Crop vs full frame

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19413338
..... As MP has risen, so has DR, nose handling, etc.
....

I hope when you are doing your nose handling, your doing it from the privacy of your car.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19413343
Agreed.

Today it's all less important to have this frame of reference, as we don't have a generation of 35mm film shooters migrating to the most affordable DSLR, AKA: APS-C, and being shocked at how long their 24mm wide angle suddenly is. (yes, in those days 24mm was considered very wide on 35mm)

That's funny. I'm that guy exactly. Started out in digital with an APS-C camera but finally succumbed to FF in a search for a decent lens that would fit and work like a 24.

So FF is my format of choice now, but I've kept an APS-C body the whole time. Still use it regularly, mainly for the pixel density. But I also use it as part of a walking-around kit. Right now it's a 90D and I have zero problems with the sensor. Makes beautiful raw files.

ButchA61 wrote in post #19405672
...35mm will always be a 35mm, but when coupled with a DX (crop factor) style camera, it will be perceived as a 52.5mm lens. (1.5x crop factor).

Only by people who know and care about what it looks like on FF. For the most part, as a crop-only shooter, what I am used to seeing is simply how a particular FL is perceived. People going on and on about what the FF equivalent of something or other is are missing the point that a lot of people don't care about what their lens' FOV looks like on FF. It's not any kind of baseline standard for them.

I actually do occasionally think about how a particular lens would work on FF, but I'd be coming from the other direction: a 70-200 on FF would act like a 40-130 or whatever. Which would be really nice.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19413381
Only by people who know and care about what it looks like on FF. For the most part, as a crop-only shooter, what I am used to seeing is simply how a particular FL is perceived. People going on and on about what the FF equivalent of something or other is are missing the point that a lot of people don't care about what their lens' FOV looks like on FF. It's not any kind of baseline standard for them.

I actually do occasionally think about how a particular lens would work on FF, but I'd be coming from the other direction: a 70-200 on FF would act like a 40-130 or whatever. Which would be really nice.

Yep, it's better to learn how your lenses behave on your gear than doing math.

Jake,

I stand by my statement made two+ years ago (!) in this thread. "The illustration posted by Two Hot Shoes is a good representation of the relative sensor sizes for APS-C sensor vs. FF sensor vs. Medium Format sensor. But the illustration can be rather confusing for a neophyte in that it misleads them about 'how much of a scene might I capture?' with different sensor sizes."
IF that illustration ALSO stated,

"If you could put the identical FL on all three formats, and all three cameras were at the identical position when looking thru the camera, they would see narrower/wider areas of the scene because of the size of the sensor, and that concept is illustrated.",

your comment reader realization of "that you can swap them to change field of view" applies naturally to the photographer understanding within the context of a single format camera and the result of changing lenses.

OTOH when changing formats is not a natural relationship to grasp,

'what happens with same FL on all formats'is that

"...an object in the scene is IDENTICAL in size on every sensor because that FL does the same thing on all formats, it is only the amount of scene AROUND that object which varies because of the sensor (or film) size"

The illustration itself needs some accompanying explanation in order for the novice 'multi format consideration' person to understand fully the above.

I shoot both and like both. I tend to use FF for my landscape photography, and mix it up on other subjects depending on circumstances (travel, etc)

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19413381
I actually do occasionally think about how a particular lens would work on FF, but I'd be coming from the other direction: a 70-200 on FF would act like a 40-130 or whatever. Which would be really nice.

I can tell you that a 2.8 70-200 on a crop behaves like an f4 on full frame.

mcluckie wrote in post #19413417
I can tell you that a 2.8 70-200 on a crop behaves like an f4 on full frame.

Loosely speaking, and a bit backward. The DOF calculator provided online by Cambridge Color says 100mm FL on APS-C and an FF show that the 20/20 vision observer experiences DOF looking at an 8x10" print viewed from 25cm...

