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

[prodigy2k7]

:banghead:

Got something to say? If cropping degrades an image then I guess all DSLRs that have a crop factor degrade the image....

 

[prodigy2k7]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

Just read the whole thing

Small quote for fun:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By about 10 MP in small formats, most of the extra pixels today are splitting up the limitations of your lenses (and our own photo abilities) into smaller pieces instead of showing us more detail."

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Having bigger pixels on a larger format means you can use cheaper lenses and usually get better results than the best lenses on a smaller format."[/FONT]

 

[reg]

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

Not everybody wants to print wallet-size photos of birds.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[sabbath999]

Got something to say? If cropping degrades an image then I guess all DSLRs that have a crop factor degrade the image....

That is completely wrong.

Cropping in photoshop degrades the image because it is like the old "digital zoom" function of point & shoot cameras. Every crop you make "effectively" reduces the "megapixels" of your photograph (I know, purists, that this isn't the right terms to use but I am trying to make sense of this for Prodigy).

Basically, when you crop digitally in PS, you are "effectively" reducing your 10mp camera to a 6mp camera, or a 4mp camera or even less.

The crop factor built into the camera does not do that at all. It is 100 percent of the resolution of the sensor. All it does is (again, effectively if not actually) add focal length to your lenses. It in no way affects the image quality good or bad, unlike "digital cropping".

 

[Samriel]

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.

No argument about that, but since I'm obviously and "old school" type of photographer and like looking at photos in print, I'd still like to know how big do I have to print a photo to see the difference in quality.

Thanks for the Ken link by the way, I guess that will help me understand the whole thing a bit better.

 

[prodigy2k7]

No argument about that, but since I'm obviously and "old school" type of photographer and like looking at photos in print, I'd still like to know how big do I have to print a photo to see the difference in quality.

Thanks for the Ken link by the way, I guess that will help me understand the whole thing a bit better.

Depends on DPI, print size and viewing distance

 

[Seefutlung]

No argument about that, but since I'm obviously and "old school" type of photographer and like looking at photos in print, I'd still like to know how big do I have to print a photo to see the difference in quality.

Thanks for the Ken link by the way, I guess that will help me understand the whole thing a bit better.

I have a 20D and a 5D. I found that there isn't any visual difference between the FF sensor and an APS-C sensor up to an 8x10 and under ISO 400. Can't tell 'em apart. At 11x14 you gotta look very hard at 13x19 ... there is a dif but not all that much. Also ISO makes a big difference. At ISO 1600 slight differences are visible at 8x10.

Gary

PS- On the internet it is hard to distinguish who is giving good advice and who is full of crap. I suggest that before one takes the advice of a stranger ... go look at his/her photosite and you can then qualify the advice/remarks by the quality of their images.

G

PPS- Always crop in the camera regardless of sensor size (period). "Fill the frame" is a very old and basic rule of photography. A pioneer photojournalist, Henri Cartier-Bresson, filed out his negative holder so when he printed one could see the black edges of his negatives ... hence all cropping was performed in the camera. I think we would all learn something from Cartier-Bresson.

(something like this:

Note the black borders showing the edges of the frame.)

G

 

[MarcusM]

What I don't understand is why people are essentially saying that a lens on a crop factor body gives them extra focal length?

My 70-200 f/2.8 with a TC-14E II becomes the equivalent of a 420 f/4 (with VR)......see avatar.

From what I understand this is not the case - you just aren't getting as much of the image on your sensor as you would with a full frame body, right? So it may look like you're filling up the frame, but the subject does not appear any closer than it would with a full frame body.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what the proponents of the crop factor bodies are saying in regards to shooting birds and sports?

 

[Seefutlung]

What I don't understand is why people are essentially saying that a lens on a crop factor body gives them extra focal length?



From what I understand this is not the case - you just aren't getting as much of the image on your sensor as you would with a full frame body, right? So it may look like you're filling up the frame, but the subject does not appear any closer than it would with a full frame body.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what the proponents of the crop factor bodies are saying in regards to shooting birds and sports?

Marcus ... it is more like getting more MP's on the final image. If you're using say a 10 or an 8 MP APS-C sensor, you will get more pixels on the final image than if you're using the same lens on a FF and then crop to produce a similar image.

While there is much more to IQ than merely MP's, this is the basis of stating that with longer lenses a cropped sensor is better. (Remember this only works when comparing similar lenses on different sensors.)

When I need reach I always toss the Bigma on the 20D.

Gary

 

[prodigy2k7]

That is completely wrong.

Cropping in photoshop degrades the image because it is like the old "digital zoom" function of point & shoot cameras. Every crop you make "effectively" reduces the "megapixels" of your photograph (I know, purists, that this isn't the right terms to use but I am trying to make sense of this for Prodigy).

Basically, when you crop digitally in PS, you are "effectively" reducing your 10mp camera to a 6mp camera, or a 4mp camera or even less.

The crop factor built into the camera does not do that at all. It is 100 percent of the resolution of the sensor. All it does is (again, effectively if not actually) add focal length to your lenses. It in no way affects the image quality good or bad, unlike "digital cropping".

I wouldnt consider degrading as cropping ... i consider grading as in color and whatnot... not the size of the image...

and as you know megapixels isnt everything...

Whocares if you have more megapixels, you dont have the whole images of the glass (besides the top sides and bottom of image circle)..

Id rather actually get what my lens sees

 

[prodigy2k7]

Ya i guess a 10x crop factor would be even better then

Make a really small sensor cuz we know how good those are, make a correct sized mirror and there ya go!

I guess I dont need those expensive canon lenses anymore!

 

[Samriel]

Seefutlung、

Thanks for the comparison and the explanation. You basically told me what I wanted to know. I was really not sure how much of a difference there is between full frame and APS-C in ideal conditions when ISO is not a problem.

 

[reg]

For the love of god prodigy, are you gonna continue arguing and generally making no sense until you're dragged out kicking and screaming?

 

[nynfortoo]

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...

This is exactly what I addressed in my post.

You crop in Photoshop, and you're throwing away pixels. You crop in the camera, and your image fills the sensor and gives maximum detail. How is that difficult to understand?

You obviously haven't come across a situation where you've captured a great moment and want to print it out, but didn't get the crop right in-camera, so have to settle for a much smaller print.

 

[usayit]

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....

Which is exactly why your idea of PS cropping will not work. For the most part, people don't just crop... they crop and enlarge too fill space. That in turns degrades the image.

Most of the time, cropping (without enlarging) is done at print. To show case a particular print in gallery frame. If we are talking PS, that isn't what we are talking about.

As someone already posted... why would you take a wide angle photo of a bird in flight just to have it cropped (without enlarging) to a wallet sized print???

The subject is so simple and you are so argumentative, I'm more inclined to believe you are just trolling.