snubbr.com

Is 1.6 Focal Length Multiplier...
THE SAME (IN QUALITY) as shooting FROM a Full-Frame DSLR then enlarging the image by 1.6 using Photoshop or any Enlargement software filter?.

OR is shooting from a FF DSLR using a 320mm zoom lens....

The same (in quality, not really in number of MegaPixels) as....

Shooting from a 1.6 Focal Length Multiplier using a 200mm zoom lens (200 x 1.6 = 320)....

PLEASE help....

Thanks so much!!..

Comments (43)

None of the above..

The 1.6 is not a multiplier, it is a crop. The sensor simply does not see the full image circle of the lens, and you get a cropped view of the image that approximates the view you would get from a full frame camera, but with a lens that is 1.6 times as long..

Image quality is determined by many other factors. The crop factor of the sensor is not a determinant of image quality..

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #1

This is a more complex question than you could possibly have anticipated..

But the simple answer is that since the 1.6x "multiplier" is not a multiplier at all, it is a crop, the quality of a cropped and correspondingly enlarged image from a full frame DSLR will be the same - *provided* that the pixel pitch and the underlying technology are the same..

A full frame image using an actual 320 mm lens will always be better than a smaller sensor image using a 320 mm equivalent lens...

Comment #2

Aletheia wrote:.

The crop factorof the sensor is not a determinant of image quality..

Yes it is. It is not the only one of course, but sensor size is a very significant factor for image quality...

Comment #3

Hello all,.

Thanks for the correction....

But why do I (almost always)... read and hear... 1.6 crop will give you "THAT" EXTRA ZOOM....

Is this REALLY an advantage (in terms of MORE zoom?)....

Ok let's set aside the QUALITY issue (sharpness, color, mega pixels, etc.).

If I shoot using a full frame with a 200mm lens and enlarge it to 1.6 times using Photoshop....

That PROCESS I just did... is that THE SAME AS shooting from a 1.6 DSLR?.

Please help....

Thanks so much!!..

Comment #4

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Hello all,.

Thanks for the correction....

But why do I (almost always)... read and hear... 1.6 crop will giveyou "THAT" EXTRA ZOOM....

Is this REALLY an advantage (in terms of MORE zoom?)....

Ok let's set aside the QUALITY issue (sharpness, color, mega pixels,etc.).

If I shoot using a full frame with a 200mm lens and enlarge it to 1.6times using Photoshop....

That PROCESS I just did... is that THE SAME AS shooting from a 1.6 DSLR?.

Please help....

Thanks so much!!.

It's got nothing to do with your lens or whether you're using a FF or 1.6 crop. Your image quality is dependent on the size of the sensor and the number of pixels the camera captures. A bigger sensor normally produces bigger pixels and that will give you better quality. This is why people 'complain' about the megapixel war. This is why a 1/2.5' sensor is not as good quality-wise as a 1/2" sensor when trying to 'deliver' 10 megapixels. The pixels are smaller.

But then don't forget you've just lost all your wide-angle shooting, since a 20mm lens has just become a 32mm lens...

Comment #5

Newspaper Man wrote:.

But why do I (almost always)... read and hear... 1.6 crop will giveyou "THAT" EXTRA ZOOM....

The crop does, in a sense, give you extra zoom but *at the expense of quality*. Or it would be more accurate to say that if you make a certain size of print from a smaller sensor, you enlarge it more than from a larger sensor. And it is the extra enlargement that provides the extra 'zoom'..

However there is an important difference between full frame and crop sensors in practice. Smaller sensors tend to have smaller pixels, for reasons of technology and affordabilty. Remember that in my first answer I said "provided that the pixel pitch and the underlying technology are the same" - but that's because you were asking a different question. In the real world, pixel pitch is usually not the same, and that affects 'reach'. I'm struggling to come up with a good concise definition of 'reach', but it is basically how many pixels cover a given part of the image, because more pixels means more detail and more scope for enlargement..

A smaller pixel pitch means more pixels per unit area of the image, which means more reach. And provided we are talking about the same generation of cameras/sensors, the crop camera will almost always have the smaller pixel pitch..

Is this REALLY an advantage (in terms of MORE zoom?)....

In some circumstances, yes. For some kinds of photography, the extra reach, and the extra detail afforded by more megapixels are more important than a little extra noise..

