Loving 1.6-factor?

[PekkaM]

Am I the only one who's really grown to like the 1.6x crop factor of cheaper DSLR's?

My 70-200f/2.8L has taken the place as my walkaround lens and I usually only take my 50f/1.4 along when I know I'll have to shoot indoors. I have Sigma 17-35 EX which I think is ok but I almost never use anymore and certainly is wide enough. I like the extra magnification I get with my 90mm Tamron macro.

In fact I've thought of the trouble the possible move to 1.3 or 1 crop factor in future might give me when I have to buy 100-400 or similar...

[Haifidelity]

I feel the same way you do--however, I do not like the cropped viewfinder vs a Full-Frame. It makes Manual Focussing a pain the A*s with the 10D.

-hza

[robertwgross]

Try to shoot wide landscapes, and then see if your tune changes.

---Bob Gross---

[PekkaM]

Try to shoot wide landscapes, and then see if your tune changes.

If you had read my message, you'd have noticed that I stated that I no longer really use wide angle. ;) I don't really shoot anything wide angle.

[tommykjensen]

I like it too.

On my last two trips to the zoo the only lens I used was my 70-200/F4L even though I had others with me.

But I am considering buying a longer lens, either a Canon EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L Is Usm or a Canon EF 300/4,0L IS USM, but I just checked the prices today, :shock: :shock: :shock:

Canon EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L Is Usm cost $2224 :shock: in Denmark

Canon EF 300/4,0L IS USM cost $2161 :shock: in Denmark

so unless I buy them in USA it will take some time before I can afford either of them.

[dn7elson]

Try to shoot wide landscapes, and then see if your tune changes.

Not question about that end of the spectrum. 20mmx1.6=32mm rendering an otherwise wide and expensive lens into a watered down wide angle.

[drisley]

I'm with you PekkaM.
I like the extra gain from the crop factor. It's like getting an extender for no extra charge, and with no quality loss.
But then again, it depends on the type of photos you shoot.
I've always liked the extra reach since I tend to like to have a closely cropped subject, and I rarely shoot landscapes.

Funny thing though, I have to take some photos for an athletic club, and I'm eyeballing the 17-40L now to replace my 300D kit lens. That is the type of lens I never thought I would use. However, I've seen some really nice wide angle portrait shots that show how creative you can be with a wide angle lens and a lower crop factor (like the MKII).

[defordphoto]

Try to shoot wide landscapes, and then see if your tune changes.

---Bob Gross---

Going from 1.6 (10D) to 1.3 (MKII) I was surprised at the difference. Now the 17-40 feels real, real wide...

[CoolToolGuy]

I recently tried out a 100-400 L on my Drebel at a sports car race, and it wasn't quite as long as I wanted - I couldn't fill the frame with a head-on shot (because I'm outside the fences). I spent a short time thinking about the prospect that the 100-400 is as much as I could afford, so I might as well go with it. Now I'm hearing the possibility that the 10D replacement may have a 1.3 crop factor, and if so, the 100-400 L would get 'shorter' yet. So I am in a holding pattern, waiting for the announcement. On the one hand, I want the 1.3 to give me back the wide-angle capability, but on the other hand it would take away some length from the telephotos. Quite a dilemma. :?

[robertwgross]

If you had read my message, you'd have noticed that I stated that I no longer really use wide angle. ;) I don't really shoot anything wide angle.

Obviously, I had read your message, and that is what I responded to.

It is often hidden that our preferences for subjects is altered by our tools at hand. If you have good long telephoto lenses, then your favorite subject may be far off.

But to shoot wide, say effectively at 20mm, then with that 1.6 factor you have to have a lens more like 12mm. Those tend to be either expensive or poor performers.

A person could probably do a good business by selling super wide angle lenses at the Grand Canyon.

---Bob Gross---

[roanjohn]

Its a catch 22!!!

Its good for tele and bad for wide.

So everything depends on the type of shooting you prefer.

I wouldn't mind having a full-frame sensor though.

Ro1

[EXA1a]

You know what's the MAIN difference between P&S digicams and dSLRs? It's the sensor SIZE. Not talking about megapixels, just SIZE. That makes the nice tele pics with the typical blurred background. All 35mm camera lenses (very few exceptions like EF-S) are made to perform for a 50mm image circle. Not using it, is a waste of money and weight.

Don't ask for a small sensor, rather ask for a high density large sensor. The optimum for 35mm camera systems would be 15.6 MP on 24x36mm sensor. That pixel density captures the max resolution of good glass and uses the full image circle (well, okay, actually the sensor ought to be 36x36mm square but with a moving mirror that's not ideal).

You can do the 1.6x crop later and get the 40% image surface out of it.

--Jens--

[dn7elson]

You know what's the MAIN difference between P&S digicams and dSLRs? It's the sensor SIZE. Not talking about megapixels, just SIZE. That makes the nice tele pics with the typical blurred background. All 35mm camera lenses (very few exceptions like EF-S) are made to perform for a 50mm image circle. Not using it, is a waste of money and weight.

So, that would make the 10D a P&S by that definition? :?

[drisley]

No, not really.
The sensor on the 10D/300D is much bigger than the sensor on cameras like the G5 and Pro1 etc.
That is why we can get nice background blur with the 10D/300D, but have a very hard time doing so on P&S cameras (plus much lower noise).

[dn7elson]

No, not really. The sensor on the 10D/300D is much bigger than the sensor on cameras like the G5 and Pro1 etc.

I know. I was taking to task the equating of the 1.6 crop factor to a consumer P&S.

