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 17 Sep 2014 (Wednesday) 14:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Landscapers... Full Frame vs Crop

 
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
346 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 29, 2014 15:36 |  #106

The 5472x3648 data points on the sensor are not JUST data points on a grid of data, but data points gathered from physical locations on a sensor of a specific size, and on the smaller sensor, they are more tightly spaced, so the resolution offered by the lens, whatever that may be, is sampled on a different scale than it is in the larger sensor. That's the difference.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,312 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3475
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 29, 2014 15:42 |  #107

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17184369 (external link)
Thank you for the info. However how do all these line pairs end up actually becoming the 5472x3648 file that is nothing but data points within that grid of data? The actual file that goes to the print driver just receives a 2 dimensional array of YCbCr values (for simplicity sake, no need to get into the different JPEG standards and formats here), then maps that to the print output that is desired, by either uprezzing or downrezzing the data using one of several different resizing algorithms.

Both the 70D and 6D produce the same size array of data to the printer. So the part I am missing is how the raw data that corresponds to the results obtained at the sensor level as you call out above becomes the actual image file of some X x Y resolution, so that it can be printed.

The sensor needs set of three pixels to map two lines separated by a space (n lines) = ((2*n)+1) pixels.
So with a sensor that fully captures the lens resolution of 100 line-pairs per millimeter needs 201 pixels in that same millimeter. For 2400 line-pairs per FF frame height, we need 4801 pixels in the FF frame height; for 1490 line-pairs per APS-C frame height, we need 2981 pixels per APS-C frame height. To fully capture what the lens delivers (assuming 100 line-pairs/millimeter at focal plane).

Now we overlay the pixel array of the actual sensors, at 3648 pixels per frame height for each sensor that you are considering. But for this, we need to recall that magnification is applied, to convert 24mm to 16" print or to convert 14.9mm to 16" print. Let's ignore lens resolution at the moment, and pay attention only to pixel density...

  • FF, we apply 16.9x magnification to achieve 16" tall print, so we net 215.86 pixels per millimeter on print
  • In the case of APS-C, we apply 27.28x magnification to achieve 16" tall print, so we net 133.72 pixels per millimeter on print
Notice that for 2400 line-pairs per FF picture height we needed 4801 pixels to capture full resolution of the lens, but we have only 3648 pixels per frame height. And for 1490 line-pairs per APS-C frame height we needed 2981 pixels, and we have a surplus with 3648 pixels per frame height.

So, with the above combinations the FF image is sensor limited, and the APS-C image is lens limited!

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
palad1n
Goldmember
Avatar
1,823 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2787
Joined Jun 2013
     
Sep 29, 2014 15:59 |  #108

Charlie wrote in post #17184408 (external link)
without going into much detail, but you will see a difference in a 12x18 print, assuming both shots SOOC. The 70D shot will degrade much faster if you process it, and the differences may be spotted even sooner. This is where even small prints, you can spot the APS vs FF photos.

another issue is that not all landscapes will be low iso clean work. Once you start doing milky way shots, you have a good amount to a lot of noise. Prints generally hide noise well, but noisy shots also lose a lot of detail.... The threshold for those types of prints are lower across the board, print those smaller, or just live with the lack of detail. @ high isos, not only is the noise a whole lot less on the 6D, it'll be able to resolve a lot more detail as well.

SOOC is better on FF, but there is no real difference in degradation between FF and crop, at least not visible to human eye, stop exaggerating, please....I never had any issues shooting with all my camera bodies (1dsmkII, 400D, 600D, 70D, 5DmkII or 5dmkIII).. I don´t know any photographers, who had any issues with any of those cameras, just these with heavy GAS syndrome looking for best gear.

This "all glory to FF, anything less is basically crap and not worth of shooting" sounds ridiculous today, things that used to matter (FF superiority few years back, noise and lowlight performance) don't matter anymore, at least not that much.

