Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lenses FF/APSC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Re: Lenses FF/APSC

    I'm not sure you can blame Canon or the other DSLR makers for the effective or equivalent focal length concept - which in itself is actually a reasonable way to compare cameras of differing sensor size. Digital compacts cameras became widely popular before the DSLR explosion and I think you'll find it was those that are the real source of the concept. Trying to get the public to equate the tiny focal lengths of the small sensors used to anything they were used to, usually a 35mm compact or SLR, was always going to be difficult, particularly as there was such a wide variety of sizes in use, that it was probably considered much easier to equate everything to 35mm and take it from there - much easier to compare models when their lens specs are all quoted to the same standard.

    I also find it hard to understand why people appear to find the concept so difficult. Sometimes I suspect they're being deliberately stupid or obtuse...
    Nigel

    You may know me from Another Place....

    The new ElSid Photogallery...

    Equipment: Far too much to list - including lots of Nikon...

    Comment


      #17
      Re: Lenses FF/APSC

      Originally posted by El Sid View Post
      ...much easier to compare models when their lens specs are all quoted to the same standard.
      Except that that can cause even more confusion. I have seen someone ask why EF-S lenses are marked with a 'misleading' focal length, rather than the 'full-frame equivalent focal length'.

      At EOS magazine we only deal with full-frame and APS-C size sensors. We try to explain to photographers why an EOS 7D Mark II does not actually give 'extra reach' when compared to a full-format camera with the same lens. Are we wrong to do this?
      Robert
      robert@eos-magazine.com

      Comment


        #18
        Re: Lenses FF/APSC

        Originally posted by Robert Scott View Post
        No. Here is a quote from the article I wrote:

        "Over the years some very misleading phrases have crept into the photographic vocabulary – ‘effective focal length’, ‘equivalent focal length’ and ‘extra reach’. Sorry, but none of these make any sense.

        We blame Canon (and other camera manufacturers) for this confusion. It all happened with the introduction of EOS digital cameras and the APS-C sensor size. This is significantly smaller than the full-frame format of all EOS film cameras. In trying to transition photographers from the full-frame format to the APS-C format, Canon instruction manuals for APS-C cameras say that the “35mm-equivalent focal length is equal to approx. 1.6 times the marked focal length”.

        So a 28mm lens used on a full-frame camera becomes a 45mm lens when attached to an APS-C camera? No it doesn’t. When you switch a lens from a full-frame camera to an APS-C camera, all that changes is the field-of-view."
        The fact remains that if I use a 500mm lens at full stretch on the M5 and fill the frame with an object, the man standing next to me with a FF camera will need an 800mm lens to do the same thing - we will both have an image that is at the best resolution the camera can give, but I will have got it with a shorter lens. That is the inescapable practical truth of the matter - the semantics of how it comes about or how you describe it matter not one jot or tittle - the practical result is there to be enjoyed by those with APSC cameras
        John Liddle

        Backwell, North Somerset - "Where the cider apples grow"

        Comment


          #19
          Re: Lenses FF/APSC

          Originally posted by Robert Scott View Post
          No. Neither the camera nor the sensor enlarges the image. An APS-C sensor captures just the central area of the image that would be captured by a full-frame sensor. It is a crop - no magnification involved.
          I think is is misleading to call it a "crop". If it were truly a crop, it would be a reduced portion of the FF image at the FF sensor pixel density. The APS-C image is a reduced portion of the FF image, but it is at a higher pixel density and I do not believe it is correct therefore to call it a "crop".
          John Liddle

          Backwell, North Somerset - "Where the cider apples grow"

          Comment


            #20
            Re: Lenses FF/APSC

            All the contributions here demonstrate what a complex subject DOF is to explain. For my sins I'm the training officer for my local camera club and I don't attempt to explain DOF but I set up a series of targets 1 meter apart along the length of our hall (fortunately it is pretty long) and then use live view through to our projector to demonstrate the effects of different lenses, apertures and subject distances using both APS C and FF cameras. This has proved to be the only way to get the message across. It also helps people to understand the compression and separation effects created by different focal length lenses.
            Alan

            No longer using Canon but still teaching new Canon users (and others) the gentle art of Photography.

            http://www.springfield-photography.com/

            Comment


              #21
              Re: Lenses FF/APSC

              I stand corrected....I love how this topic gets the posts rolling in...good stuff

              Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

              Comment


                #22
                Re: Lenses FF/APSC

                This morning I did a simple test comparing the 70D and the 6D, both of these having 20.2 mp sensors, but one on APS-C and one on full frame. I set both cameras up identically using the 85mm F1.8 lens, an oldie but still very reliable. The target was the centre pages from the EOS magazine shop catalogue, which has some small sharply defined text, which was pinned to an outside door in good diffuse light. As far as possible, the only variable was therefore the sensor size. So I took a few shots from exactly the same spot with each camera, F4 at 1/200 second. The distance was such that more or less the whole frame was filled on the 70D. Of course, the target was considerably smaller on the 6D image.

                Back home, I then cropped the 6D image so that the target appeared the same size as it did on the 70D, giving me two identical looking images. However, the 70D image was still the full 5,472 by 3,648 pixels, while the one from the 6D, having been cropped, was now about 3,700 by 2,700. My belief has always been that because the 70D image consisted of more pixels, when zooming in on both images the 70D would show more detail. However, I was surprised to find that not to be the case, enlarging each image considerably showed very little difference indeed, the small print on the target looking pretty much identical when enlarged to the same size, if anything the 6D results were rather sharper and better defined, even though the enlargement factor had to be greater than for the 70D.

                As a result, I've rather changed my mind. I'd always believed that if, for example taking an image of a distant bird, one would be better off using an APS-C body because the image would take less enlarging than it would on a comparable FF body and this was the "extra reach" advantage. Now I'm not at all sure this would be the case. Of course, if one has the latest FF models with considerably more megapixels, such as the 5D MkIV or the 5DS/R then their advantage would surely be much greater.
                EOS 6D, 6D Mk II, 80D, 70D, 100D, 200D, M50, M100. Canon 10-18, 18 - 55, 55 - 250 IS STM lenses, Canon 16 - 35 mm F4L, 35 mm EF-S macro, 50 mm F1.8 STM, 60 mm EF-S macro, MPE-65 macro, 85 mm F1.8, 200 mm F2.8 L II, M 15 - 45 mm, M 22mm F2, M 32mm F1.4. Sigma 24 - 35 F2 Art, 135 mm F1.8 Art, 17 - 50 F2.8 DC, 105 mm OS macro, 100 - 400 C, 150 - 600 C.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Re: Lenses FF/APSC

                  I'm beginning to think some of our correct conceptions (not misconceptions) are becoming obsolete because all sensors are so darn good these days....and there is little difference to be discerned.
                  I had a great A2 print made from a 12MP shot taken with a micro four thirds sensor....which is considerable smaller than APSC.
                  Brian Vickers LRPS

                  brianvickersphotography.com

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X