[EXA1a]

You know what's the MAIN difference between P&S digicams and dSLRs? It's the sensor SIZE. Not talking about megapixels, just SIZE. That makes the nice tele pics with the typical blurred background. All 35mm camera lenses (very few exceptions like EF-S) are made to perform for a 50mm image circle. Not using it, is a waste of money and weight.

So, that would make the 10D a P&S by that definition? :?

He???

[dn7elson]

He???

I'll bite....what are you saying?

[EXA1a]

He???

I'll bite....what are you saying?

I am saying: have you read my mail? Don't you think it's worth replying for the content? I definitively did not define a 10D as a P&S. Is my English that bad that you can't understand? What does the sentence
"You know what's the MAIN difference between P&S digicams and dSLRs? It's the sensor SIZE. " mean?
???

[msvadi]

I don't like it. I want more control over DOF, I want a bigger sensor... I want medium format with digital back... I don't have $20,000 :twisted:

[robertwgross]

It is well understood what results we can get if the digital camera has a full frame sensor. Many of us are faced with the results we get from the smaller sensor (the 1.6 factor), and how that helps on the telephoto end of zooms.

I just had a thought. What if Canon made another digital with a super-large sensor, maybe 1.6 _the other way_ to enhance wide shooting?

Granted, it would likely be very expensive, but it would surely help the wide-landscape shooters. A more standard lens could be used to get a wide shot.

---Bob Gross---

[EXA1a]

It is well understood what results we can get if the digital camera has a full frame sensor. Many of us are faced with the results we get from the smaller sensor (the 1.6 factor), and how that helps on the telephoto end of zooms.

I just had a thought. What if Canon made another digital with a super-large sensor, maybe 1.6 _the other way_ to enhance wide shooting?

Granted, it would likely be very expensive, but it would surely help the wide-landscape shooters. A more standard lens could be used to get a wide shot.

---Bob Gross---
Two problems with that:
1. the image circle of most lenses isn't big enough (would cause serious vignetting)
2. the angle at which light would hit the corners of the sensor would be very disadvantegeous and increase vignetting

--Jens--

[robertwgross]

Two problems with that:
1. the image circle of most lenses isn't big enough (would cause serious vignetting)
2. the angle at which light would hit the corners of the sensor would be very disadvantegeous and increase vignetting

--Jens--

Are you suggesting that Canon does not have a few really smart engineers that can overcome all of the laws of optics? I'm shocked.

---Bob Gross---

[EXA1a]

Two problems with that:
1. the image circle of most lenses isn't big enough (would cause serious vignetting)
2. the angle at which light would hit the corners of the sensor would be very disadvantegeous and increase vignetting

--Jens--

Are you suggesting that Canon does not have a few really smart engineers that can overcome all of the laws of optics? I'm shocked.

---Bob Gross---
You mean the new "XXL" glass with the blue stripe?

[robertwgross]

That is why we can get nice background blur with the 10D/300D, but have a very hard time doing so on P&S cameras (plus much lower noise).

A friend of mine was trying to purchase a new camera and could not make up her mind what kind to buy. I explained how a "big" camera like a 10D or 300D could do the background blur effect, partly as a result of having a faster lens. First of all, it took forever to get the technical concept across about a faster lens being able to control depth of field more.

Then she asked "Why would you want part of the shot to be blurry?"

That is when I knew I was wasting my time with words. I showed her some flower shots with a completely blurred background, and then what it would look like with everything sharp. A picture was much better than a thousand words.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

As is referenced aboved. it all boils down to pixel density..

The 10D maintains a deser pixel "pack" than either the MkII or the 1Ds.. thus. the equivelent crop from the two with larger sensors will yeild fewer pixels in th eresulting image than the image straight from the "lowly" 10D... :)

So.. there are indeed times with telephotos where the 10D's pixel density comes in handy.

This is part of the reason thta I have chosen to hold onto my 10D .. as opposed to my 1D (the old 4.5MP one)

Anyone know how the Kodak DCS 14MP full frame pixel density stacks up to the 10D's.. (that kind of math is not my forte~) :roll:

[leony]

6.1 Mp 10D - 2052x3076 = 6,311,952 pixels for total area of chip
size of chip: 24/1.6 x 36/1.6 = 15x22.5 mm = 337.5 mm2

Density on 10D = 6,311,952 pixels / 337.5 mm2 = 18702 pixels/mm2

24x36mm frame = 864 mm2
Kodak 14n: 4,536 x 3,024 pixels = 13,716,864 pixels total

Density on Kodak DCS 14n - 13,716,864 / 864 = 15876 pixels/mm2

DENSITY:

10D:18,702
14N:15,876

NOTE: sizes of the chips are not exact - check websites for tech stats. the results are still similar.

THis is why you see the biggest difference between L and non L lenses on 10D.

<EDITED>
if you use 10D's pixel density and blow it up to a full size chip at the same density, you'll end up with a full-frame chip of 18,702x864=16158528 pixels.

basically 16.1 MP chip. beyound that the lenses aren't good enough to see the difference. What I would like to see is a chip for a 6x6 MF with that density... ummmm.... a lot of pixels there...
... still counting...

60x60=3600 mm2
18,702x3600 = 67327200 pixels.... gulp.... 67,327,200 pixels.... 67 mega pixels. square file of 8205x8205 pixels... according to PS the FILE SIZE is: 192Mb (8-bit)... just imagine RAW 16Bit.... 385Mb file... 2 files per CD-R, 12 per DVD-R.

Now, that's resolution, baby!

[Digital Prophet]

Ok I guess I am still green around the gills because I don't quite understand what is being said here. It seems as if (and hey, I might be totally wrong here) that you guys are saying that the the "1.6 crop factor" extends the focal length, i.e. "gives a greater magnification".

But this is in direct contrast to the responses to a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32160) that I started on this very subject.