I have simple rule about camera type usage: Am i going to fill the frame with my subject or not? am I going to need wider FOV advantage for wider shots or to blur the background little bit more? If yes, I use FF camera.
If i need more reach, especially during lowlight occasions, i pick my 70D for no additional cropping.

if you compare sensor size difference between medium or large format and fullframe format and aps-c, the difference there is even smaller.

http://gizmohound.com …ds/2009/03/sens​orsize.jpg (external link)


Website (online) : www.lukaskrasa.com (external link)
Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/​photos/105393908@N03/ (external link)
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.c​om/lukaskrasaphoto/ (external link)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/​lukaskrasacom (external link)
Lukas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Sep 29, 2014 16:13 |  #109

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17184369 (external link)
Thank you for the info. However how do all these line pairs end up actually becoming the 5472x3648 file that is nothing but data points within that grid of data?

That's what the sensor does - it converts light intensities into luminance values (that end up as RGB values eventually). The image is thereby "encoded" in the data points. Appendix A of this Outback essay (external link) illustrates a bit about sampling with different sized pixels and what happens when you enlarge them.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17184369 (external link)
Both the 70D and 6D produce the same size array of data to the printer. So the part I am missing is how the raw data that corresponds to the results obtained at the sensor level as you call out above becomes the actual image file of some X x Y resolution, so that it can be printed.

The sensor is already an array of that size and for the FF it is 24mmx36mm so it is recorded at ~3650 ppi or ~5840 ppi for the 1.6 version (My 7D exif contains "Focal Plane Horiz Resolution:5715 dpi Focal Plane Vert Resolution:5808 dpi").

If the recorded image of a particular "line" in the FF image has luminance values of 0, 5, 25, 100, 25, 5, 0 (read out as you move along one line of the sensor array) you have taken 7 pixels to encode the optical information so that would represent 7/3650ths of an inch at the sensor level. When you print it at 24x36 you will simply have made it occupy 24 times that width by placing the pixels further apart, so it will now be 24*7/3650 inches wide = ~0.05" wide (when it had been ~0.002 inches wide on the sensor).

However, when you print the crop array at 24x36, you will have made the line occupy 38x its original width on the sensor so you will have had to record a narrower line with 7 pixels and the same luminance values, so when it's printed it also is ~0.05" to match the FF print.

To look at it backwards may be easier. For a 1 mm wide black line on the 24x36 inch print, the FF line has to be 1/24 mm wide on the sensor, while on the crop the same line needs to be 1/38 mm wide and still have the sharpness to record the 0, 5, 25, 100, 25, 5, 0 values


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Sep 29, 2014 16:24 |  #110

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17183777 (external link)
The main difference I could see resulting would be that the print from the 70D would possibly look better, due to greater consistency of brightness, sharpness, and resolution of detail in the deep corners. That is where the full frame sensors tend to fail. You can use software to brighten up the corners, to help to reverse the vignetting that occurred during exposure. But there really is no way to recover the fine degree of resolution of detail in the deep corners, because it was never captured in the first place.

This is rarely a major issue in landscape shooting. The majority of landscape shots are likely taken stopped down at least a couple stops, where the effect of vignetting is generally reduced to well under 1EV. The actual loss of meaningful image data is going to be pretty small. (If the shot was taken at ISO 100, the corners may effectively be pushed to 160-200 when autocorrected.)

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17183777 (external link)
Use a full frame lens on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body and your corners/edges will be just as bright and sharp as the center of the image!

This implicitly makes a variety of assumptions about the ability of the lens/sensor combination's ability to deliver the same level of detail/noise/etc. as the full frame combo.

Putting those assumptions aside, it is worth pointing out that one could always use medium format glass on a full frame 35mm sensor if vignetting is really seen as of sufficient concern to warrant the use of oversized/overpriced (for the format in question) lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
346 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 29, 2014 16:36 |  #111

Wilt wrote in post #17184419 (external link)
The sensor needs set of three pixels to map two lines separated by a space (n lines) = ((2*n)+1) pixels.
So with a sensor that fully captures the lens resolution of 100 line-pairs per millimeter needs 201 pixels in that same millimeter. For 2400 line-pairs per FF frame height, we need 4801 pixels in the FF frame height; for 1490 line-pairs per APS-C frame height, we need 2981 pixels per APS-C frame height. To fully capture what the lens delivers (assuming 100 line-pairs/millimeter at focal plane).

