Do people get full frame just to cut out the 1.6 factor?

[mrca]

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.

 

[chuasam]

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.

 

[Tailgunner]

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.

 

[petrochemist]

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

 

[mrca]

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.

 

[ac12]

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.

 

[mrca]

Yes, the areas not used go a translucent light red. With all the megapixels, no problem loosing some besides they would probably be cropped out in post anyway. With the record button near the shutter button programmed to make the change, it is easy to change format without even taking the eye from the viewfinder.