In that thread one of the best and clearest replies was from Jesper:
Like CoolToolGuy said: 50mm is still 50mm, that is, the focal length of the lens is 50mm, whether you put it on a Digital Rebel, which has an 1.6x crop factor compared to 35mm film (note, it is a crop factor, not a focal length multiplier factor!) or any other camera. So it wouldn't really make sense to say that the kit lens at 18mm is "28.8mm" - the focal length is still 18mm, not 28.8mm.

Note that the image that a 50mm lens on a camera with an 1.6x crop factor is NOT the same as the image on a full frame camera with a 80mm lens - the depth-of-field will be different. The image of the 1.6x camera with the 50mm lens WILL be the same as the image of a full frame camera with the same 50mm lens, with a border cropped off - that's why it is a crop factor, not a focal length multiplier factor.

This led me to do more research. And after I got my ducks in a row I replied to a thread where someone was trying to decide between a Nikon D70 and a Canon 300D. I wrote:
The sensor on the Digital Rebel is a 22.7mm x 15.1mm sensor while the D70 is 23.7mm x 15.5mm. The difference is minute. But sensor size is important because of what alot of people refer to as the "focal length multiplier". But it means is that a 28mm lens on a 35mm film camera provides a 74 degree field of vision on the film. But the same lens on a Digital Rebel (and very similarly the D70) will provide only a 46 degree field of vision on the digital sensor. That is the equivalent of a 50mm lens. It doesn't mean that you get 50mm worth of closeness from the 28mm lens. But you do get a 50mm worth of view on the sensor because it is smaller than a 35mm film frame.

So what's the dealy-o? If you guy's aren't saying that the magnification is increased by the smaller sensor, then what am I missing. But if you are saying that, then what am I missing?

Just trying to get my crap straight.

- Digital Prophet -

[Belmondo]

I put the Sigma 12-24 on my Mk II recently and noticed the hair in my ears needs trimming. 1.3X is clearly very useful.

[CoolToolGuy]

Digital Prophet,

I promised myself that I was going to get to bed at a normal hour tonight, but I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out a way to explain this, so here goes:

Let's perform a virtual test - we'll use a 1Ds and a 10D as examples, but instead, we'll use a EOS1V (full frame, same as 1Ds) and an EOS IX (APS film, same frame size as the 10D).

Set up the 1V on a tripod to take a picture of an object, let's say a side view of a car. Set it up with a 50mm lens, so that you get the entire length of the car in the frame. Take the shot.

Now, without moving the tripod, put the EOS IX on it with the same 50mm lens. Take the shot.

Now develop both rolls of film and print contact sheets. We pretty much already know that the EOS1V will yield the whole car, and the EOS IX will give you less because the frame is smaller, just like the 10D compared to the 1Ds. but if you measure the size of the car components in the contact prints, they will be the same size. The door will be the same size in each print, so will the mirror, etc. So the magnification has not changed. That's why it is referred to as a Crop Factor - The smaller format crops out some of the image that would be shown in a full-frame image.

Does that make it any more clear?

[Digital Prophet]

Yeah. I think that it is saying the same thing I was thinking. Even if I didn't express it well. Thanks.

And sorry I kept you up. If it makes you feel better I told myself the same thing. But I was staying up to see if I could get a good response.

- Digital Prophet -

[ron chappel]

Basically yes,i have no problems if they never again change the sensor size.
Sure i'm more into tele stuff anyway but it's other factors as well...


Tele's (obviously) are now a bargain

I'm satisfied with the shallow DOF of 1.6 crop-it's enough

The bargain 50/1.8 becomes a seriously usefull lens instead of a near pointless focal length (yes i too am a defender of 50mm on film but not for it's perspective....)

So with one moderately expensive lens (sigma 20/1.8)and the cheapie (50/1.8) i can have two extremely usefull fast primes.Or i can go abit wider instead with the tokina(or other)17mm

Sometime in the future i may want a quality superwide prime or zoom-i'll get to that later......
At the moment the only wide lens i require is a cheap fisheye adapter for silly shots.

.....for landscapes there is allways the stiched multi shot option...

I may never buy a superwide... :)

[SoCal69]

***
Now develop both rolls of film and print contact sheets. We pretty much already know that the EOS1V will yield the whole car, and the EOS IX will give you less because the frame is smaller, just like the 10D compared to the 1Ds. but if you measure the size of the car components in the contact prints, they will be the same size. The door will be the same size in each print, so will the mirror, etc. So the magnification has not changed. That's why it is referred to as a Crop Factor - The smaller format crops out some of the image that would be shown in a full-frame image.

I'm not sure that is entirely correct. Now feel free to jump down my throat if I am mistaken... The first part of your explanation is correct. The problem is that once you convert the images to print, you are printing both images to the same dimensions, which means that the car components in the 10D print, while not magnified, have been enlarged so that the "crop" will match the size of the 1Ds print. If you measure the car components on both these prints, they will NOT be the same.

[Jim_T]

Wide angle to me is anything under 100mm.. Obviously I like the crop :) I'm in to wildlife and aircraft.. That's my passion.

I've got a Sigma 15-30 that I bought last year to have "just in case". There haven't been many "just in cases". It's my least used lens.

[CoolToolGuy]

***
Now develop both rolls of film and print contact sheets. We pretty much already know that the EOS1V will yield the whole car, and the EOS IX will give you less because the frame is smaller, just like the 10D compared to the 1Ds. but if you measure the size of the car components in the contact prints, they will be the same size. The door will be the same size in each print, so will the mirror, etc. So the magnification has not changed. That's why it is referred to as a Crop Factor - The smaller format crops out some of the image that would be shown in a full-frame image.

