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 20 Oct 2010 (Wednesday) 11:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Full frame has less reach with lenses compared to crop body cameras?

 
professorman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,661 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: VA
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:28 |  #1

If you take a 1.6 crop of a full frame 5D Mark ii, essentially converting to a crop body sensor, how many megapixels do you get?

Is it fair to say that crop body has more "reach" than a full frame if we look on it like this? Couldnt I just crop my full frame and I get a crop body camera? It might not have as many MegaPixels as the 7D for the same crop, but certainly competitive to most XXD bodies.

If this is so, do I really need a teleconverter to get more reach out of my 70-200, similar to what I used to have with a crop body or can I just crop the image and call it "crop body"?


MyGear | Feedback | facebook (external link)|My Site (external link)|Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,162 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5368
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:39 |  #2

If you crop the 5DII image down to replicate the 1.6 crop factor, you would end up with an image whose resolution is that of a 30D (21MPX -> 8.4 MPX), for example, but not that close to what you have available in the 50D or 7D.

However you are correct that your final viewed image would look like what the crop body would look like, just less resolution than a 40D, 50D, or 7D (or the rebel equivs).


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock
For Sale: Ladies Thirty-One Camera Sling

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HeaTransfer
Senior Member
554 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:40 |  #3

This has been discussed extensively, so searching will probably bring better (and possibly more informed) results.

Let's see though, assuming my math is right:
Canon 7D - 22.3 * 14.9 sensor, 18 megapickholes, 5,184 × 3,456
Canon 5DII - 36 * 24 sensor, 21 megapickholes, 5,616 × 3,744

5Dii cropped by 1.6: 3510 * 2340 = 8.2 megapickholes, which is equivalent to a 30D.

You can crop to the 1.6 in your 5Dii, but you'll have fewer megapickholes in a given crop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monst0r
Member
237 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:41 |  #4

It all has to do with pixel density, so yes your statement makes sense. No magic going on. There's a point of diminishing returns though, look at P&S's with 10MP sensors the size of a pinhead...


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Oct 20, 2010 11:42 |  #5

You've rekindled a never ending debate for some here. Expect lots of long winded answers and some arguing.

The way I see it, a 400mm lens is just as long on a FF body as on a crop, but the field of view is different on each camera because the crop camera is a crop of the overall FF image.

Your answer depends on how large you need to print. You can achieve the same FOV by cropping the FF image, but you will have fewer MP to work with. Without actually doing the math, I can tell you that you will have more pixels on target with the 15 MP of the 50D or the 18 MP of the 7D than you will by cropping to get the same FOV with the 21 MP of the 5DII.

So, web sized and smaller prints youre probably fine going under you assumption that cropping the FF image is the same. Larger prints you will certainly be better off by starting with a crop camera to begin with.


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
MT ­ Stringer
Goldmember
Avatar
4,650 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2006
Location: Channelview, Tx
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:05 |  #6

I had a similar decision to make yesterday. I was going to shoot my sister in laws grandson playing 8th grade football in a high school stadium. I didn't have a sideline pass so I had to shoot from the stands.

My list of available equipment for the game consisted of:
1D MKIII (1.3x sensor)
7D (1.6 sensor)
300 f/2.8
1.4x TC

I chose the 7D, 300 2.8 w 1.4x TC. This let me get closer to the players than it would have with the MK3.

And with the 7D high megapickles, I was able to crop-a-lot :-) and still have good images.
Hope this helps.
Mike


MaxPreps Profile (external link)

My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:18 |  #7

But you end up with roughly one f-stop more light, too.

So using a telephoto extender that costs you an f-stop gets you back at the same zoom, except now you have the higher quality sensor recording the picture.

Plus a nice excuse to buy more gear :D


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JLai81
Senior Member
736 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:18 |  #8

MNUplander wrote in post #11132263 (external link)
a 400mm lens is just as long on a FF body as on a crop, but the field of view is different on each camera because the crop camera is a crop of the overall FF image.

Yes.

MT Stringer wrote in post #11132370 (external link)
chose the 7D, 300 2.8 w 1.4x TC. This let me get closer to the players than it would have with the MK3.

