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 EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 May 2009 (Tuesday) 11:53
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Conflicting info on "crop factor", zoom, etc.

 
rdenney
Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney
2,400 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2003
     
May 06, 2009 14:24 |  #76

HeathNC wrote in post #7865232 (external link)
A guy Ive been debating this with, did a test himself, and swears that there is indeed "magnification, exactly equal to 1.5x from a full framed Nikon camera to a DX framed Nikon.

Still, no one "absolute" answer. Everyone knows the answer, and they are still conflicting. At least it's been entertaining.

It takes a lens to magnify a subject a given distance away. Do you add a lens to your 50mm when you move it from an APS-C camera to a 24x36 camera? No. Thus, there is no difference in magnification at the sensor. A distant tree that is 1/4" tall on a 24x36 sensor will still be 1/4" tall on a 15x23 sensor.

But, you may enlarge the print from the smaller sensor more to make the same print size as with the larger sensor. That's where the extra magnification comes in, but you are using the "lens" of Photoshop (and it would be a real lens with film--the lens in the enlarger).

Rick "recommending a session with a photographer who owns a view camera" Denney


The List

  
  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
43,050 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2999
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 06, 2009 14:27 |  #77

" I don't think I will buy any Canon lenses because some day I hope to upgrade to a Hasselblad or Mamiya with a digital back, and I don't want to have to sell and rebuy my lenses."


:rolleyes:


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
rdenney
Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney
2,400 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2003
     
May 06, 2009 14:34 |  #78

MikeES wrote in post #7868034 (external link)
This assumes that all pixels were created equal. I was under the impression that larger pixels create better pictures...is that way off base?

As long as you have enough pixels to support your intended print size, larger pixels are better. But you'll end up with larger pixels in any cases, because either you (using your software) or your printer software will combine them into pixels optimal for the printer.

If you exceed a print size supported by your number of pixels, you'll have to upsample with a resulting loss in quality. But you'll also be enlarging every other fault in your system, too.

None of this has much to do with format, though. A larger format has more information in it for the same field of view, no matter how we divide that information up into pixels. Bigger pixels will have more information in and will thus represent the color in that pixel more accurately.

Rick "whose 5D will support about a 13x19" print at the full capability of both sensor and printer" Denney


The List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rdenney
Rick "who is not suited for any one title" Denney
2,400 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2003
     
May 06, 2009 14:51 |  #79

BenJohnson wrote in post #7869046 (external link)
Would any EF lenses have a big enough image circle to handle a larger sensor than FF/35mm?

With the MP race hitting its max, isn't the next step a larger sensor? That's really the only way to get more resolution, correct?

The MAJOR downside I can see, is that none of the current lenses would work, even if the mount was physically the same.

Then we can have a <1 "enlargement factor" :D

The only lenses likely to have a usably larger image circle are the TS-E lenses. The new 17 and 24-II TS-E lenses have a 65mm image circle, which would cover the currently available medium-format digital sensors.

Yes, the next step is a larger sensor. That will not only allow more image quality from the sensor, but will also be less demanding of lens sharpness (in return for requiring a greater image circle).

Most large-format photographers are still using film and then scanning the film at high resolution. 4x5 film scanned by an inexpensive flatbed scanner such as the Epson V-750 will, and the full capability of the scanner (which is less than what Epson claims), produce about 80 megapixels of good information. Make that over 300 megapixels if they use a high-end scanner. Photographers who use 8x10 film end up with 320 megapixels from that $600 scanner. They get image quality utterly beyond the wildest conception of small-format users.

I recently bought a 20x40" print from a gallery, and looking at it has made me realize that I will never get that kind of resolution and tonality from a small camera, no matter how much I spend. That's why I'm currently expanding my large-format equipment list.

By the way, the mount for those lenses would have to change, too. The registration distance of the EF mount is too close to the sensor to allow a reflex mirror for a format larger than 24x36. Study a Pentax 6x7 and you'll see why. But there are already good lenses for medium-format cameras available, and at a price much cheaper than high-end lenses for small format.

" I don't think I will buy any Canon lenses because some day I hope to upgrade to a Hasselblad or Mamiya with a digital back, and I don't want to have to sell and rebuy my lenses."

I can achieve the same field of view on 6x9 using my view camera and a 47mm Super Angulon, compared with a 24mm TS-E on full frame (the 47 is actually a bit wider). And it's coverage and therefore allowable movements will blow away the 24. I paid about $600 for a Sinar F view camera with bag bellows, compendium shade, standard bellows, and half a dozen lens boards, plus $200 for the 6x9 back and $300 for the lens (all used, of course). That's about the same price as the 24 TS-E Mark I lens alone. That combination, using my Nikon scanner (which, used, cost less than my 10D camera body did new), will produce a 117-megapixel image.