Ok let's set aside the QUALITY issue (sharpness, color, mega pixels,etc.).

Oh. I already did..

If I shoot using a full frame with a 200mm lens and enlarge it to 1.6times using Photoshop....

That PROCESS I just did... is that THE SAME AS shooting from a 1.6 DSLR?.

In terms of the image geometry, yes. But you can't really divorce these things from quality considerations, it doesn't make sense to do that. Otherwise you could just keep on cropping and enlarging forever and put the Hubble telescope out of business...

Comment #6

...that PROCESS I just did... is that THE SAME AS shooting from a 1.6 DSLR? ....

Yes *IF* all else is equal - however it never is. There is almost always more difference between the sensors than size. They will have different firmware in the camera. The focus ability could be different. Never mind saturation/contrast/white balance/exposure/.....

Comment #7

In a practical sense your answer is no - it's not the same..

Let me explain. Take two 12 megapixel cameras - one a full frame and one a 1.6x crop factor (smaller sensor)..

Put a 100mm lens on each and put them side by side on tripods and shoot the same subject. The full frame camera will capture a frame having 60% more "real-estate" than the 1.6x crop..

Now crop the full frame capture to the identical frame of that captured by the 1.6x crop. How many pixels paint your crop? You began with 12 million, you cropped away 60 percent leaving you with an image consisting of 4.8 million pixels..

How many pixels paint the image taken with the 1.6x crop factor (reduced field of view) sensor? 12 million..

You now have one image crop from the full frame camera containing 4.8 million pixels and an identical frame from the crop factor camera containing 12 million pixels..

Which will have greater enlargement potential?.

Now you see where the telephoto "boost" comes from..

Best regards,.

Lin..

Comment #8

Hello folks!.

Thanks so much for all your time!! you guys are the best!.

It's time for me to mention WHY I posted this question... here's WHY:.

I was debating with my fellow photographer (who HATES 1.6, 1.3, etc, crops DSLRs), in other words, he's a Full Frame DSLR user (period!)....

HE even said 1Ds Mark III (5fps) is FASTER than 1D Mark III (10fps)... simply because 21mp + Full-Frame and processing the date @ 5fps A LOT FASTER!!.

And we're talking about "FRAMES PER SECOND"... anyway....

==================================.

I own both kinds of frames... and I really find both of them REALLY USEFUL!!.

Since you guys spent time answering my question... I spent time making actual tests....

I used canon 5D and 40D... and like what the other member suggested, shot same subject with same focal length lens... @ 70mm... images are NOT enhanced....

==================================.

FULL-FRAME with 70mm lens:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 CROP with 70mm lens:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Now I thought... IF I magnified or ENLARGED THE FULL-FRAME image by 1.6 I will get the same quality....

THEN... I made both images to 480pixels to fit within the message box....

FULL-FRAME 100% zoom (enlarge to 1.6 times):.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 CROP 100% zoom (no more enlargements or any adjustments):.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

AGAIN... images has NOT BEEN RETOUCHED....

My observation.... PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG....

That 1.6 Focal Length Multiplier is actually giving you REAL 1.6 TIMES MORE... just see the samples....

And the lens is REALLY providing a QUALITY 1.6 times magnification... NOT just, like you're enlarging your file by 1.6 more....

I hope i'm making any sense... comments, correctios, criticisms, etc are welcome....

Again, thanks for all your time!!.

;-D..

Comment #9

It's not the same. Here's the difference. Your 40D image has 10 million pixels painting the image and the crop from the 5D has 4.8 megapixels. The differences are not going to be apparent to anyone over the web but in real life when you enlarge the differences will be significant..

If and when you can capture the same native frame with the 5D as the frame from the 40D either by using a longer focal length lens for the 5D or getting closer to the subject, the 5D full frame image will be better in resolution. Not only the two megapixel difference but the greater light gathering of the full frame. But when it's not possible to get closer to the subject or use a longer focal length, the 40D image will be superior..

No matter how many full frame zealots there may be (and there are many) the facts remain that for telephoto work the crop factor cameras are superior with the identical lens from the identical distance. Even the 21 megapixel 1DS Mark III when cropped to the 40D image frame has only 8.4 megapixels. When you can use all of those 21 megapixels on the subject it's fantastic. When you can't and have to crop you simply loose the advantage of the greater number of pixels..