I'm not sure that is entirely correct. Now feel free to jump down my throat if I am mistaken... The first part of your explanation is correct. The problem is that once you convert the images to print, you are printing both images to the same dimensions, which means that the car components in the 10D print, while not magnified, have been enlarged so that the "crop" will match the size of the 1Ds print. If you measure the car components on both these prints, they will NOT be the same.

A contact sheet is where the negative (slide if that is what you use) is laid down directly on the paper and exposed. They are printed the same size as the negative - no enlargement. I could have gone through setting up the enlarger to be the same size, but I thought I could make my point with the contact sheet.

Geez, you guys wanna keep me up all night? :roll:

[SoCal69]

Geez, you guys wanna keep me up all night? :roll:

Why? Did you need to get to sleep or something????

I see the point you are making and you are right if you are using film. But does anyone make "contact" sheets where the print is the same size as the sensor?

Sleep is for amateurs... you should be out taking photographs!

[PekkaM]

Ok, so let's put it this way: I'd happily move on to 1.3 or even full frame as long as there are enough megapixels added for me to crop afterwards. For now I rather have my 300D use those 6.5 Mp's all capturing the cropped area than capturing the full frame equivalent.

[drisley]

Ok, so let's put it this way: I'd happily move on to 1.3 or even full frame as long as there are enough megapixels added for me to crop afterwards. For now I rather have my 300D use those 6.5 Mp's all capturing the cropped area than capturing the full frame equivalent.

Very good point.

[gcogger]

On the field-of-view-crop vs focal-length-multiplier issue, here's my take.

Obviously, the focal length of a lens cannot change, but I don't think that's the issue.

The only meaningful comparison you can make between cameras of different sensor size is when you print the images (or look at them on a monitor) at a certain size. (The size of the image when it hits the sensor is irrelevant to the person looking at the pictures).

Say you take a photo using a 10D (1.6 crop sensor) with a 50mm lens, then print it at 6x4. What lens is then needed to produce an identical 6x4 print if you took the picture with a 1D (full frame sensor)? The answer, of course, is an 80mm lens. The only difference will be depth of field - the perspective, "magnification", field of view etc. will be identical and objects on each print will measure exactly the same size.

So from my point of view, talking about a focal length multiplier effect is of far more use to the average person, as long as you remember the difference in depth of field. If the terminology upsets people, then call it an 'effective' focal length multiplier ;-)

[CoolToolGuy]

Geez, you guys wanna keep me up all night? :roll:

Why? Did you need to get to sleep or something????

I see the point you are making and you are right if you are using film. But does anyone make "contact" sheets where the print is the same size as the sensor?

Sleep is for amateurs... you should be out taking photographs!

So after a (short) night of sleep, a shower, and a cup of coffee I'm ready to start a new day. Are you gonna make me drag out the Durst enlarger and all that messy stuff? (Oops, I sold that 10 years ago). :roll:

Okay, next step in the curriculum. So now we have our two negatives (let's pretend, and I'll bring it on up to the 21st century in a minute) and we set them up to print. If we set up the enlarger to print with the same settings, the same thing will occur - the components of each shot will be the same size. The APS print, however, will be smaller. SOOOOOO (here it comes), if you want the same size print from each shot, you will have to enlarge the APS negative more. :wink:

On to 2004 - The same thing applies with digital - If you produce a print from a 10D, Drebel, D70, whatever with an APS sensor - you will be enlarging it more than you would with a 1Ds sensor for the same size print. Now there are many more variables in the digital world, but that is the concept. There is no difference in magnification in the camera, but there may be in producing the print. But that is not a camera issue. 8)

[Digital Prophet]

I agree with CTG. But I go one step more (maybe?) to point out that the "magnification" effect is really a change in the degree of view. On a Digital Rebel a 50mm lens allows for a 74 degree field of vision. But the sensor, since it smaller than a 35mm neagtive frame, can only record 46 degrees of the field of vision allowed in.

46 (the degrees recorded by sensore) * 1.6 ("magnification" or "crop" factor) = 73.6 (total degrees allowed by lens) or 74 degrees. And all at the same true magnification.

CTG should write a book: "Digital Sensor Size and Insomnia for Dummies". :P

- Digital Prophet -

[leony]

as shown in my previous post on this thread, it is possible to have what you ask for.

full size chip, with enough pixels that after 1.6 crop you end up with the same number of pixels as 10D or 300D have to begin with.

To acheive that you will need a 16.1 mega pixel full-frame chip.

[CoolToolGuy]

CTG should write a book: "Digital Sensor Size and Insomnia for Dummies". :P

- Digital Prophet -

Not on your life - I have only scratched the surface. Of course, if it meant I could chuck the day job and retire, I might be persuaded. I do have a head start - Dummies know how to speak to Dummies... :wink:

[Digital Prophet]

Man wouldn't that be amazing? Of course I would have to win the lottery to be able to afford one. But a man can dream.

Mmmmm ... unobtainable camera .... arrrrrrggggggghhhhhh.

- Digital Prophet -

[CoolToolGuy]

as shown in my previous post on this thread, it is possible to have what you ask for.

full size chip, with enough pixels that after 1.6 crop you end up with the same number of pixels as 10D or 300D have to begin with.

To acheive that you will need a 16.1 mega pixel full-frame chip.

Ka-Ching! Well, maybe those that want it should wait for the successor to the 1Ds. Geez, that kind of money (7000 USD) will buy a lot of 'L' glass to get you through with the crop factor. 8)

[Sketcher]

For 95% of my shooting this last year I've appreciated the 1.6 crop factor. Rarely did I run into the hard stops of the wide end (not all that wide: Tamron 24-135mm; effectively 38.4 wide). But I tell ya, those few instances where I didn't have room to back up for the shot sure did frustrate.

