EF vs. EF-S and crop

This has probably already been entertained on this forum and I haven't done a super-extensive search so I apologize in advance.
I'm shooting with a Canon 60d, thus I have an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop), and 18-135 EF-S lense.
My question: If I shoot a photo at 135mm with my EF-S lens and the same photo with, for example, the 135L EF lense, will the second photo "look" like I took it with a 216mm lense becasue of the 1.6x crop?

Caution. The answer may result in follow-on questions!

Thanks again.
I appreciate the help.
Pete

barring depth of field, both at 135 would give you the same field of view. The 135 on the 18-135 does not take into account the 1.6x crop of your camera body. So 135 on the 18-135 is the same as 135 on the 135L

right... just remember.. the 1.6 is on the body.. thus no matter what you put on it.. it is essentially 1.6 x your focus distance.

On your camera EF-S and EF lenses perform the same so you will notice no difference between them in terms of the focal length or field of view. The big difference is when you compare them to a full frame camera, thats where the crop factor applies.

135mm is 135mm, so the field of view will be the same with either lens, and if you shoot the same f-stop, the depth of field will be too.

Focal length is an inherent property of a lens design, and is completely independent of the body it's mounted on.

As all above has stated. Where you see the difference is full frame vs crop, the 135mm is going to be 135 where as on the crop it's longer, from being cropped 1.6x. That's why you will see some people , taking shots a birds, etc, that they like the "reach" of a crop camera.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like I was making it more difficult than I needed to.
Pete

mark2009 wrote in post #16852570
As all above has stated. Where you see the difference is full frame vs crop, the 135mm is going to be 135 where as on the crop it's longer, from being cropped 1.6x. That's why you will see some people , taking shots a birds, etc, that they like the "reach" of a crop camera.

The extra reach on a crop camera doesn't come from the crop factor. If that is all it was, then you could simply take the shot with a FF camera, crop it to the same framing in post and have the identical image.

The extra reach comes from pixel density, with crop cameras having much greater density than contemporary FF bodies. So, when you are shooting birds (where you frequently need to crop anyway, so crop factor just doesn't come into it) the crop body will put a lot more pixels on target, giving you better resolution and the capability of a larger final image (in pixel terms).

en4h wrote in post #16852648
Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like I was making it more difficult than I needed to.
Pete

You'll go through this a lot as you progress. Don't sweat it.

kfreels wrote in post #16852732
You'll go through this a lot as you progress. Don't sweat it.

For real! I don't know how many times I read about aperture and depth of field before I finally figured it out. And that came from people asking questions until I finally figured it out!

I still dont get it.. so I just Shoot Away!!!! HAH...

sandpiper wrote in post #16852656
The extra reach on a crop camera doesn't come from the crop factor. If that is all it was, then you could simply take the shot with a FF camera, crop it to the same framing in post and have the identical image.

The extra reach comes from pixel density, with crop cameras having much greater density than contemporary FF bodies. So, when you are shooting birds (where you frequently need to crop anyway, so crop factor just doesn't come into it) the crop body will put a lot more pixels on target, giving you better resolution and the capability of a larger final image (in pixel terms).

The difference must be incredibly small. The FF sensor is 1.6 times larger to start with, so it needs to be blown up (N/1.6) times less in order to get to the same size as a shot from a crop body. Less enlargement==Better results. That pretty much negates any advantage in reach a crop camera may appear to have. The primary advantages to crop cameras are: less expensive cameras, and less expensive lenses.

If smaller sensors are better at wildlife photography, why don't the pros use the SX50HS? That should be about 7 times better than a 1Dx.

sandpiper wrote in post #16852656
The extra reach comes from pixel density, with crop cameras having much greater density than contemporary FF bodies. So, when you are shooting birds (where you frequently need to crop anyway, so crop factor just doesn't come into it) the crop body will put a lot more pixels on target, giving you better resolution and the capability of a larger final image (in pixel terms).

Pardon this noob question, but in terms of pixel density in the case of your birding example above, how much much importance does megapixels factor into the final image? For instance, 12mp sensor vs. 20mp. I ask because I've got a 1d Mk II n on the way and it's "only" got an 8.2mp sensor, yet the pics I've seen this body produce are fantastic. There is a crop factor involved, albeit smaller than the ef-s compatible bodies.
Thanks

wyntastr wrote in post #16853289
Pardon this noob question, but in terms of pixel density in the case of your birding example above, how much much importance does megapixels factor into the final image? For instance, 12mp sensor vs. 20mp. I ask because I've got a 1d Mk II n on the way and it's "only" got an 8.2mp sensor, yet the pics I've seen this body produce are fantastic. There is a crop factor involved, albeit smaller than the ef-s compatible bodies.
Thanks

The quality and size of the pixels also matter. However, you'll find that if you had a newer body with more pixels in the same size sensor, you would often be able to crop harder and still get good images.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16853225
The difference must be incredibly small. The FF sensor is 1.6 times larger to start with, so it needs to be blown up (N/1.6) times less in order to get to the same size as a shot from a crop body. Less enlargement==Better results. That pretty much negates any advantage in reach a crop camera may appear to have. The primary advantages to crop cameras are: less expensive cameras, and less expensive lenses.

If smaller sensors are better at wildlife photography, why don't the pros use the SX50HS? That should be about 7 times better than a 1Dx.

They are talking about pixel density. Take the 7D or instance. Suppose I take a picture of a bird with a 200mm lens and I have an image that is 5184 pixels wide x3456 high and I have a bird that takes up 65% of the frame. On a full frame camera with the same lens, to get an image where that bird takes up the same amount of space in the frame, I would have to crop. To crop the image and still have an image that is 5184 x 3456, I would need an image that was (5184*1.6) x (3456*1.6) which means I need to start with an image that is 8294 x 5530 (rounded). This is 45.86 megapixels. At the moment there is no 45MP canon full frame camera out there. If there were, images of that size would not allow for framerates that are desired for such work.

Sure, you could do as you say with even smaller sensors, but thecamera you are talking about is only 12MP. So you have less pixels to work with, not more. The difference is the difference between a 13 inch wide and 17 inch wide image at 300ppi.

Plus you lose the glass options which is a huge difference. And your pixels are even tighter together which reduces ISO and increases noise - which we already know is one thing that is inferior when going from a crop camera to a full frame camera. It's simply a trade-off. You lose a stop of ISO to have the additional pixels on target.

Of course you can get there another way as well. A true-blue paid wildlife photographer will often have something like the 1DX and then make up for the reach difference by having longer lenses. But a Canon 500mm f4 is over $10,000 while on a 7D that same reach can be had with a $1500 300mm f4. So for $2500 on the 7D and $16,000 with the 1DX you can land the same number of pixels on the same subject framing.

Of course there are other benefits to the 1DX. I'm not claiming that the7D is superior or even the right choice for everyone for wildlife. But what I am saying is that it is a sensible choice for a good many people.