Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Excellent point, Frank. I think all this crop factor talk comes from the >fact that the 35 mm format has been so ubiquitous that it is the only >format most people know - and therefore those marketing digital cameras >feel they have to provide a comparison of their formats to 35. > >The interesting thing is that I find, shooting the so called 4/3 format >Olympus is pushing, is that I don't think about the format - all I think >about is what I see within my frame. Period. I do think format when I >shoot 2 1/4, because I am very aware of the square, and what I can do >with it in terms of composition. But otherwise, format is really >irrelevant for me, other than to think 'vertical, or horizontal.' > >B. D. > >-----Original Message----- >From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org >[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of >Frank Filippone >Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:23 PM >To: Leica-Users-Group >Subject: [Leica] Digital "crop factor" > > >There is no such thing as a crop factor nor is there a "smaller" or >"full size" sensor. > >In the past, there was 8x10, 5x7, 4x5, 6x6, 35mm, 126 ( and God knows >how many other roll film format) and Minox. No one ever said that the >other size had a different "crop factor". It was a different sized >format. An 8x10 camera and a Minox could be compared, ut I do not >remember ever hearing the words "crop factor" nor anything else >derogatory. Even half frame got more respect then the digital cameras >get these days. > >Think of these digital cameras as having a different format "negative >size" than 35mm. > >Frank Filippone >red735i@earthlink.net This has been discussed "ad nauseam" in Canon and Nikon lists as the former has a full format digital and the later hasn't. B.D.is right as the Olympus E was designed from scratch and their E lenses, besides being telecentric and thus avoiding some of the wide angle fringing, were built "only" for the E system and if their huge and expensive 7-14mm zoom is said to be a 35mm 14-28mm this only means that the viewing angle on the E cameras correspond to 14-28 mm angle in 35mm- roughly 120? - 90? if my memory helps me- . In any new designed system the crop factor does not matter but help to figure which kind of lens is. I know that my Minolta A2 has a zoom who start at 6mm and this is explained as to be a 28mm in 135 film equivalent cameras.Both have same angle of vision But Frank -excuse me my friend- is not right as almost every lens in Nikon stable -excepting the new DX ones- has been designed for 35mm cameras and thus only a part of their coverage is effectively used. When they say I have a 300mm f2.8 who "is" a 450mm f2.8 with Nikon D2X it's not true, really it's a 300mm with his DOF in which only a part is used. You can do the same with film just "cropping" the image you get with a Nikon F6 and the 300mm f2.8 and "say" you used a 400mm f2.8 and it'll never be true. With bigger sensor -look the new Mamiya DSLR with 36x48mm sensor -again I quote "par coeur"- you have bigger pixels if the sensor has let's say five million of them. If you get bigger pixels you get less noise and a cleaner image. So being everything else the same, the bigger is the sensor the best is the image. But, and a huge but, the cost considerations are very important. All that said I think that in the future we may have more full format sensors, that's 24x36mm sensors, when technique and cost efficiency allow it at reasonable price. And, therefore, I sadly believe that Leica R digital, and more M digital, may be late too late. Regards Felix