If it were possible to get identical wildilfe shots with a 1DS Mark III that I get with my D2Xs I would be using it. But I can get shots with a 200-400 F4 VR which I can hand hold (though not easily) and a 1.4x tele giving me an effective 840mm FOV and 12 megapixels painting the frame. To equal or best this with the 1DS Mark II I would need a 600F4 and that means a substantial tripod and Wimberly head. I can't carry all that gear across treacherous steep scree fields and snow and over 13,000 foot mountain passes on my back along with all my survival and camping gear so the 1.5x crop factor D2Xs and my 1.7x crop factor Sigma SD14 with 80-400OS are my tools of choice. Wildlife usually doesn't wait for you to set up your tripod, head, dig out the huge glass and mount it. If you are shooting at a National park from the side of the road or such it's fantastic but not for serious back country use..

Full frame cameras are fantastic, but my full frame cameras stay home on these trips. In the studio, shooting birds at Bosque Apache, Polar bears at Churchill, eagles at Homer, etc., I bring out the full frame and big glass. For wildlife in the back country it stays home and I use my crop factor cameras..

Best regards,.

Lin.

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Hello folks!.

Thanks so much for all your time!! you guys are the best!.

It's time for me to mention WHY I posted this question... here's WHY:.

I was debating with my fellow photographer (who HATES 1.6, 1.3, etc,crops DSLRs), in other words, he's a Full Frame DSLR user (period!)....

HE even said 1Ds Mark III (5fps) is FASTER than 1D Mark III(10fps)... simply because 21mp + Full-Frame and processing the date @5fps A LOT FASTER!!.

And we're talking about "FRAMES PER SECOND"... anyway....

==================================.

I own both kinds of frames... and I really find both of them REALLYUSEFUL!!.

Since you guys spent time answering my question... I spent timemaking actual tests....

I used canon 5D and 40D... and like what the other member suggested,shot same subject with same focal length lens... @ 70mm... images areNOT enhanced....

==================================.

FULL-FRAME with 70mm lens:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 CROP with 70mm lens:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Now I thought... IF I magnified or ENLARGED THE FULL-FRAME image by1.6 I will get the same quality....

THEN... I made both images to 480pixels to fit within the message box....

FULL-FRAME 100% zoom (enlarge to 1.6 times):.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 CROP 100% zoom (no more enlargements or any adjustments):.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

AGAIN... images has NOT BEEN RETOUCHED....

My observation.... PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG...that 1.6 Focal Length Multiplier is actually giving you REAL 1.6TIMES MORE... just see the samples....

And the lens is REALLY providing a QUALITY 1.6 times magnification...NOT just, like you're enlarging your file by 1.6 more....

I hope i'm making any sense... comments, correctios, criticisms, etcare welcome....

Again, thanks for all your time!!.

;-D..

Comment #10

Thanks so much for that wonderful lesson!!.

That's why I love this forum!!.

What will I do without this??.

Please, experts... feed me more!!.

;-O..

Comment #11

You could ask your friend a simple qutestion: "What is full frame? Eight by ten inches? 6x6cm? ...".

There is no magic that I know of in the size of the standard 35mm camera...

Comment #12

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

This is a more complex question than you could possibly haveanticipated..

But the simple answer is that since the 1.6x "multiplier" is not amultiplier at all, it is a crop, the quality of a cropped andcorrespondingly enlarged image from a full frame DSLR will be thesame - *provided* that the pixel pitch and the underlying technologyare the same..

A full frame image using an actual 320 mm lens will always be betterthan a smaller sensor image using a 320 mm equivalent lens..

Hello,.

Ok... I was debating with my Full Frame camera user friends that keeps insisting....

The image they shot using... say 70mm focal length... WILL BE JUST THE SAME as the 70mm (equal to 112mm) I shot using my 1.6 Focal Length Multiplier camera....

THEY SAY... "all we have to do is ENLARGE our image by 1.6 times and we will have the same IMAGE"... (considering we are shooting THE SAME SUBJECT... and same distance... and SAME lens @ 70mm...).

=============================.

So I made some tests... NOTE: all images are UN-TOUCHED... just made fit to 480pixels to fit with the message box....

=============================.