Considering a 1.3x or even a future full frame purchase has me rethinking my lens wish list. So I appreciate the feedback you big dogs give us regarding your current lenses and how your experience does/does not change with the variance in crop factors.

Tom (belmondo), do you still have those nifty images you made with the red bracketing to show the effective Crop factor?

[CyberDyneSystems]

There is no "magnification" untill you try to print or display the 10D's "smaller" sensor info in a format that relates to 35mm's larger film plane..

Ie if you were to print your 10D images to a print the same percentage smaller than an 8X10... then there would be no increase in magnification.. you would be printing in essence the 1.6 "crop" out of the center of your 8X10 instead...

Since we don't use odd 10D sensor sized papaer to print on.. we are in essence "blowing up" the crop that the 10D creates by nature of it's smaller sensor size.

So Optically there is no magnification at the Camera end.there is only a narrowerr feild of view due to a smaller film plane.. that is then blown up like any film crop.. offering "magnification" solely at the processing ond of the workflow.. (be it on paper or on screen)

[Lamplight]

I like what the crop factor does when I'm using my zoom lens, but that's about it. Last night I looked through the viewfinder of my old AE-1 Program and it was amazing. I had forgotten how roomy it was in there! :D

[gcogger]

There is no "magnification" untill you try to print or display the 10D's "smaller" sensor info in a format that relates to 35mm's larger film plane..

I guess that's why these comaprisons are generally labelled as something like '35mm equivalent' focal length... I'd also say that, once the image is on the CF card, the physical size of the sensor has no meaning at all. You simply have a certain number of pixels of information.

I can't help thinking that this has simply turned into an argument over semantics. I think we all know what effect is obtained by using lenses on cameras with different sized sensors. I like to think in terms of an effective focal length multiplication since that describes exactly what results to expect when the image is in its final form (i.e. a print of a given size). If other people can visualize the results better by talking about crop factor or field of view, that's fine by me :-)

[robertwgross]

...
I can't help thinking that this has simply turned into an argument over semantics.

Exactly. It becomes a religious argument every time it comes up. Some prefer to call it a 1.6 magnification factor. Some prefer to call it a 1.6 crop factor. Some call it other things.

I just call it the 1.6 factor, and nobody can argue with that.

---Bob Gross---
(semantics expert and metaphysician)

[CyberDyneSystems]

...do you still have those nifty images you made with the red bracketing to show the effective Crop factor?

You mean this one?

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1793204&outx=700&oq=0

Blue is the image that the lens can produce..
Red is the 35mm film plane..
White is the 10D sensor size..

Again.. no actual magnification.. but a loss of feild of view as compared to a full frame sensor or 35mm film...

Yes it is all symantics! :mrgreen: to a point..

It is a culmination of ingredients that leads to ANY benifit re: telephoto lenses and the 1.6 crop factor Vs. full frame...

The key factor again being pixel density.. if the full frame sensor in comparison were 18MP... then the 10D's crop factor would have NO advantage.. as the same size crop from full frame would yeild more density...

Also.. just to make things even more fun.. :mrgreen: we need to balance the benifits of density Vs. the disadvantages.. IE: Noise :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

There is no "magnification" untill you try to print or display the 10D's "smaller" sensor info in a format that relates to 35mm's larger film plane..

I guess that's why these comaprisons are generally labelled as something like '35mm equivalent' focal length... I'd also say that, once the image is on the CF card, the physical size of the sensor has no meaning at all. You simply have a certain number of pixels of information.

I can't help thinking that this has simply turned into an argument over semantics. I think we all know what effect is obtained by using lenses on cameras with different sized sensors. I like to think in terms of an effective focal length multiplication since that describes exactly what results to expect when the image is in its final form (i.e. a print of a given size). If other people can visualize the results better by talking about crop factor or field of view, that's fine by me :-)

All good points.. :)

I personally don't like to see any of this as an argumanet.. :shock:

I see it as discussion... and hopefully a way of explaining things... for those that don't grasp it yet...

There IS a post on the previous page where somone expressed concern over "getting it"...

This is the only reason I chimed in on this particular subject again.. :roll: :wink: That and the fact that I like to see myself type... 8)

[CoolToolGuy]

I have not seen this thread as an argument - my part of it has been explaining my interpretation of a subject that gets a lot of discussion. This has been a fairly calm thread, with a lot of discussion but no name calling or heritage-questioning. I hope no one saw it otherwise. 8)

[gcogger]

Sorry guys - I guess I used the word 'argument' rather carelessly. I was thinking more along the lines of 'exchange of differing viewpoints' :)

[RichardSimon]

I really like the 1.6x factor at the long end - and the pixel density on the 10D as described above partly explains it. I have sometimes had good luck with stitching frames together when I need something wider than what my 17-40 lens offers.

This discussion has stimulated me to try and quantify the DoF effects that the 1.6x crop factor introduces.

For my own edification, I decided to see what the numbers for depth of field, if calculated systematically, tell me. For these calculations, I used the calculator created by Thomas Hallstein at
http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html
His calculator include thes effect of the size of the sensor in the calculation, and assumes the same final print size is used regardless of sensor size. With that approach, the Depth of Field is determined by what will appear sharp on a given size print assuming the full sensor (film or CMOS) is used.

Case 1 (an 85mm lens on a full frame 35mm)
35mm full frame, 85 mm lens, 72 inch distance, f/1.8
(This prime lens sells for about $340)
The calculated Depth of Field is 1.9 inches.
Many people have described this as a good combination for portraits - moderate focal length and shallow depth of field.

