Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 19 May 2011 (Thursday) 16:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon Full Frame Difference??

 
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 23, 2011 12:21 |  #46

MNUplander wrote in post #12463523 (external link)
Pondering...

It appears to me that your personal definition of "reach" is what may be the stumbling block here. There have been some lengthy discussions here about what that word really means.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
May 23, 2011 12:48 |  #47

SkipD wrote in post #12463662 (external link)
It appears to me that your personal definition of "reach" is what may be the stumbling block here. There have been some lengthy discussions here about what that word really means.

Yes, I would agree that is probably the case. Thinking about it within the bounds you two have provided, I can see that it really does come down to pixel density.

So, just to make sure Im on the right path - tell me if what Im gathering is correct:

-The increased "reach" of a crop cam is due to the pixel density only.

-If a FF sensor had the same pixel density as the crop camera, I would be able to replicate the same FOV with same IQ on a pixel level by cropping the FF image. But, it would fare better with enlargement than the image taken by the crop camera because the original was larger.

-Pixel density is akin to the grain of film - higher pixel density is like fine grain film while lower pixel density is like more coarse grain film.

How'd I do?

But, even though I think we now agree on the reasons that cause the appearance of a telephoto effect, I still don't think "illusion" is the right word. I think that when you need the "reach", regardless of what causes it, the 1.6x crop cam gives you a real, tangible benefit - not an illusion.

That is, unless you can afford a lens that is 1.6x longer and use it on one of today's FF bodies or somehow conjure up a FF body with the same pixel density as its crop counterpart.


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 23, 2011 13:17 |  #48

MNUplander wrote in post #12463811 (external link)
-The increased "reach" of a crop cam is due to the pixel density only.

This is incorrect. Pixel density has nothing to do with the "reach" issue. My 20D, an 8 megapixel camera, and a 7D, an 18 megapixel camera, provide the same "reach" when using the same focal length lens. The only difference is that a larger print could be made with the 7D's image without seeing pixellation "jaggies" in the image as compared to enlarging the 20D's image.

MNUplander wrote in post #12463811 (external link)
-If a FF sensor had the same pixel density as the crop camera, I would be able to replicate the same FOV with same IQ on a pixel level by cropping the FF image.

This is true as long as "the same pixel density" means the same number of the same sized pixels in the same measured area of each of the sensors.

MNUplander wrote in post #12463811 (external link)
But, it would fare better with enlargement than the image taken by the crop camera because the original was larger.

Something's radically confused here.

MNUplander wrote in post #12463811 (external link)
-Pixel density is akin to the grain of film - higher pixel density is like fine grain film while lower pixel density is like more coarse grain film.

This is true


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
May 23, 2011 13:36 |  #49

MNUplander wrote in post #12463811 (external link)
-The increased "reach" of a crop cam is due to the pixel density only.

-If a FF sensor had the same pixel density as the crop camera, I would be able to replicate the same FOV with same IQ on a pixel level by cropping the FF image.

Such as the 5DmkII when compared to a 20D or 30D. If you crop a 5DmkII image to get the same framing as an APS-C sensor and you get the same 8MP image.

MNUplander wrote in post #12463811 (external link)
But, even though I think we now agree on the reasons that cause the appearance of a telephoto effect, I still don't think "illusion" is the right word.

You're right. "Digital Zoom" is the more correct term for this effect. :D


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
May 23, 2011 13:45 |  #50

Thanks guys. I think I get it now, but I also think that maybe its best I just keep my mouth shut on the subject on all but the simplest discussions around the topic from here on out.

On the surface it seems like such a simple subject - but when you break it down on a technical level, its not as easy to wrap your head around it. I hate that feeling...


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DAMphyne
"the more I post, the less accurate..."
Avatar
2,156 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 33
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Northern Indiana, USA
     
May 23, 2011 20:20 |  #51

Post #19

cristphoto wrote in post #12445812 (external link)
When you use a camera with a sensor smaller than "full frame" the effect is being closer to the subject (cropped). The attached two photos were the identical distance from the subject, tripod mounted with the same 85mm lens. The one on the right was from a full frame camera, the one on the left was from a 1.3 crop sensor. The effect would be more pronounced if a 1.6 sensor was used instead of a 1.3 sensor.

This is a perfect example of enlargement.
The picture at the top has been enlarged 1.3 times More in order to make it the same dimension as the bottom one.
There is no reach difference, reach is achieved by longer focal length.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


David
Digital set me free
"Welcome Seeker! Now, don't feel alone here in the New Age, because there's a seeker born every minute.";)
www.damphyne.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 24, 2011 21:14 |  #52

SkipD wrote in post #12463984 (external link)
The only difference is that a larger print could be made with the 7D's image without seeing pixellation "jaggies" in the image as compared to enlarging the 20D's image

But the pixels per duck brigade will tell you that that is exactly what using alonger lens will do on a fixed camera sensor :D. If your long lens has greater resolution than the dense sensor, the print will either be bigger or higher resolution at the same size - because it contains more information. One can arbitrarily restrict "reach" to mean "optical reach" and pay no attention to what information is (or can be) captured - or one can acknowledge that a higher pixel density can record more information from a given optical image and that this can contribute to a greater "system" reach. Thus one can get greater "system reach" (e.g.,resolution of feather detail in the image of that duck) by using a longer lens or by using greater pixel density. How good the longer lens is vs. how good the pixels are will be case dependent.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,830 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2586
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 25, 2011 09:26 |  #53

A FF/135 format camera with a 100mm lens mounted on it, from a subject distance of 10.1m captures precisely a frame area of 2.4m x 3.6m; an APS-C format camera (using 20D frame dimension) with same lens at same camera position captures precisely 1.5m x 2.25m.