1. APS-C f/4 at 100m subject distance, the DOF is 57.28m, from 78.96 - 146.26m
   
2. FF f/2.8 at 100m subject distance, the DOF is 65.43m, from 77.04 - 142.46m
   

Wilt wrote in post #19413437
Loosely speaking, and a bit backward. The DOF calculator provided online by Cambridge Color says 100mm FL on APS-C and an FF show that the 20/20 vision observer experiences DOF looking at an 8x10" print viewed from 25cm...

1. APS-C f/4 at 100m subject distance, the DOF is 57.28m, from 78.96 - 146.26m
   
2. FF f/2.8 at 100m subject distance, the DOF is 65.43m, from 77.04 - 142.46m
   

The DOF in that circumstance would be 'the same' if the aperture were precisely 1.6 difference, rather than 1.414

The difference is the frame size forces more magnification to make an 8x12" print from both formats, making for a 'larger subject image' in the print from APS-C, which makes for less DOF at the same aperture and FL.

Only 2 decimal places?

Suggestion: stop calculating.

No calculating by me...I merely echoed the the program defaults. That is less thinking than rounding 3 different figures for each format.

Wilt wrote in post #19413394
Jake,

I stand by my statement made two+ years ago (!) ....

I'm sure you do.

I'm not debating with you, I'm just offering what I've seen on these forums and others for the past 19 years (next year it will be 20 YEARS!!!) in hundreds of posts about the "X-Factor" and I've never seen a post that shares the same issue or lack of comprehension by anyone that you are talking about here. That's what I've seen. Not going to debate what you've seen.

Jake,
No debate from me. I will merely state that I have seen lots of 'the FL changes' as 'understanding' (or lack of same) in the FL calculation, to know the subject is still misunderstood by some (and not a rarity).

Wilt wrote in post #19413450
Jake,
No debate from me. I will merely state that I have seen lots of 'the FL changes' as 'understanding' (or lack of same) in the FL calculation, to know the subject is still misunderstood by some (and not a rarity).

Semantics.
One buys a Canon camera and actually reads the user manual.
Canon user manual and publications, eg Canon EF Lens Work use the following language:

35mm Format Focal Length Equivalents
Focal length equivalent to xxx in 35mm format
Focal length conversion factor

So if the buyer reads and understands, but uses 'FL Changes', that is not evidence they misunderstand, just as it is not evidence they understand.
They may have found the issue easy to understand but have just been imprecise in posting.
After all, if they used 'Focal length conversion factor' there's no way they would not have other posters pointing out that is incorrect.
'35mm equivalent' usually attracts correction comments.

"It will look like a photo taken with" is how I explain to newbies with additional information "it's not as simple as that, but for now, that's all you need to know".
Recently when I gave that advice, it was for a friend with a Canon 1.6 cropper with 55-250 lens and was considering an R6 with 100-400.
They thought the 400 would 'get them closer' to Birds and I fully understood what 'get them closer' meant. Friend fully understood it would not 'get them closer'.

If they do get around to reading a manual, Canon language will not contradict my explanation. That will happen when they encounter some 'helpfull' person who tells them "there is no conversion factor".......

Probably to me, the most significant difference of fullframe is the much larger size of the viewfinder compared to APS-C. I'm so connected to my 600D for almost a decade, and I've been at a few occasions borrow a 60D and 7D, but when I look through the 5D, it really feels that I can capture so much more, although this feature seems to matter most on the wider angles.

In a very brief summary of how I use the two and not getting into all the techno-mumbo-jumbo, if the subject material fills the frame, then I usually use FF for greater control of DOF, bokeh, and use of more of my lenses, etc. If the subject material doesn't, then I will go with APS-C, and a more restrictive set of lenses I can use.

The only exception for this is if I am doing macros, then I may give my APS-C the nod over my FF.

Also I know that a same generation APS-C vs FF may sometimes exhibit a bit more noise, and I am prepared for that during post with good tools.