Oh come on. Calling it a crop factor is fair enough - the "crop" is as compared to 35mm.
ALL lenses used by ALL DSLR systems cover the full frame of the sensor.
portraiture is generally done from 70-135 (35mm equivalent)
NEW Sigma 24mm F1.8 Macro for 4/3 Mount
- Thread starter tao
- Start date
- Status
Oh come on. Calling it a crop factor is fair enough - the "crop" is as compared to 35mm.
ALL lenses used by ALL DSLR systems cover the full frame of the sensor.
portraiture is generally done from 70-135 (35mm equivalent)
Not true. Canon EF lenses are 35mm lenses, that's why they work on film bodies as well. As such the image circle created is larger than APS-C sensors, hence the "crop". When on Canon FF systems, there will be no crop as the image circle will be the size of the sensor.
The EF-S lenses however are made for APS-C sensors, and therefore do not work for film bodies or FF sensors (i.e. 5D, 1DS), as the image circle created is smaller than the sensor.
Same goes for Nikon's system i.e. digital-specific and legacy lenses.
Oly discontinued their film systems, and so had the luxury of creating a whole new line of digital-specific lenses. As such, Oly is a full frame system as well, as the ZD lenses are specifically made for the 4/3 sensor and thus casts an image circle the same size as the sensor.
So in Olyspeak, there is no crop factor, just a 2 X FOV equivalent as compared to 35mm.
On Olyspeak, sure - call it the magnification factor or whatever else you like, but to say it does "NOT have a crop factor" is inaccurate because we always talk about focal lengths in 35mm equivalents and "crop factor" in current usage IS the multiplier difference. Note that the 4/3 lenses are sold as 35mm equivalents (and hence need to be multipled).
If you don't like that sort of usage of crop factor, then technically when talking about all digitial-only lenses you can't say crop factor either. That would just be confusing.
And to say that being able to use 35mm lenses is bad is counter-intuitive, in my view. Don't you think having wider compatibility is only an advantage?
Having said all that, I probably responded only because of the extreme fanboy-ish tone in
Mikefellh's post, and the self-effacing response he engendered (which in my view was totally unnecessary).
not just olyspeak.....
"Conventional interlaced technology records even and odd image lines in two sweeps and subsequently merges them to generate an image. If the patient moves even minimally during the image acquisition, blurred and noisy images with low definition and poor contrast are produced. The Full-Frame Technology of the Ziehm Exposcop 8000 records the image in a single sweep and thus minimises image interference. Ultra-fine structures become visible in hitherto unknown quality, to produce significantly sharper images with improved contrast."
http://www.hoise.com/vmw/01/articles/vmw/LV-VM-04-01-11.html
oly are not using film technology to produce film lenses to use it on digital sensor. to produce similar film quality or even better IQ on smaller sensor, full-frame transfer is definitely required.
Erm, Field of View is not Magnification factor; 4/3 lenses are sold at their specified focal lengths, which is not dependent on 35mm format, i.e. a 4/3 50mm lens has a focal length of 50mm.
And yes, when we talk about lenses specifically made for a certain digital format, i.e. lenses made specifically for APS-C and can only work on APS-C, there is no crop factor.
Canon and Nikon have no choice but to stick to 35mm-legacy lenses as there are quite a number of people still using their film SLR bodies. Neither did I say 35mm-legacy lenses were bad either, I was merely explaining how they contribute to "crop-factor".
Oly is not bogged down by a film SLR system, they have "abandoned" their OM system. Which is still quite a sore point to some old-timers...
I agree that Mike could shown a little bit more restraint in his choice of words, Canon and Nikon are definitely not loser systems, in their own right, they are excellent systems. At the end of the day, there's no such thing as a better system, it all about what the individual prefers.
I totally don't get the point of the thing you referenced. Perhaps you meant something like this: http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/E-1_dslr_6839.htm#6841 ?
Full Frame as used in that presentation does not have it's standard meaning (not that it's standard meaning is particularly old - given that it was created only when DSLRS with 35mm equivalent sized sensors first entered the scene).
However, that Full Frame in that page is simply marketing. I would say otherwise if noise tests demonstrated that these so-called 'Full Frame Technology' sensors had superior noise handling, but this does not seem to be true...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page15.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/page17.asp
Not to say that oly is horrible, but it certainly doesn't have better noise control...
---
I put to you that oly are most certainly using their old lens technology to make lenses, and hence they are using film technology to produce lenses. The lenses are not film lenses, but they are nevertheless producing lenses for their digital sensors using their film technology. The marketing (linked above) about not having sufficient lens resolution for the sensor photodiodes may be technically correct, and logically accurate - but the proof is in the pudding and there again I don't see proof.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse330/page26.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/page21.asp
Again, not to say that oly is awfull, but it doesn't have the highest measurable resolutions..
