i just realized how much i hate this 1.6x crop factor

[nynfortoo]

No i understand when it comes to wide angle, but when it comes to telephoto people say its better for sports and bird shots or whatnot... I can do the same in photoshop... How is it better?

Because with the right lens, you can fill the frame (sensor) with the relevant data, rather than cropping in post and essentially binning thousands if not millions of pixels.

There's no real substitute for using the correct lens.

 

[jamesino]

No i understand when it comes to wide angle, but when it comes to telephoto people say its better for sports and bird shots or whatnot... I can do the same in photoshop... How is it better?

Also, to put it in other words, supposing that a full-frame and half-frame sensor both have the same megapixel count, the half-frame has a HIGHER pixel density.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Okay your not getting what im saying, all 3 of you. I know everything you have just said.

Ill spit it out. I think any crop factor is a loss not a gain in any way.

 

[Samriel]

Can you explain as to why you think so?

I'm not sure that sensor crop factor factor is always a loss - IF there was a camera with a crop factor which would make just as good photographs as a full frame sensor camera (no quality loss, same pixel number), I think many people using long tele-lenses for their photography would much rather use the cropped sensor.

 

[Mike30D]

Okay your not getting what im saying, all 3 of you. I know everything you have just said.

Ill spit it out. I think any crop factor is a loss not a gain in any way.

If you like the narrower f.o.v. at the long end then it's a gain. The 300mm on a 1.6x gives you the f.o.v. of a 480mm lens. As long as you feel you're getting the shot, then I think that would be a gain and not a loss.

Why on earth would you go through the hassle of cropping in Photoshop when you can do it in camera? More time in front of the screen, no thanks.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Can you explain as to why you think so?

I'm not sure that sensor crop factor factor is always a loss - IF there was a camera with a crop factor which would make just as good photographs as a full frame sensor camera (no quality loss, same pixel number), I think many people using long tele-lenses for their photography would much rather use the cropped sensor.

If? Not going to answer a "if" question...

If you like the narrower f.o.v. at the long end then it's a gain. The 300mm on a 1.6x gives you the f.o.v. of a 480mm lens. As long as you feel you're getting the shot, then I think that would be a gain and not a loss.

Why on earth would you go through the hassle of cropping in Photoshop when you can do it in camera? More time in front of the screen, no thanks.

Because in photoshop I have more to crop with, maybe there is a fast moving bird and I want the bigger FOV so I dont miss the shot, I can later crop and easier center the bird or use the rule of thirds to crop it... There is more to work with in photoshop shop cropping..

not to mention the crop is permanent in the camera body...

 

[Tyjax]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1809578

that link no worky? I wanted to read....

 

[usayit]

Like wider f.o.v?

shoot larger format

 

[usayit]

prodigy2k7,

Cropping in Photoshop just like traditional wet darkroom enlargement degrades the final print... You can crop only so much before it is obvious loss in final image quality.

 

[Samriel]

If? Not going to answer a "if" question...

It was an honest question though, and your statement was anything but clear for beginner like me. Let me put this in a real-world context:

You have a Nikon D3 and the Nikon D300. You have a photographer shooting birds reeeally far away. There is enought light for you to never use higher ISO than 1600. So what we have in the end is the following: two cameras which will have a very similar if not the same IQ performance in the given conditions (FPS are a different matter, but we'll have to agree that this doesn't have anything to do with the sensor), one will have a 1.5x crop and one will not. If both use a full frame lens, of course more of the image will be "lost" (meaning it will be not be on the sensor) on the D300, but you will still get a 12MP image, at a 1.5x zoom boost. On the D3 you will also get a 12MP image at the standard 35mm focal length.
Of course, if you are talking about loss as an absolute term, meaning that a part of the image circle is going to be lost (or cropped, if you prefer), then this is true for all SLRs, as I don't know any with round sensors (or round film, but feel free to correct me).

 

[prodigy2k7]

usayit, as you know cropping doesnt degrade the image, only if you keep the same size... take a 8x10 and scan it...crop it and re=print as 8x10 then yes there will be degrading....

It depends on what size you want to print

 

[prodigy2k7]

It was an honest question though, and your statement was anything but clear for beginner like me. Let me put this in a real-world context:

You have a Nikon D3 and the Nikon D300. You have a photographer shooting birds reeeally far away. There is enought light for you to never use higher ISO than 1600. So what we have in the end is the following: two cameras which will have a very similar if not the same IQ performance in the given conditions (FPS are a different matter, but we'll have to agree that this doesn't have anything to do with the sensor), one will have a 1.5x crop and one will not. If both use a full frame lens, of course more of the image will be "lost" (meaning it will be not be on the sensor) on the D300, but you will still get a 12MP image, at a 1.5x zoom boost. On the D3 you will also get a 12MP image at the standard 35mm focal length.
Of course, if you are talking about loss as an absolute term, meaning that a part of the image circle is going to be lost (or cropped, if you prefer), then this is true for all SLRs, as I don't know any with round sensors (or round film, but feel free to correct me).

Okay, everything u said is true...whats ur point. I also want a full frame cuz they tend to have bigger pixels

10MP on full frame vs 10MP on cropped... full frame will produce a better image... especially better ISO performance

Edit: Forgot to say...Im basically saying id rather have it an option to crop instead of manditory

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

..... as you know cropping doesnt degrade the image.....

:banghead:

 

[Samriel]

Okay, everything u said is true...whats ur point.

I'm just trying to get to the logic of your statement below.

Ill spit it out. I think any crop factor is a loss not a gain in any way.

10MP on full frame vs 10MP on cropped... full frame will produce a better image... especially better ISO performance

High ISO performance yes, as to a better image, I have no idea. Not that long into photography yet to really know. Can you tell me how big I have to print an image to see a difference between a 12MP on a APS-C and on a full frame sensor? This is a sincere question, and not a joke.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I'm just trying to get to the logic of your statement below.





High ISO performance yes, as to a better image, I have no idea. Not that long into photography yet to really know. Can you tell me how big I have to print an image to see a difference between a 12MP on a APS-C and on a full frame sensor? This is a sincere question, and not a joke.

Enough with the silly questions... Each pixel is bigger on the full frame, smaller on the crop, since same number of pixels is squeezed into a smaller sensor.