Full Frame camera (canon 5D, max resolution, jpg) @ 70mm.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 Focal Length Multiplier camera (canon 40D, max resolution, jpg) @ 70mm.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

The above sample images... shows already that the 1.6 FLM camera gives you an extra 1.6 more QUALITY zoom....

=============================.

I'm not done yet... let's see if we ENLARGE THE full frame image by 1.6 bigger....

Are we REALLY getting the same image quality... according to by friends' claims....

=============================.

Full Frame camera 100% zoom in (enlarged image by 1.6 bigger @ 70mm).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 FLM camera 100% zoom in (@ 70mm).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

NOW... this test will prove that my Full Frame camera user friends are wrong... the quality of the enlarged image is NOT as good as the 1.6 FLM camera (both using the same lens @70mm).

Even though the 5D has 2mp MORE than the 40D....

I KNOW THIS IS a complex issue... but looks to me it is a REAL MULTIPLIER....

The images from a 1.6 FLM are 1.6 times BIGGER with REAL ZOOM IMAGE QUALITY results....

NOT just an enlargement version from a Full Frame camera....

All your feedback (negative or positive) will be greatly appreciated....

Thanks so much for all your time!!.

;->..

Comment #13

A 70mm lens resolves about the same amount of detail whether it's on a ff or crop camera...

Comment #14

I AM SKIPPING WHETHER OR NOT ONE PIC IS BETTER OR NOT..

What I wish to say is that the scenes in both images will cover the same physical area. they will show visually the same things..

However, since the the 2 images were NOT SHOT with the same lens, there is a difference. going in one is assuming that the image quality of the lenses are the same. or if a zoom was used at the zoom position of mthe 2 shots 70mm and 112mm he lens quality is the same. this is by no meams a sure thing lens perform better at different focal lengths. it is commonly known, for example, that at max zoom zoom lens are slightly or a lot poorer..

In any event, the file images one taken at 70mm while the other taken at 112mm, take on the lens characteristics of those focal lengths. that is, even if the IQ lens qualkity is identical, on thing that will not be is the depth of field. the 700mm shot will have more dof thanthe 112mm shot if both are taken at the same fstop. it is for this reason that a straight IQ comparison has a flaw from the start different thing in each photo are going to be in focus while in the other photo they may not. this may give the visual apperance that one pic is "better" that the other. it may very well be that the depth of field is fooling the eye into thinking that one pic is better while I is not or they are equal..

As a suggestion, repeat the test only use a flat surface such as a poured concrete wall. or anything else that is flat but with details. a brick wall is not a good choice because of the valleys between the bricks where the mortar is giving a slight depth...

Comment #15

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

A 70mm lens resolves about the same amount of detail whether it's ona ff or crop camera..

So... what's your take then?.

A CROP (as in getting rid/cutting off the image around) or MULTIPLIER? (as in more quality zoom output)....

Thanks!.

;-}..

Comment #16

More-.

One problem that you have in your test is that there is no such thing as a 112mm lens..

You might have a better test between the new nikon d3 FF with a 105mm lens and a nikon d2xs with a 70mm lens. this is easily done since the nikon has a 1.5crop not the canon 1.6...

Comment #17

Newspaper Man wrote:.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

A 70mm lens resolves about the same amount of detail whether it's ona ff or crop camera..

So... what's your take then?.

A CROP (as in getting rid/cutting off the image around) or.

A crop. A given focal length is the same (and thus resolving ability is the same) regardless of the sensor it's being projected onto. Throwing more pixels into the image is basically just digital upsizing..

Put a 400mm lens on a 1.6 crop up against a 600mm lens on a ff - I'll take the later any day. (of course I'd be quite happy with a 600mm lens on my 40D ..

Comment #18

Actually, it's not. The lens doesn't change it's native resolving ability, but the sensor certainly does change the enlargeabiliy..

Let's look at a simple example. Put a 100mm Canon lens on a Canon D30 mounted on a tripod and capture an image. Now replace the D30 with a 40D and use the same lens on it from the same tripod and the same position and take another shot..

Which shot captures the most detail and why? The 40D will greatly out resolve the D30 even though they are both 1.6x sized sensors. Measured optical resolution is greatly different, and why is that? The lens has not changed nor has the subject to lens distance. What "has" changed is the fact that many more sampling sites are being used to capture the detail..