Rick "format is king" Denney


The List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,408 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 762
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 06, 2009 16:51 |  #80

Willie wrote in post #7869112 (external link)
I wonder if crop factor cropped (pun intended) up back then?

The answer to that is "no."


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
"approx 8mm"
Avatar
9,269 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 374
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
May 06, 2009 17:44 |  #81

The Canon IX had a crop factor of 1.44 in APS-C

The "kit" 22-55mm or 24-85mm lenses would be equivalent to 31.68-79.2mm and 34.56-122.4mm respectively.

EDIT: I think the APS-H option had a 1.25 crop factor.

The terms APS-H and APS-C very originally invented by Kodak to refer to the “High-definition” and “Classic” formats that are used by the Advanced Photo System. APS-H refer to a negative sized 30.2 x 16.7 mm (equal to 1.25x crop, apect ratio 16:9), and APS-C to refer to a negative sized 25.1 x 16.7 mm (equal to 1.44x crop, aspect ratio 3:2)


Mike Sowsun / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 100-400 II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
"approx 8mm"
Avatar
9,269 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 374
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
May 06, 2009 18:12 |  #82

More useless information:

The Pentax 110 SLR used 110 film (about 17mm x 13mm) and had a 2 to 1 crop factor like the Olympus 4/3 system. (17.3mm x 13mm)


IMAGE: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/collection/pentax110a.jpg

Mike Sowsun / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 100-400 II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slkfis
Member
85 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: nc
     
May 06, 2009 19:16 as a reply to  @ post 7868889 |  #83

MK1Racer,

What I was saying was that I pretended the original shot was FF, so that if I cropped to get the 1.6 shot the result should be the same?.

Would that not simulate the actual program?

thxs for replying

slkfis AKA Bob

:)


Canon 40D
28-135 KIt --- 70-200mm IS 2.8
As I learn to add, I will!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
May 07, 2009 11:00 |  #84

Rick,

"larger pixels are better".

Now we all know thats not what you meant to say, because a pixel is a pixel. It has no "size" worth talking about until its seen at a zillion percent on the monitor. But I am interested in what the phrase might be partially uncovering.

I've read others on the subject of "better" and "more intelligent" pixels. Again, it's the wrong explanation, but may have a nugget or two of something buried beneath?


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDWD10
Goldmember
Avatar
1,676 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: College Station, TX
     
May 07, 2009 11:01 |  #85

SkipD wrote in post #7863106 (external link)
That is totally wrong. All lenses are marked for their actual focal length and NOT some "equivalent" value.

An EF-S 18-55mm lens is truly an 18-55mm lens.

Putting a lens on two different format cameras does absolutely nothing to the focal length of the lens.

I think you may have misunderstood my statement so allow me to clarify:

Regardless of whether or not they can be used on a 35mm sensor (EF vs. EF-S), Canon scales their lenses in 35mm equivalent terms. Canon doesn't scale the 18-55mm kit as a 28-90mm lens even though it can only be used on a 1.6x crop that would yield such an equivalent focal length.

The point of my statement was that (without modification and extreme vignetting), the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens will never "truly" be an 18-55mm lens because it is scaled in 35mm terms yet cannot be used on a 35mm camera. Let's say Canon made an 18-55mm EF lens. That would truly be an 18-55mm lens in 35mm terms. That's simple to understand. :rolleyes:


30D | X-Pro1 | X10 | Q
EF-S 18-55mm IS | XF 35mm f/1.4 R | Q 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cwphoto
Go ahead, make my day
Avatar
2,158 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 74
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Kellyville, Baulkham Hills, Cumberland, NSW, Australia
     
May 07, 2009 11:12 |  #86

DDWD10 wrote in post #7875789 (external link)
I think you may have misunderstood my statement so allow me to clarify:

Regardless of whether or not they can be used on a 35mm sensor (EF vs. EF-S), Canon scales their lenses in 35mm equivalent terms. Canon doesn't scale the 18-55mm kit as a 28-90mm lens even though it can only be used on a 1.6x crop that would yield such an equivalent focal length.

The point of my statement was that (without modification and extreme vignetting), the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens will never "truly" be an 18-55mm lens because it is scaled in 35mm terms yet cannot be used on a 35mm camera. Let's say Canon made an 18-55mm EF lens. That would truly be an 18-55mm lens in 35mm terms. That's simple to understand. :rolleyes:

Rubbish - and terrible to understand.

