Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-05-2014, 08:24 AM   #46
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,667
QuoteOriginally posted by wizzster Quote
I was only trying to say that IMHO, camera and lens manufacturers are misleading people by saying e.g. 50mm lens is euivalent to a 75 mm lens. Tha's all I was trying to say. I was wondering if I am the only bothered by this.
I am severely bothered by manufacturers who advertise equivalent focal lengths but never convert to equivalent aperture. If you haven't watched this video yet, I highly recommend it. It speaks exactly to your point.


11-05-2014, 09:16 AM   #47
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,089
Depth of Field is the distance between the nearest and furthest point in acceptable focus.
It's not an aperture setting, it's a distance.
Exposure is the combination of ISO, Aperture and shutter speed. It is common across all formats. ƒ2.8 represents the same thing on all formats, FF, APS_c ? It doesn't matter.

This video causes more confusion than it clears up, in that the primary function of Aperture is exposure. The DoF context is secondary.. and as shown in the film pretty useless. When doing product settings you often want to know, "how much DoF do I need to have my whole subject in focus?" Theoretically if you have both an APS-c and FF camera with equivalent lenses, you could calculate the DoF using a DoF table for each lens and work out which lens would give you sufficient DoF to accomplish what you want. I fail to see what advantage it would be to work that out for both systems, but you could do it. Or , you could take an image, if the DoF isn't enough, stop down. Why you would be shooting with two different formats is beyond me? As a photographer you should know from experience which format you want to use for which shoot. Using DoF calculations would be a waste of time IMHO.

You'll notice that in the video, the companies, except for one, who list the Aperture as function of DoF sell Full frames. It's marketing ploy, and hardly of any practical use at all. When at school, shooting 8x10 , 645 and APS-c I can't remember even once, anyone using this ridiculous methodology. It's the stuff everyone should know after 10 minutes with a camera system, whatever format that might be.

Last edited by normhead; 11-05-2014 at 10:11 AM.
11-05-2014, 09:20 AM   #48
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: boston
Posts: 14
Original Poster
Hi,

Thanks for the link. Very interesting, especially the ISO part.
11-05-2014, 09:22 AM   #49
Senior Member
Undot's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 176
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
If you mount a FF lens on an APS-C body, every time you click the shutter you are murdering photons by sending them screaming into the side of the mirror box instead of letting them meet their destiny by striking your sensor or film.
I believe we finally found the source of dark matter!
The next Nobel prize will go to PentaxForums for sure.


So it does seem rather philosophical after all. In the end you pick the tool for the results you want.
At first crop factor was declared to make the digital move easier for analog users. Whereas someone purely digital like me sees it more like extra focal length for less money. Not because manufacturers advertise it as such, but because I don't have any comparison to the old age and interpret it that way.

11-05-2014, 09:31 AM   #50
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,263
QuoteOriginally posted by wizzster Quote
When camera companies cite the equivalence of a camera with a small sensor as being euivalent to a 35 mm film camera with a longer focal length they are giving the impression that this is a good thing. It is not. You are NOT gaining resolution. You are simply losing field-of-view.
So the 35mm equvalent really refers to the field of view and not the resolution. For example, the K-3 has an "APS-C' sized sensor which is 23.5 x 15.6 mm. The 35mm film camera is 24 x 36 mm. This is a crop factor of 1.5. It is NOT the equivalent of a 1.5x increase in resolution. It is a 1.5x DECREASE in field-of-view. Take this to an extreme. Suppose a camera has a sensor that is 2.4 mm x 3.6 mm. Would this be the same as having a 10X longer focal length ? I don't think so !

Anyway, sorry for the rant. This is a great forum.
you are right, but pro-apsc user will continue to say they get more "reach", which is not true.

The amount of "compression feel" you get on a pic from a 35mm lens on APSC is NOT equal to the one using the 50mm lens on FF.
11-05-2014, 10:34 AM   #51
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,089
Lord help us....
11-05-2014, 11:23 AM   #52
Veteran Member
flaviopetrone's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Reggio Emilia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,147
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Lord help us....
In the end you gave up?
11-05-2014, 12:06 PM - 1 Like   #53
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,089
They wore me down... chewed me up and spit me out...

11-05-2014, 03:22 PM   #54
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,539
The original post was about formats and not the ability to crop the hell out of an image based on pixel density. The part of the post which mentions "you are not getting more resolution" obviously was not taking into account the greater pixel density of many smaller formats which does translate to greater resolution depending upon the quality of system components. But in the context of the original post I believe the OP meant to say "magnification": magnification of the format is only supplied by the value of the crop factor at output and mainly due to the standardisation of our viewing systems.


Cropping 1:1 has nothing to do with the format per se and I believe that it was not the intention of the OP to speak to that subject. If you're going to crop a lot then APS-C v FF is moot. In that case pixel density, the quality of the high ISO noise response, lens quality (CA and diffraction) issues become the most important considerations.

IOW Format means almost nothing in the context of extreme cropping and pixel density is paramount.
11-05-2014, 03:35 PM   #55
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,114
Amazing!!!

A new member posts a bait-type message in the welcome area and ignites 50+ responses. What a great howdy doody! Did we cover all the bases on this thread yet (crop factor, equivalence, FF, pixel density...)?


Steve
11-05-2014, 03:39 PM - 1 Like   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,836
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
A new member posts a bait-type message in the welcome area and ignites 50+ responses. What a great howdy doody! Did we cover all the bases on this thread yet (crop factor, equivalence, FF, pixel density...)?


Steve
All the sheep I know consider the "crop factor" to be how green the grass is on the field across the street.
11-05-2014, 03:49 PM - 1 Like   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,467
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
All the sheep I know consider the "crop factor" to be how green the grass is on the field across the street.
I thought "crop factor" was how bad the sheep's tails hurt after the procedure.
11-05-2014, 03:51 PM   #58
Veteran Member
flaviopetrone's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Reggio Emilia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,147
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I thought "crop factor" was how bad the sheep's tails hurt after the procedure.
I think that you're wrong.

"Crop factor" is a way in which women comb their hair.


11-05-2014, 04:21 PM - 1 Like   #59
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,639
QuoteOriginally posted by LFLee Quote
The amount of "compression feel" you get on a pic from a 35mm lens on APSC is NOT equal to the one using the 50mm lens on FF.

Oh, no ....
11-05-2014, 04:25 PM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,836
Perhaps we should all cut the crop and go back to making photos...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, camera, crop, crop factor, discussion, dslr, dslr "crop factor, factor, figure, film, fov, frame, half, hope, image, length, lens, mm, people, quality, resolution, results, sensor, theory, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
a "crop" factor question bull drinkwater Pentax Medium Format 11 05-16-2014 04:29 AM
Adjustable crop factor? DominicVII Photographic Technique 8 11-25-2013 03:53 PM
Mis-Understanding "Crop-Factor" Gerard_Dirks Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 10-10-2013 11:11 AM
Does the "crop factor" just crop? jboyde Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 01-03-2010 08:18 AM
Crop Factor question... 35mm, DA and dslr mediaslinky Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-06-2007 11:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:47 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top