No.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,627 posts
Gallery: 1651 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4532
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:30 |  #9

JLai81 wrote in post #11132447 (external link)
No.

From a FoV perspective, it does put one "closer" to the subject.

Short of physically moving yourself closer to your subject, all we have are telephoto lenses to help us achieve that task.

So my question for the focal length experts:

FF + 800mm lens vs. Crop + 500mm lens.

Both cameras at position A. Subject at position B.

Strictly from a FoV perspective... (assuming both photographers will actually "print" at 20x30), aside from subtleties in DoF and bokeh blur... what would be different with regards to the subject?


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:39 |  #10

HeaTransfer wrote in post #11132250 (external link)
This has been discussed extensively, so searching will probably bring better (and possibly more informed) results.

Let's see though, assuming my math is right:
Canon 7D - 22.3 * 14.9 sensor, 18 megapickholes, 5,184 × 3,456
Canon 5DII - 36 * 24 sensor, 21 megapickholes, 5,616 × 3,744

5Dii cropped by 1.6: 3510 * 2340 = 8.2 megapickholes, which is equivalent to a 30D.

You can crop to the 1.6 in your 5Dii, but you'll have fewer megapickholes in a given crop.

What about megapickles? ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:41 |  #11

jwcdds wrote in post #11132501 (external link)
So my question for the focal length experts:

FF + 800mm lens vs. Crop + 500mm lens.

Both cameras at position A. Subject at position B.

Strictly from a FoV perspective... (assuming both photographers will actually "print" at 20x30), aside from subtleties in DoF and bokeh blur... what would be different with regards to the subject?

The FOV would be the same and the perspective would be the same as you have not changed your position. Therefore, the subject (and its relationship to background/foreground elements) would look identical (aside from subtleties in DOF and bokeh blur, as that would be determined by the aperture, which you didn't mention)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,162 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5368
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:44 |  #12

60% more DOF on the crop, and besides that, depending on which FF and which crop you are talking about, differences might be:
- color/contrast
- sharpness (differences in AA filters)
- noise levels (may not even be an issue on the print)

For the most part, I would expect that depending on the scene, the DOF might be the first thing to notice, then maybe the ISO, again depending on which two bodies you are compared. Then again, it could very well be that the average person walking by would have to really scrutinize the pictures to see what was different.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock
For Sale: Ladies Thirty-One Camera Sling

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,627 posts
Gallery: 1651 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4532
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:56 |  #13

egordon99 wrote in post #11132557 (external link)
The FOV would be the same and the perspective would be the same as you have not changed your position. Therefore, the subject (and its relationship to background/foreground elements) would look identical (aside from subtleties in DOF and bokeh blur, as that would be determined by the aperture, which you didn't mention)

So going forward with this notion... we often say that if the photographer is stuck in one position, and the subject is far away, then the best way to remedy the situation is to get a lens with longer focal length, which in terms gives one more "reach," right? Or no?


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Oct 20, 2010 12:59 |  #14

jwcdds wrote in post #11132645 (external link)
So going forward with this notion... we often say that if the photographer is stuck in one position, and the subject is far away, then the best way to remedy the situation is to get a lens with longer focal length, which in terms gives one more "reach," right? Or no?

If you want to retain your position (and thus perspective), but have the subject fill up more of the frame, you obviously need a longer focal length (smaller FOV)

The alternative is to get closer to the subject, but (1)That alters the perspective and (2)isn't always feasible.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,627 posts
Gallery: 1651 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 4532
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Santa Monica, CA
     
Oct 20, 2010 13:04 |  #15

No, I'm wondering what's the correct definition of the term "reach" when used in photography. As oftentimes, the photographer doesn't have the luxury of repositioning one's self much closer physically. Which, in turn, is why anyone would want to grab a lens with longer focal length. And so my question is... is the word "reach" used incorrectly or would people prefer that "reach" not be used at all?


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Reviews | "The Mighty One" (external link) | "EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS Review" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

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

8,047 views & 0 likes for this thread
Full frame has less reach with lenses compared to crop body cameras?
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 Rooster7
978 guests, 304 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.