristic of the lens. field of view changes. anything else related to this, is debatable.

 

[Rashkae]

i believe in being objective.

until the day that you can crop the center of a FF camera output and it will look the same as a APS-C camera output, i think "extra reach" is fair enough, given that there are scenarios where APS-C uncropped might do better than FF cropped.

Taking an APS-C crop on my camera is still 11.3 MP. I can manually switch to APS-C mode and the output is on par with an A700, and better than my backup A200 (due to the better DR of the A900 sensor).

 

[Yeeming9]

Easier to shoot far, but it is a challenge to shoot wider.

 

[HeiPiGu]

i believe in being objective.

until the day that you can crop the center of a FF camera output and it will look the same as a APS-C camera output, i think "extra reach" is fair enough, given that there are scenarios where APS-C uncropped might do better than FF cropped.

to say that something is not true when it's in fact, debatable, is not being objective.

see this discussion on the subject, william porter seems to explain what i 'm driving at pretty well there.

read this as well, which makes some sense, but i'm not sure if it's true; it says:


what is DEFINITELY true is that focal length does not change, that is simply a set characteristic of the lens. field of view changes. anything else related to this, is debatable.

Well, it really goes down to one's definition of "reach" then

 

[night86mare]

Taking an APS-C crop on my camera is still 11.3 MP. I can manually switch to APS-C mode and the output is on par with an A700, and better than my backup A200 (due to the better DR of the A900 sensor).

that's your camera...........

it is not necessarily true for all cameras.

 

[Rashkae]

that's your camera...........

it is not necessarily true for all cameras.

But still true.

 

[night86mare]

But still true.

need to put the canon 5d classic against something else.. maybe canon 1d mark III..

 

[vince123123]

Agreed, the crop factor is NEVER a plus. It is only a limitation; albeit a very small limitation that most users can usually live with.

The limitation will affect people who use wides the most. However, a category of wide users, namely landscape photogrpahers, can work around the limitation by employing pananoramic and stiching technieques; not the best, but still a feasible workaround.

The people I sense are affected the most are AD wedding photographers (yes you got that right, AD wedding photographers). Very often, trying to shoot a group of people in a HDB flat using a 1.6x crop sensor body is no joke .

Not true. the focal length remains the same, you just get an auto-crop and the center. I'd still prefer using a FF camera and then deciding what I want to crop away later.

 

[vince123123]

I subscribe to the view that it is true.

If you use a FF version of the SAME SENSOR and a DX version of the SAME SENSOR, you will see no difference. Of course, the SAME sensor doesn't come in FX and DX versions, but the point is the same.

The fact that it CANNOT be compared becuase there's no such thing as the SAME sensor does not mean that it suddenly becomes "not true".

It will only become "not true" if you are comparing, say, a superior quality DX sensor against a DX crop of a inferior quality FF sensor

True reach is described as having the same optical quality, at a higher focal length, on the same sensor. The rest is merely cropping it off (just like cropping off part of a 35mm film before printing it out).

But still true.

 

[mindfulness]

Easier to shoot far, but it is a challenge to shoot wider.

I agree here

 

[lsisaxon]

With a crop factor of 1.6 for my Canon 500D, all lenses' focal range will be adjusted upwards which have implications for the end result like framing, effective focal distance, image distortion etc. This is from my newbie's perspective. So choosing lenses have to factor in the crop factor?

With a lens of 70-300mm will now mean 102-420mm ... may look good on paper but this may not be what a photographer needs for example he wants the widest angle lens say 10-22mm but he will never get it as it translates to 16-35mm with crop factor.

How then can a person take photos with the desired focal length of 10mm for example in a body of Canon 500D for example?

Thanks in advance for your kind replies.

You'll need to think about whether a 10mm exists for 135-format Full Frame 135-format, and what does 10mm mean to you.

 

[shaoken]

Some Pros and Cons of crop factor..

Pros
- Close-up shots is good.
- As what mentioned, birding and wildlife shots have an advantage.

Cons
- Not really good for wide-angle.
- Some restriction for landscape shots.


But to think of it, I'm using my Oly body with a 2x crop factor, I'm satisfied with it.
No problems for wide angle or zoom.

Dual kit lenses from Oly can cover from 28mm-84mm and 80-300mm (35mm equivalent).
I'm quite sure that other brands will also have lenses to cover from wide angle to tele-zoom.


Wait a min...
From what I've seen, the "widest" angle for lenses, isn't it the Peleng 8mm lens? :dunno:

 

[clavi]

What about comparing in terms of megapixels?