That is like saying an EF 50mm lens is not "true" because it cannot be used on medium format cameras.

Focal length is focal length is focal length. There is no such think as equivalent focal lengths or 'true' focal lengths.


EOS-1D X Mark II| EOS 5D Mark IV | EOS 80D | EOS-1V HS
L: 14/2.8 II | 17/4 | 24/1.4 II | 24/3.5 II | 35/1.4 II | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 100/2.8 Macro IS | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 300/2.8 IS II | 400/2.8 IS II | 500/4 IS II | 600/4 IS II | 8-15/4 Fisheye | 11-24/4 | 16-35/2.8 III | 24-70/2.8 II | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II | 200-400/4 IS 1.4x
Sundry: 600EX II-RT | 1.4x III | 2x III | 12 II | 25 II | OC-E4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,050 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2999
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 07, 2009 11:29 |  #87

Lowner wrote in post #7875785 (external link)
Rick,

"larger pixels are better".

Now we all know thats not what you meant to say, because a pixel is a pixel. It has no "size" worth talking about until its seen at a zillion percent on the monitor. But I am interested in what the phrase might be partially uncovering.

I've read others on the subject of "better" and "more intelligent" pixels. Again, it's the wrong explanation, but may have a nugget or two of something buried beneath?

Larger pixels ARE better! If you have a 20MP APS-C vs FF 20MP vs medium format 20MP, the pixel count (being identical) means that each pixel size is larger with the larger format...ASP-C < FF < MedFmt so the accumulation of photons is better with the larger pixel thereby leading to better signal:noise in the larger pixels.


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
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 159
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
May 07, 2009 11:48 |  #88

DDWD10 wrote in post #7875789 (external link)
I think you may have misunderstood my statement so allow me to clarify:

Regardless of whether or not they can be used on a 35mm sensor (EF vs. EF-S), Canon scales their lenses in 35mm equivalent terms. Canon doesn't scale the 18-55mm kit as a 28-90mm lens even though it can only be used on a 1.6x crop that would yield such an equivalent focal length.

The point of my statement was that (without modification and extreme vignetting), the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens will never "truly" be an 18-55mm lens because it is scaled in 35mm terms yet cannot be used on a 35mm camera. Let's say Canon made an 18-55mm EF lens. That would truly be an 18-55mm lens in 35mm terms. That's simple to understand. :rolleyes:

Focal length is focal length, regardless of the camera a lens fits on (or is permanently attached to). An EF-S 18-55mm lens is ALWAYS and TRULY a 18-55mm lens. This is an absolute fact and there is no "alternative fact".

One can refer to equivalent focal lengths on different format cameras, but the differences in camera formats DOES NOT CHANGE focal lengths of lenses.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DDWD10
Goldmember
Avatar
1,676 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: College Station, TX
     
May 07, 2009 11:56 |  #89

I think I should have used the term "Field-of-view" instead of focal length. You are correct that an 18-55mm lens is an 18-55mm lens, just as the lens on my PowerShot is a 5.8-17.4mm lens. What I'm trying to say is that one must take into account the crop factor limitation of an EF-S lens. An 18-55mm EF lens will have the potential to provide a wider field of view than an 18-55mm EF-S lens simply because you can use it on a body with a 35mm sensor.


30D | X-Pro1 | X10 | Q
EF-S 18-55mm IS | XF 35mm f/1.4 R | Q 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Willie
Senior Member
959 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2004
     
May 07, 2009 12:01 |  #90

DDWD10 wrote in post #7875789 (external link)
I think you may have misunderstood my statement so allow me to clarify:

Regardless of whether or not they can be used on a 35mm sensor (EF vs. EF-S), Canon scales their lenses in 35mm equivalent terms. Canon doesn't scale the 18-55mm kit as a 28-90mm lens even though it can only be used on a 1.6x crop that would yield such an equivalent focal length.

The point of my statement was that (without modification and extreme vignetting), the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens will never "truly" be an 18-55mm lens because it is scaled in 35mm terms yet cannot be used on a 35mm camera. Let's say Canon made an 18-55mm EF lens. That would truly be an 18-55mm lens in 35mm terms. That's simple to understand. :rolleyes:

Still wrong. The 18-55 EF-S and hypothetical 18-55 EF would act the same on my crop camera. The wide angle and tele FOV would be the same with both lenses.




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

17,025 views & 0 likes for this thread
Conflicting info on "crop factor", zoom, etc.
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 dummy12334
894 guests, 284 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.