Now we overlay the pixel array of the actual sensors, at 3648 pixels per frame height for each sensor that you are considering. But for this, we need to recall that magnification is applied, to convert 24mm to 16" print or to convert 14.9mm to 16" print. Let's ignore lens resolution at the moment, and pay attention only to pixel density...
  • FF, we apply 16.9x magnification to achieve 16" tall print, so we net 215.86 pixels per millimeter on print
  • In the case of APS-C, we apply 27.28x magnification to achieve 16" tall print, so we net 133.72 pixels per millimeter on print
Notice that for 2400 line-pairs per FF picture height we needed 4801 pixels to capture full resolution of the lens, but we have only 3648 pixels per frame height. And for 1490 line-pairs per APS-C frame height we needed 2981 pixels, and we have a surplus with 3648 pixels per frame height.

So, with the above combinations the FF image is sensor limited, and the APS-C image is lens limited!

Had you already run that out before, or did the example you started in the earlier post just happen to work out that way? Beautiful job explaining. So my post #101 is plainly wrong because the 5472x3648 full frame sensor cannot fully resolve the 100lp/mm lens, and somewhere around 125lp/mm would make full use of the aps/c sensor and approximately equal the full frame/lens combo's resolution in that print size?


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,312 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3475
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 29, 2014 16:39 |  #112

2ndviolinman wrote in post #17184499 (external link)
Had you already run that out before, or did the example you started in the earlier post just happen to work out that way? Beautiful job explaining.

I understood the principles, but I had not explicity run at the hypothetical lens resolution of 100 line-pairs/millimeter, nor the explicit pixel counts.


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
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,312 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3475
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 29, 2014 16:42 |  #113

bpark42 wrote in post #17184477 (external link)
Putting those assumptions aside, it is worth pointing out that one could always use medium format glass on a full frame 35mm sensor if vignetting is really seen as of sufficient concern to warrant the use of oversized/overpriced (for the format in question) lenses.

However, we have the inherently lower lines-pairs/millimeter performance of a lens designed to spread its image circle over the much larger area of medium format frame size!


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
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,090 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 179
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Sep 29, 2014 17:58 |  #114

MalVeauX wrote in post #17184040 (external link)
Hrm,

Anyone have any thoughts on the Pentax APS-C's with no AA-filters?

Very best,

Aren't those sensors "Sony" supplied, both 16 and 24 mpx ? ? ? They have a reputation for being very sharp though with no AA filter, the sensor vibrates to mimic an AA filter instead.............

@ Wilt - that's some heavy reading there, I'm not quite sure my brain has taken it all in at this time of night. Judging by the silence for the last hour I'm not alone :D Fascinating nonetheless...........


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Sep 29, 2014 18:40 |  #115

Wilt wrote in post #17184513 (external link)
However, we have the inherently lower lines-pairs/millimeter performance of a lens designed to spread its image circle over the much larger area of medium format frame size!

The same caveat should apply when discussing the use of full frame 35mm lenses on APS-C, no? A modern medium format sensor (e.g. the IQ260) is about 2.5 times the size of 35mm FF, which is in turn about 2.5 times the size of a Canon APS-C sensor.

Modern medium format lenses are being designed against sensors with a very high pixel density. Current gen 60 and 80mp sensors have a smaller pixel pitch than the 5D3. There are plenty of lenses designed for larger formats that would hold up just fine on a dense 35mm sensor. Go check out the MTF data for Rodenstock lenses for fun. They even include MTF data at 80lp/mm.

Having said all of that, I should clarify that I was not actually advocating this approach as a solution to the vignetting "problem" that I was attempting to address. I was just pointing out that the same logic and approach extends from 35mm FF to MF as from APS-C to FF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,961 posts
Gallery: 2066 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12562
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Sep 29, 2014 19:28 |  #116

h14nha wrote in post #17184655 (external link)
Aren't those sensors "Sony" supplied, both 16 and 24 mpx ? ? ? They have a reputation for being very sharp though with no AA filter, the sensor vibrates to mimic an AA filter instead.............