On a FF camera such as D700, if u shoot in cropped DX mode (using a FF/film/non-DX lens), will the output be worse than the output from APS-C camera of similar megapixels (e.g. 12mpx D300).

If worse, then why would anyone want to shoot in DX mode on a FF camera? Or why would Nikon include such a feature in the first place?

If you use a FF version of the SAME SENSOR and a DX version of the SAME SENSOR, you will see no difference. Of course, the SAME sensor doesn't come in FX and DX versions, but the point is the same.

The fact that it CANNOT be compared becuase there's no such thing as the SAME sensor does not mean that it suddenly becomes "not true".

 

[night86mare]

What about comparing in terms of megapixels?

On a FF camera such as D700, if u shoot in cropped DX mode (using a FF/film/non-DX lens), will the output be worse than the output from APS-C camera of similar megapixels (e.g. 12mpx D300).

If worse, then why would anyone want to shoot in DX mode on a FF camera? Or why would Nikon include such a feature in the first place?

precisely my point.

comparing DX mode output from FX mode output from the exact same sensor is not answering the question. both originate from a FX camera, so it is just equivalent to getting the FX shot and cropping it yourself in photoshop.. a bit boh liao.

right now, comparing DX technology and FX technology, it is hard to say if one is better than the other, that's what i meant.

now, if one takes a FX output (set to DX mode).. and pits it against a DX output.. now that is a fair test. but i wager it will be inconclusive across all boards. that it still depends on situation.

 

[clavi]

Crop or not, it is just a specs.

Yr Porsche might be yr dream car on expressway, but it is a "hinderance" if u bring it to the field. Similarly, a 4WD is a slow-coach on expressway, but it is a "benefit" when out in the field.

In a nutshell, know your specs of your tool and work around its pros and cons accordingly.

I think most of us see pros and cons too seriously. Nothing is perfect, at least this is what Nikon/Canon (typical Japanese product manufacturers) had in mind when designing their products. They always leave some "room for improvement", so that they have more to offer in their next product. That is, they try to ensure continued business for themselves. This is commercial common sense.

 

[dwinO]

hmm.. just my 2 cents.

I tried fish-eye on a 50D but the effect wasn't as impressive. But on the 5Dmark II looks more decent. Therefore guess a FF camera have this advantage. Otherwise have to use 10-22mm lens. But don't think will be as curvy as the fish-eye lens i guess..

 

[Snoweagle]

thanks for pointing out the correction .. guess as a newbie, we learn new things ... I should have gotten the 70-200 F4 L IS USM nstead of the EF 70-300mm IS USM on hindsight .. not a complaint as the latter is a good lens

Used to own the 70-200 f/4 non-IS for use on my ex 10D but ever since i moved to FF, the 70-200 gets a little short, so i sold it and bought the much cheaper Sigma 70-300 and comes with 1:2 macro too. Happier with it.

 

[Snoweagle]

hmm.. just my 2 cents.

I tried fish-eye on a 50D but the effect wasn't as impressive. But on the 5Dmark II looks more decent. Therefore guess a FF camera have this advantage. Otherwise have to use 10-22mm lens. But don't think will be as curvy as the fish-eye lens i guess..

U must remember the fisheye and UWA are totally different perspective. Canon's 15mm fisheye is only meant for FF DSLRs and film SLRs. For cropped bodies, u might want to try 3rd party fisheye lenses.

 

[Snoweagle]

Some Pros and Cons of crop factor..

Pros
- Close-up shots is good.
- As what mentioned, birding and wildlife shots have an advantage.

Cons
- Not really good for wide-angle.
- Some restriction for landscape shots.


But to think of it, I'm using my Oly body with a 2x crop factor, I'm satisfied with it.
No problems for wide angle or zoom.

Dual kit lenses from Oly can cover from 28mm-84mm and 80-300mm (35mm equivalent).
I'm quite sure that other brands will also have lenses to cover from wide angle to tele-zoom.


Wait a min...
From what I've seen, the "widest" angle for lenses, isn't it the Peleng 8mm lens? :dunno:

I like Olympus' tele lenses cos that time at CP i saw the 200 f/2, which means it's a 400 f/2 lens! :bigeyes:

 

[PrimePhotog]

For me, my 1D crop factor can be a huge hindrance for extensive landscapes but I can't afford the 1Ds Mk2 - I will never go for the 5D due to the inferior handling and weather sealing.