---
Also, I don't see why you're against film technology at all - think about it this way: Those old film lenses were optimised to make clear, sharp, images over the whole 35mm film. The difficulty, generally, was not the center of the image, but the border/edges. Now - with smaller sensors on most dslrs, the sensor does not actually capture the light of most of the border/edges, but still contains most of the center. Even if lens technology has greatly improved over the last 10 years (which, unfortunately, hasn't really happened - APO is much easier, but I don't think the improvements can be considered to be "great" compared to any previous 10 year period in camera-making) I doubt the lens edge sharpness improvements have been that drastic. In fact, if you consider the filter sizes of 4/3 lenses - they are taking advantage of using bigger lenses still, even though the 4/3 sensor is smaller than APS-C.
Erm, Field of View is not Magnification factor; 4/3 lenses are sold at their specified focal lengths, which is not dependent on 35mm format, i.e. a 4/3 50mm lens has a focal length of 50mm.
And yes, when we talk about lenses specifically made for a certain digital format, i.e. lenses made specifically for APS-C and can only work on APS-C, there is no crop factor.
Eh - Perhaps I mgiht be wrong, but I was going on this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093008panasoniclenses.asp
This is the last 4/3 system lens introduction I read, and it clearly shows that the focal lengths are marked according to 35mm equivalents.
If, however, you consider APS-C lenses to have no crop factor, then you're being perfectly consistent...
I totally agree (I don't even shoot with either
) [Edit: with the caveat that this statement is probably not applicable to professionals].Might I suggest a way to settle this so called "difference in opinion".
Oly and Canon folks meet using equivalent lens (say 50-200) then shoot a subject from the same position then compare.
Proof is in the pudding.
Sorry to sound rather curt.
Oly and Canon folks meet using equivalent lens (say 50-200) then shoot a subject from the same position then compare.
Proof is in the pudding.
Sorry to sound rather curt.
Why don't you tell me what you'll see? (and also specify if 50-200 is 35mm equivalent?) Educate me!
I just hope that within this section, we can preserve some sanity. While this thread has already gone OT, but it has been an "educational' discussion, but let us keep that "air of friendliness" in this place. I hope I was not harsh in any way when I replied earlier.
Personally, I am a great fan of Olympus and love my gear collection. They have in fact increased my number of assignments and sped up my workflow from the film era. So its good when there are discussions that might shed some light on why another system or design concept is better than Olympus or might help give me ideas on how to improve on what I am doing. We are all learning. Over the past 20 years that I have been shooting, there has never been a moment that I ever stopped learning.
Keep the discussions going, but I hope its done in a friendly manner. That is all I can hope for.
Cheers.
Morning...
Wow... so much inputs overnight...
I just wanna take pictures...
Be it Oly, Canon, Nikon... etc etc...
I feel our gear (whatever brands they are, FOV... crop factor... multiplier factor...) are just means to an end... that being nice pictures...
But i must say that being the newbie that i am, i have picked up a lot from the postings by u guys... Whatever the tone.
Chill,
Eric
Wow... so much inputs overnight...
I just wanna take pictures...
Be it Oly, Canon, Nikon... etc etc...
I feel our gear (whatever brands they are, FOV... crop factor... multiplier factor...) are just means to an end... that being nice pictures...
But i must say that being the newbie that i am, i have picked up a lot from the postings by u guys... Whatever the tone.
Chill,
Eric
It has been pretty civil, I don't think harsh words had been thrown in any direction so far, and by the way it is going, I don't think there will be any flamethrowing.
Open, mature discussion is always the best way to get correct and accurate information; in my place of work discussions almost always get heated, because of the need for factual accuracy, but at the same time based on personal opinions.
But always at the end of the day, we all hit the mess and chill out with a mug or two.
Open, mature discussion is always the best way to get correct and accurate information; in my place of work discussions almost always get heated, because of the need for factual accuracy, but at the same time based on personal opinions.
But always at the end of the day, we all hit the mess and chill out with a mug or two.
It has been pretty civil, I don't think harsh words had been thrown in any direction so far, and by the way it is going, I don't think there will be any flamethrowing.
Open, mature discussion is always the best way to get correct and accurate information; in my place of work discussions almost always get heated, because of the need for factual accuracy, but at the same time based on personal opinions.
But always at the end of the day, we all hit the mess and chill out with a mug or two.
Drakon... u in the SAF?
- Status
Similar threads