A subject which is 24cm tall fits onto 2.4mm of the sensor height on both FF and APS-C body. Assuming 7D vs. 5DII pixel densities (232 pixel/mm, 156 pixel/mm respectively), the 7D captures that 24cm tall subject with 556 pixels, and the 5DII captures the same subject with 374 pixels.
On the 7D that 24cm subject is 16% of the 7D frame height, while on the 5D11 it is 10% of the 5DII frame height.

To many, that increased pixel density (7D vs. 5DII) as well as larger fraction of the frame is what is often referred to a 'reach'.

But if you compare a different APS-C body to the same 5DII, the outcome is different. Shooting with a 30D (156 pixels/mm) with 100mm lens instead of a 7D with 100mm lens, the 24cm tall subject is still 2.4mm high on the sensor, it is still 16% of the 30D frame height, but using 2.4mm on sensor on the 30D means that the 24cm subject is captured with 374 pixels. In other words, initially shooting with the 5DII and cropping off 62.5% of the sensor height (and width) in post processing is no different at all than initially shooting with a 30D, both capture the same subject with identical pixel count...the 30D has absolutely no 'reach' advantage vs. the 5DII in terms of pixel density. So there is nothing inherent to a 'reach' advantage caused by using APS-C at all !!!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Golfboy1971
Member
32 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
May 25, 2011 17:25 |  #54

Extinctionjet, to answer your question in what I hope will be in simple terms, here's my understanding:
Full frame means the sensor in the camera (1Ds or 5D for example) is the same size at the piece of negative on an old 35mm film camera. A lot of modern digital cameras use a smaller sensor and they refer to these as 1.3 or 1.6 crop.
What does this mean to you? Well not a great deal to worry about, but basically if you stood a distance X from your subject with your 550D and set your zoom to Y and took a photo, then swapped your camera for a 5D using the same lens at the same zoom Y and the same distance X and then ran home and printed both photos out on a 6x4 print, for example, it would APPEAR that the photo taken on the 550D was taken closer to the subject, i.e. your subject fills more of the frame.

Another difference you will notice is, if there is a visible background behind your subject, such as a hedge, it would appear on the photo taken on the 5D that the background is just that little bit more blurred out than that taken on your 550D.

Unfortunately, generally speaking, full frame cameras are a lot more expensive than crop cameras.

On your 550D you can use EF lenses, or EFS lenses .... but on a full-frame camera you can only use the EF lenses... EFS won't work. EFS lenses are only for crop cameras.

I hope that helps.

Golfboy1971


EOS 400D, Sigma 18-200, Tamron 10-24mm, Canon 24-105L F4 IS, Canon 70-200L F4 IS, Canon 50mm F1.8, Canon 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Irfan
Member
131 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
     
May 26, 2011 20:36 |  #55

Wilt wrote in post #12475833 (external link)
So there is nothing inherent to a 'reach' advantage caused by using APS-C at all !!!

well ya, there is, as long as you are using a crop body better than a 30d if you have a 5dii. If you are using a 5dc, then you dont even need a 40d to see the "reach".

you need less megapixels with a crop (30D) to match a high end 5dii in terms of pixels. how is that not a testament to the "reach" factor?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
May 26, 2011 21:08 |  #56

Irfan wrote in post #12485893 (external link)
well ya, there is, as long as you are using a crop body better than a 30d if you have a 5dii. If you are using a 5dc, then you dont even need a 40d to see the "reach".

you need less megapixels with a crop (30D) to match a high end 5dii in terms of pixels. how is that not a testament to the "reach" factor?

It's the pixel density not the sensor size that affects the "reach" of a given lens. (or the system reach for a lens with a given optical reach) :D
My D30 has 3 MP, my 10D had 6MP, my 40D IR has 10MP while my 7D has 18 MP. They are all APS-C format.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,830 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2586
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 26, 2011 22:15 |  #57

Irfan wrote in post #12485893 (external link)
well ya, there is, as long as you are using a crop body better than a 30d if you have a 5dii. If you are using a 5dc, then you dont even need a 40d to see the "reach".

you need less megapixels with a crop (30D) to match a high end 5dii in terms of pixels. how is that not a testament to the "reach" factor?

The point was that 'reach' is defined by the PIXEL DENSITY, not by the format alone (APS-C vs. FF). After all, we don't want a newbie to dSLRs to choose to buy a 30D 'because it has better reach than FF' and 'it is most affordable APS-C for a student to afford'.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Irfan
Member
131 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
     
May 27, 2011 12:58 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #58

i guess i could see that scenario where someone automatically thinks aps-c is better for reach... for me i always equated it to pixel density, didnt really think that people were choosing just based on format, but i can see that being the case for sure.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,423 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon Full Frame Difference??
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bestbuymall
1099 guests, 275 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.