Case 2 (a 50 mm lens on a 10D)
35mm with 1.6 crop factor, 50mm lens, 68 inch distance, f/1.4
(This Canon lens sells for about $310)
The calculated Depth of Field is 2.4 inches.
The slightly different distance means the two full frame images will have the same field of view - i.e, the model's face fills the same fraction of the resulting image. The perspective of the two images will be slightly different, since perspective is determined by the distance to the subject. The point of this case is that a similar cost for glass gives a similar result for depth of field: shooting with a 50mm f/1.4 on a 10D will give a similar perspective and Depth of field to shooting with a 85mm f/1.8 on a 35mm full frame image. Note that I have assumed a wider f/ ratio is used for the shorter lens. If you shot both lenes at, say, f/2, the 85mm full frame would give a DoF of 2.1 inches, compared to 3.5 inches DoF for the 50mm on the 10D.

Case 3 (85mm lens on the 10D, and step back!)
35mm with 1.6 crop factor, 85 mm lens, 136 inch distance, f/1.8
The calculated Depth of Field is 4.3 inches.
This shows the effect of switching from a film 35mm to a 1.6x digital SLR: you have to back up to keep the same image size, changing the perspective, and the depth of field increases.

The bottom line is that the 1.6 crop factor means the depth of field is increased, other things being equal. On the other hand, shorter lenses may mean that you can perhaps use a wider lens for the same cost, shrinking the DoF back down.

[71kgb]

Going from 1.6 (10D) to 1.3 (MKII) I was surprised at the difference. Now the 17-40 feels real, real wide...
Did you notice any difference in the background blurring (bokeh) that you got using the same lenses on a camera with different crop factors?

[Andy_T]

Another thread from the crypts :wink:

Given that the statement you replied to is about 2 years old, you might go to some extra effort to ask whether defordphoto (then still called RFMsports) is still following it :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[malla1962]

For what I shoot I wish my 1dmk2 was a 1.6 crop.:D

[Andy_T]

Well, then just crop more :lol:
That 1DMKI shooters got by with 4 MP nicely :twisted:

Best regards,
Andy

[Tyreman]

It becomes an almost pointless discussion due to religious fervor, passion and other non essential human emotions involved in the equation:D but heres my humble take....
I used a 30D for a few weeks and traded to a 5D.........why?
I had a lens down to 28mm and I wasn't wanting to add another grand canadian dollars for a lens(14-40L ef)
I didn't need the presupposed landscape and portraiture etc settings for auto anyway(command dial)-moot really
5's focusing I believe (stand corrected) is a bit different
Additionally I liked FF as I have photographed(35mm) since a young age
The only avantage to 1.6x to me is on the Long end of the tube using a 200mm plus lens but you ain't always shootin' that way(correction I'm not)

[KevC]

Though I love my 300D, I'd think i'd enjoy the full frame very much. I used to have a Sigma 24-70 and it was too long on the wide end. I love the 17-40L on my 1.6x crop but it'd be nice if it were a TAD wider. A 24-105L on full frame would be perfect for me. and a 17-40L on full frame would be awesome for wiiide =)

I feel the same way about the 70-200, I love the range, but would prefer if the 70 were a bit wider.

Mybe I'll move to 1D... but probably 5D instead. Not anytime soon though.

[Stump]

Am I the only one who's really grown to like the 1.6x crop factor of cheaper DSLR's?

My 70-200f/2.8L has taken the place as my walkaround lens and I usually only take my 50f/1.4 along when I know I'll have to shoot indoors. I have Sigma 17-35 EX which I think is ok but I almost never use anymore and certainly is wide enough. I like the extra magnification I get with my 90mm Tamron macro.

In fact I've thought of the trouble the possible move to 1.3 or 1 crop factor in future might give me when I have to buy 100-400 or similar...

All crop camera's arent cheap. Canon is the only one that makes a full frame I'm pretty sure. The top of the line Nikon's are still crop, and they are no where near cheap.

[SkipD]

Why are people responding to posts that are 2-1/2 years old?

[dontblink]

What I like best about 1.6x crop factor cameras is that they make weaker lens seem better by using only the "sweet spot". For example the 28mm f/1.8 is a mediocre lens on a full frame camera, with soft edges and light fall off. However, that same lens on a crop camera gives much better results. Yes, you could merely crop the full frame image to achieve a similar result.

[Exit]

1.6x sucks. Small viewfinder and junk if you want a wide shot

[sswanson]

The business school standard answer applies: It depends.

In this case it all depends on what shooting you do.

Personally a downside I've run into with the 1.6X camera I own is that I have to pay more to get the effect of the inexpensive nifty-fifty, or any other wide angle lens. On the other side, I love the additional reach when shooting wildlife or sports, just not when shooting indoors.

[Stump]

Why are people responding to posts that are 2-1/2 years old?

Why did you reply?

But to answer your question, because this thread was on top.



1.6x sucks. Small viewfinder and junk if you want a wide shot

Yeah, all Nikon's are 1.5x. Everyone knows they are all junk because of that. :rolleyes:

[nc5p]

I'm just thilled that Canon gives us a choice. I really love my 5D (shoot mostly wide) but can certainly understand why others like the smaller cameras. I used to have a Lumix 4mp 12x camera with a really small sensor. It could really reach with that little lens but not go very wide. Other than that all I've ever shot is film. The 5D is especially good for those who are used to a medium format film camera. The big viewfinder and excellent image quality won't disappoint.

Doug

[ijohnson]

The one thing I didn't expect when going to full frame was just how great my lenses really are. The focal lengths that I used on 1.6 factor were really awkward. My 17-40 feels like its doing what it should be. The 70-200 is actually a nice walkaround lens now. My 50 is natural and almost wide. My 85 is a portrait dream and my 28-135 is just about as versatile as a focal length range can be, though I don't care for the other qualities of this lens.