@ Wilt - that's some heavy reading there, I'm not quite sure my brain has taken it all in at this time of night. Judging by the silence for the last hour I'm not alone :D Fascinating nonetheless...........

I only brought it up because Pentax makes crops with no AA filters, and they're affordable, and weather sealed (this matters to me at least; especially if one is into time lapse, etc). I don't expect a lot of response on a Canon based forum about it, but figured it might be worth mentioning.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
Sep 29, 2014 19:35 |  #117

Charlie wrote in post #17181026 (external link)
IMO, that's a great comparison,

if your goal is to print 4x6" ;)

The more you blow it up, the softer it gets. By the time you hit 12x18, you'll start seeing differences, nevermind the really huge prints. Delivered my hugest hugest print ever recently, and I really wish I had taken the photo with a much larger format camera.

if your ok with smallish prints, then go for the smaller sensor.

There's no way the samples in that would show much (if any) diff in a 12x18 print. They are very close. In reality lens differences would probably show up more.

In many ways the 60d or 70d is in many respects a better landscape body than a 5d2. Why? Because of the lack of banding.

The full frame bodies do produce smoother looking tonal graduations though imho. Though I discount the 5d2 from this because of it's pattern noise that tends to show up--is it better than the 70d--maybe, but maybe not.

The full frame bodies are dramatically better at higher ISO though for tonal goodness.

That said, the 70d and 60d have movable screens. If the 6d and 5d3 had a movable screen, they'd be almost perfect. Same w/the D810. The D750 is half way there but it's not the same amazing screen design.


amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,602 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6565
Joined Sep 2007
     
Sep 29, 2014 20:01 |  #118

palad1n wrote in post #17184438 (external link)
SOOC is better on FF, but there is no real difference in degradation between FF and crop, at least not visible to human eye, stop exaggerating, please....I never had any issues shooting with all my camera bodies (1dsmkII, 400D, 600D, 70D, 5DmkII or 5dmkIII).. I don´t know any photographers, who had any issues with any of those cameras, just these with heavy GAS syndrome looking for best gear.

This "all glory to FF, anything less is basically crap and not worth of shooting" sounds ridiculous today, things that used to matter (FF superiority few years back, noise and lowlight performance) don't matter anymore, at least not that much.

I have simple rule about camera type usage: Am i going to fill the frame with my subject or not? am I going to need wider FOV advantage for wider shots or to blur the background little bit more? If yes, I use FF camera.
If i need more reach, especially during lowlight occasions, i pick my 70D for no additional cropping.

if you compare sensor size difference between medium or large format and fullframe format and aps-c, the difference there is even smaller.

http://gizmohound.com …ds/2009/03/sens​orsize.jpg (external link)

what's there to exaggerate? If you cant see differences in print, then that's on you. WHy bother with a larger format at all?

"things that used to matter (FF superiority few years back, noise and lowlight performance) don't matter anymore, at least not that much."

totally false. As APS-C improve, so do FF. They use the same damn tech! If anything, medium format is way last to get improvements, and the leap there is the most futile. The bodies are hardly competitive, while APS-C and FF are highly competitive.

Not sure why you linked a sensor size chart, any reason for that?


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,068 posts
Gallery: 552 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1651
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Sep 29, 2014 20:03 |  #119

Wilt wrote in post #17184419 (external link)
The sensor needs set of three pixels to map two lines separated by a space (n lines) = ((2*n)+1) pixels.
So with a sensor that fully captures the lens resolution of 100 line-pairs per millimeter needs 201 pixels in that same millimeter. For 2400 line-pairs per FF frame height, we need 4801 pixels in the FF frame height; for 1490 line-pairs per APS-C frame height, we need 2981 pixels per APS-C frame height. To fully capture what the lens delivers (assuming 100 line-pairs/millimeter at focal plane).

