Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Tatiana_, Jun 2, 2018.
I went to full frame because I wanted the better low light performance (bigger pixels) but I've recently switched back to APS-C (Fuji XT2) now that low light performance gap between the latest APS-C and Full Frame sensors are getting very close. I never paid attention to the crop factor...except that full frame ultra wide angle glass is really expensive haha.
You mean Panasonic? DJI, black magic also have micro 43
Too many brands and my head got mixed up.
Fixed the post. Thanks for catching my goof.
Banana, you mistake was joining a "camera" club. Sounds like gear collectors not photographers. I'll bet they know every expert review on every piece of gear, but have any photos to show, not so much. I look to associate with "photography" clubs that focus on the image, not the gear.
I flip to manual focus/manual exposure. Shoot a panoramic and stitch it in Lightroom.
Sure it isn't 100% ideal but for the number of times I actually need to do a wide angle, it is an acceptable compromise.
Dhusam, My circular fisheye isn't round on a crop d500. Hence why it I'm selling that body. I can crop down to 21 mp from my FF 46 mp in the 850 if need be. When digital slr's hit the market big time in the early 2000's initially there were no really wide lenses, there are now. I believe Nikon has a crop 10-20? I don't know if they have pro ultra wide glass for wide angle crop. Perhaps because not much demand? And full frame ultra wide glass is expensive for... FF users too. But I am rarely below 24 mm since, like McNally, I feel there isn' a landscape shot I can't improve if I put a person in it. Just kiddin. I never needed the 14-35 w/a and use a 16-35 with vr that is lighter, and works in dark museums and churches where no tripod is allowed.
Reminds me. The one time I visited the natural history museum in London, like a fool I ditched my D810 + 24-70/2.8 kit and shot with a Lumix GM1 with the 12-32.
To this day I’m not sure if I made the right choice.
I shoot with both DX and FX bodies and for different reasons. The FX is all about low light performance and resolution. My D500 is purely about speed. Thats it in a nut shell.
AFAIK only Canon DSLRs have a 1.6 crop factor.
Nikon, Sony, Pentax... are all 1.5 crop factor for their APSC much easier to do the maths with.
My Sigma has a 1.7 crop, but I know they have other crops too.
MFT have a 2 fold crop & an aspect change...
Working with multiple formats I use crop factors more than most, but I hardly ever think about them in the field.
I have a few lenses that could (with appropriate adapters) be used on my MFT, Sigma, APSC, FF & 5x4 systems - results from each would be different. Perhaps I'll give it a go sometime, but I might wait till I have a interchangeable lens medium format to add to the collection
Tailgunner, my d850 has 46 mp resolution and is 9 fps instead of 10 of the d500. I also work in multiple formats... but in the same camera with the same lenses. I can change from 3:2 to 4:5 to 1:1 at the push of the reprogrammed record button depending on the shot. It reduces the 46 mp ff to 36 for 4:5 and 30 for 1:1. It saves cropping in post and saving pixels destined to be thrown out anyway plus I am composing in the viewfinder seeing that format.
You can SEE the 4:5 and 1:1 format outline on your screen?
That is way cool, and much better than guessing.
Separate names with a comma.