It makes sense to me why Canon chose the focal lengths of these zooms. Once the crop factor is added, they are downright unreasonable to me, and I stress ME.

[FloridaCamera]

Why are people responding to posts that are 2-1/2 years old?
Sorta feels like traveling back in time, here we are reading peoples posts just like they were typing them this morning... Kinda spooky huh:lol:

[Bob_A]

Why are people responding to posts that are 2-1/2 years old?

I started reading this thread and went ... yah! Robert Gross is back!! ... then I saw how old his post was :lol:

[Liang]

I don't like 1.6 factor but I can't affort FF.
Therefore I have to stay with it for now until I can affort FF.

[SoaringUSAEagle]

Try to shoot wide landscapes, and then see if your tune changes.


That's why I got the 5D... I shoot quite a bit of landscapes and was just itching for more ground!

[ijohnson]

What's funny is that when this thread was created, the only full-frame options were the 1ds and 35mm bodies. That changes the context altogether.

[gkuenning]

Try to shoot wide landscapes, and then see if your tune changes.

---Bob Gross---

That's why they invented panorama-stitching software.

For landscapes, just turn on the motor drive, hold down the button, and pan. Later, pick out a few of the shots and stitch them.

That doesn't work for wide-angle people shots, of course. For that I prefer my Canon 2mm f/0.01L. ;)

[break]

The way I look at it... if you can afford a full frame system you can afford the lenses that you'll need for that body anyway.

[fstop11.net]

No, I hate it.

If before a DSLR you were a 35mm film SLR user.. It really will piss you off.

I shoot abit of everything but I never care about using my 100 - 400 at past 300. Plus the 100 end of it is almost too long for everything I want. I always need abit more..

Not to mention the 50mm which is a dream on 35mm.

And the worst case, 17 - 40 L Doesnt feel wide in the slightest.

[Andy_T]

So here's what to do...

- Get the EF-S 10-22 or a similar UWA lens
- Get the 35/2, 28/2.8, 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 (best, IMO) as standard lens
- swap your 100-400 IS for a 70-200/2.8

Best regards,
Andy

[FIREWALLROB]

So here's what to do...

- Get the EF-S 10-22 or a similar UWA lens
- Get the 35/2, 28/2.8, 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 (best, IMO) as standard lens
- swap your 100-400 IS for a 70-200/2.8

Best regards,
Andy


Agree wholeheartedly with the first point (re the 10-22), but loved my 100-400 too much to swap (before my priorities changed). I just couldnt love my 17-40 on a 1.6 crop camera as much as my 10-22.

[Steve Parr]

In all honesty, I never really give too much thought to the fact that the body is a 1.6 crop. It is what it is, and I dig it; it gets the job done very, very well...

[mrmarklin]

[quote=PekkaM;210905]Am I the only one who's really grown to like the 1.6x crop factor of cheaper DSLR's?

quote]

There are obviously others, but I'm not one of them. When I see a lens description I want it to mean what it says. I'm not good at math, and POV crop is not standardized among manufacturers either. There's 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 etc.:evil:

[mrmarklin]

The one thing I didn't expect when going to full frame was just how great my lenses really are. The focal lengths that I used on 1.6 factor were really awkward. My 17-40 feels like its doing what it should be. The 70-200 is actually a nice walkaround lens now. My 50 is natural and almost wide. My 85 is a portrait dream and my 28-135 is just about as versatile as a focal length range can be, though I don't care for the other qualities of this lens.



It makes sense to me why Canon chose the focal lengths of these zooms. Once the crop factor is added, they are downright unreasonable to me, and I stress ME.
Naw, youre 100% right.

It's not just you.:cool:

[ScottE]

No, I hate it.

If before a DSLR you were a 35mm film SLR user.. It really will piss you off.

I shoot abit of everything but I never care about using my 100 - 400 at past 300. Plus the 100 end of it is almost too long for everything I want. I always need abit more..

Not to mention the 50mm which is a dream on 35mm.

And the worst case, 17 - 40 L Doesnt feel wide in the slightest.

I used 35 mm full frame cameras for over 20 years before I got my first 1.6x crop digital camera about 5 years ago. At first I resented the crop, because I lacked a good wide angle lens. Now that I have the 10-22 mm lens I find the 1.6 crop camera meets all my needs.

Occasionally I load up my EOS 3 film camera and shoot a few rolls. I love the perfomance of the camera, but hate the full frame because the lenses don't do what I am used to the doing on digital. The 17-40 lens on full frame is an acceptable replacement for the 10-22 on digital. The performance of the the telephoto lenses on full frame is pathetic. Even using the 1.4x teleconverter does not match the performace I get without a teleconverter on digital. I don't have a lens for my full frame camera that comes anywhere close to matching the performance of my 17-55 f/2.8 lens on digital.

For my purposes the 1.6x crop camera is much more useful than full frame. What we really need is an EF-S camera that matches the features of an EOS 3 or 1D MkIIN.

[Steve Parr]

Why are people responding to posts that are 2-1/2 years old?

We're bored...

[Steve Parr]

1.6x sucks. Small viewfinder and junk if you want a wide shot

That's the silliest thing I've read all day.

Thanks for the laugh!

[Steve Parr]

If before a DSLR you were a 35mm film SLR user.. It really will piss you off.

And that's probably the second silliest thing I've read all day.

I shot Canon 35mm for years: Tlb, FTB, F-1; they were all fine.

I didn't get pissed off at all when I went to a 1.6 body...

[Andy_T]

Well,

Like Steve, I don't really mind what's written on the lens, if it works for the image I want to get, I am fine.