Wilt, although your numbers end up being correct, your definition of line pairs and thus spatial frequencies is incorrect. Your definition is almost defining one and a half cycles of the signal. I say almost defining one and a half cycles, as that is only true if you have the "one" cycle. The definition of a line pair, as a measure of spatial frequency require you to have TWO different coloured lines of the same width. Not as you have it two lines separated by a space. If you use black and white lines I try to think of, and explain, them as being printed on a mid grey background. Of course the two lines could be of any colour. They could for example be Cyan and Magenta. The biggest issue I have with your definition is that you are only adding the half cycle once at the "end". By doing so your calculation ends up requiring that you need one more sample than you actually need. Defining things correctly will also then agree with other explanations of the Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theorem. Where the sampling rate n is defined as being f×2 where f is the highest frequency signal to be sampled. So if we have a lens that can resolve 100 LP/mm we would need to record 2f or 200 samples per mm to correctly record the signal.

An additional issue with most current sensors is that they use a Bayer Colour Filter Array to encode the colour information. This requires that you bin two sensels together in both the X and Y directions to fully record the colour information. This would suggest that you would have to actually sample at 4f. If we just look at working in one direction initially, it doesn't particularly matter if we record RG or GR as a colour pair of sensels. This means that we can effectively overlap the samples as far as recording colour is concerned. So instead of needing a 4×4 grid of RG/GB or 16 sensels to produce a full colour 2×2 grid of pixels it should be possible to reconstruct the 2×2 colour data using a 3×3 grid of only 9 sensels. This is important if as I suggested above our two lines were magenta and cyan, which will require data from all three colour filters. So for a colour image using a bayer CFA and a lens that resolves 100 LP/mm you would actually want it to have 300 sensels per mm, to allow for the additional colour information. On a full frame sensor that would be 77760000 pixels (77.8 Mpix), or 10800×7200 pixels. Not quite so bad on a 22.3×14.9 mm (1.6) crop sensor, only 6690×4470 or 29904300 pixels (30 Mpix). Any sensor with less resolution would need to have an AA filter fitted when used with a lens of this resolution, if aliasing effects are to be avoided. As it is impossible to numerically remove aliasing effects when using a digital filter this is probably a good idea for a majority of camera users. those users would not want to be manually removing the colour moire effects resulting from aliasing.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,312 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3475
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 29, 2014 21:07 |  #120

bpark42 wrote in post #17184774 (external link)
The same caveat should apply when discussing the use of full frame 35mm lenses on APS-C, no? A modern medium format sensor (e.g. the IQ260) is about 2.5 times the size of 35mm FF, which is in turn about 2.5 times the size of a Canon APS-C sensor.

Modern medium format lenses are being designed against sensors with a very high pixel density. Current gen 60 and 80mp sensors have a smaller pixel pitch than the 5D3. There are plenty of lenses designed for larger formats that would hold up just fine on a dense 35mm sensor. Go check out the MTF data for Rodenstock lenses for fun. They even include MTF data at 80lp/mm.

Having said all of that, I should clarify that I was not actually advocating this approach as a solution to the vignetting "problem" that I was attempting to address. I was just pointing out that the same logic and approach extends from 35mm FF to MF as from APS-C to FF.

Precisely what SHOULD be true, but which is not. Why? Because FF lenses are intended to fit on two formats (FF, APS-C) but were designed for the larger one. Simply the inability to make FF digital sensors for so many years caused the FF SLR manufacturers to make digital cameras with the smaller APS-x sensors so they could sell digital cameras.

We have SOME lenses made for APS-C format which have some great resolution figures, but for Canon they really want folks to want to buy their FF designed lenses...APS-C is, for Canon, more of a 'for amateurs/snapshooters' format size, and they price EF-S lenses accordingly. And the resolution numbers, while great, are not that great as one might expect for lenses made for a smaller format.


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

15,000 views & 0 likes for this thread
Landscapers... Full Frame vs Crop
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 MarcusBullen
813 guests, 177 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.