And I've so far not heard from many users who complain that their 200/2.8 lens now behaves like a 300/2.8 lens (well, close) :lol:
Ever checked prices on 300/2.8 lenses?

To me, it seems that many people do not want to have a 1.6x crop camera, because it's inferior (=less expensive) than a full frame camera, so they convince themselves that the crop factor is actually a very bad thing and only morons who know nothing about optics would actually like having a longer focal length.

If a 1.6x camera can give you an image with enough resolution and little enough noise, why keep crying over sour grapes ?
'yadda yadda, a full frame camera would have even less noise and my wide angle lens would be even wider...' ??? I just don't get it.

You moan the loss of wide angle and that your 17-40 is not wide any longer? Well, ever thought of getting a 10-22 in its place?
You can not live any longer without the versatility of your 28-135? Why not use a 17-85 instead?
That 85/1.8 lens is too long for portraits now? What about the 50/1.4 instead?
The 50 is not a standard lens any longer? Have you checked out the various lenses in the 28-35 focal range yet?
Your 70-200 is way too long now? Well, Sigma is about to launch a 50-150/2.8, what about that?

If I was a rude person, I might say 'Get a life' ... :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Steve Parr]

Andy, you bring up some excellent points...


You moan the loss of wide angle and that your 17-40 is not wide any longer? Well, ever thought of getting a 10-22 in its place?

In all honesty, my Sigma 17-70mm is plenty wide enough on the Canon 20D. I think it's pretty funny when someone says "17mm isn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera". Well, sure it is. For me. An easy counter-point would be that a 70-200mm isn't long enough on a full frame. Well, there will certainly be those who say it is, and they're right. It's fine for them...

You can not live any longer without the versatility of your 28-135? Why not use a 17-85 instead?

I had the 28mm-135mm when I had my Rebel, and it was a fine lens, and worked very well. Again, an excellent point you raise, and one which provides a simple solution...

That 85/1.8 lens is too long for portraits now? What about the 50/1.4 instead?

The 85mm is too long for portraits?? Who knew??

I could go on, but this point in your post: If I was a rude person, I might say 'Get a life' ... was perfectly placed...

[ijohnson]

Well,

Like Steve, I don't really mind what's written on the lens, if it works for the image I want to get, I am fine.

And I've so far not heard from many users who complain that their 200/2.8 lens now behaves like a 300/2.8 lens (well, close) :lol:
Ever checked prices on 300/2.8 lenses?

To me, it seems that many people do not want to have a 1.6x crop camera, because it's inferior (=less expensive) than a full frame camera, so they convince themselves that the crop factor is actually a very bad thing and only morons who know nothing about optics would actually like having a longer focal length.

If a 1.6x camera can give you an image with enough resolution and little enough noise, why keep crying over sour grapes ?
'yadda yadda, a full frame camera would have even less noise and my wide angle lens would be even wider...' ??? I just don't get it.

You moan the loss of wide angle and that your 17-40 is not wide any longer? Well, ever thought of getting a 10-22 in its place?
You can not live any longer without the versatility of your 28-135? Why not use a 17-85 instead?
That 85/1.8 lens is too long for portraits now? What about the 50/1.4 instead?
The 50 is not a standard lens any longer? Have you checked out the various lenses in the 28-35 focal range yet?
Your 70-200 is way too long now? Well, Sigma is about to launch a 50-150/2.8, what about that?

If I was a rude person, I might say 'Get a life' ... :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

I had a 1.6x camera and I bought a full frame to better suit my shooting style. I then realized why Canon made the EF focal lengths. They are very well thought out. It is the same reason why they made the EF-S lenses. Because EF focal lengths are often awkward or useless on a 1.6 crop factor camera.

I will say again that it is MY preference to use my lenses at the focal lengths that they say on MY lenses. I don't need to get any closer than 200 gets me and I have enormous use for 17-25 (keep in mind that I already had a 17-40). If I had shot 35mm with my current lens set-up I would have been terribly disappointed in the new focal lengths that the crop factor gave me with my 10D. It has been awesome going back the other way.

Andy, it's people like you that make this forum boring and typical. Try reading things first. Drink a cup of coffee when you get up on the wrong side of the bed. Remember that we are not your abusive wife, or friend, or the dog that bit you on the way home. Try to make this about learning and sharing. Not about feeling good about yourself.

[ScottE]

Andy, it's people like you that make this forum boring and typical. Try reading things first. Drink a cup of coffee when you get up on the wrong side of the bed. Remember that we are not your abusive wife, or friend, or the dog that bit you on the way home. Try to make this about learning and sharing. Not about feeling good about yourself.

Reminds me of a drunk friend who once said, "I never bother arguing because I find that people either agree with everything I say or they are extremely boring and stupid."

[Andy_T]

Remember that we are not your abusive wife, or friend, or the dog that bit you on the way home.

You might have a point here.
I am afraid that my wife would abuse me if I spent 3,000 on a camera ... so I have to make do with the 1.6x crop factor :lol:

Seriously, my post was more targeted at those who today say 'I could never go digital, I would hate that 1.6x crop factor'.

Initially, I also thought like that when I first considered going digital.
But after saying 'What the heck, it's a compromise I have to take in order to get a great digital camera', I went for the 20D and it is so much a better camera in every way than my old SLR was (ok, that was a NOINK :wink: ).
I recently reviewed my initial fears and asked myself 'Now, would I want my 80-200/2.8L to be any shorter?' and found out that I really didn't want that to be the case. I quite enjoy the fact that it behaves like a Sigma 120-300/2.8 without the extra weight or the extra money.
And I get along fine with my 17/3.5 on the wide end as well.

Best regards,
Andy