When you use a full frame sensor with a particular lens at a particular distance this camera/lens combination has a fixed amount of optical resolution which is "spread" across the image. The sampling sites are being used to sample an area of real world detail bounded by the 35mm frame content. When you put a crop factor sensor on this same lens you reduce the amount of real world geography being sampled by the amount of the crop. In the case under discussion that's 60%. So you sample sixty percent less geography with you full complement of sampling sites which, are a big part of what makes up digital "resolution". So you vest this entire resolution within a sixty percent smaller geographical area..

The "resolving" ability of the lens does not change, but this resolving ability exceeds the optical resolution of any current sensor including the Canon 1DS Mark III (21 megapixel). The resolution of the sensor does not change when you concentrate the entire resolution within a smaller geographic area but the amount of detail resolved does indeed change dramatically..

The only time "throwing more pixels into the image is basically just digital upsizing" is when you interpolate. Sampling with full resolution a smaller geographic area viz a full frame sensor from the same position with the same lens is "decidedly" not "throwing more pixels into the image," instead it's using a greater number of sampling sites which increases the enlargeability of the image dramatically. In this case by 60% assuming an equal number of sampling sites on each respective sensor..

Best regards,.

LiniMac, therefore iAm wrote:snip.

A CROP (as in getting rid/cutting off the image around) or.

A crop. A given focal length is the same (and thus resolving abilityis the same) regardless of the sensor it's being projected onto.Throwing more pixels into the image is basically just digitalupsizing..

Put a 400mm lens on a 1.6 crop up against a 600mm lens on a ff - I'lltake the later any day. (of course I'd be quite happy with a 600mmlens on my 40D ..

Comment #19

GaryDeM wrote:.

More-.

One problem that you have in your test is that there is no such thingas a 112mm lens..

Yes there is...A zoom lens..

Any zoom lens that has a minimum FL less than 112mm and a maximum of more than 112mm (a 50-150mm or a 70-200mm, for example) can become a 112mm lens...Assuming the FL of the zoom lens can be set that accurately, of course..

DSG.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/..

Comment #20

Lets stay with prime lenses. there is no such thing as a 112mm lens..

If you go with a zoom, then it becomes a matter of how does the lens perform at which mm in it's zoom range. this is an unknown. there is enough problems with the test without introducing more..

Read my other above reply...

Comment #21

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Ok... I was debating with my Full Frame camera user friends thatkeeps insisting....

The image they shot using... say 70mm focal length... WILL BE JUSTTHE SAME as the 70mm (equal to 112mm) I shot using my 1.6 FocalLength Multiplier camera....

THEY SAY... "all we have to do is ENLARGE our image by 1.6 times andwe will have the same IMAGE"... (considering we are shooting THE SAMESUBJECT... and same distance... and SAME lens @ 70mm...).

That's true as far as field of view goes, and the FF advocates (as opposed to open-minded people who use FF  use that argument to say there is no advantage to APS-C for tele/wildlife. To the extent that a cropped FF image provides sufficient image quality, they're correct. Lin spelled it out pretty well - you can shoot a 12MP APS-C camera and get a great 12MP shot of some wild animal. Or you can shoot with an x-MP FF camera and get a great x/2.25 MP shot (using 1.5X APS-C, not 1.6X). You'd need a 27MP FF camera to give you the same result as a 12MP APS-C camera. If you're of the opinion that a 6MP APS-C image is sufficient, then a 13.5MP FF camera will give you just as good a cropped image..

Take their argument a step further ... say "oh yeah, well I can crop my APS-C image down 1/2 size again and now my 400 which was like your 600 is really like your 900 !" They can argue that they can crop yours to match. Keep cropping. Sooner or later, you're going to hit your threshhold for image quality, and when you hit it, APS-C wins *unless they're shooting with a camera with 2.25X higher resolution*..

IMac raises the issue of the lens' capabilities. It's irrelevant when it comes to this debate: whether 400mm on APS-C is better than 400mm on cropped FF because the lens' capabilities will impace the cropped FF sensor image the same as the APS-C sensor image. He may have a point in that if you keep bumping up the resolution of the two formats, a 600mm lens on FF will eventually provide more detail than a 400mm lens on APS-C. But that's ok ... it's yet another argument you can carry to an extreme ... why not shoot a 1000mm lens on medium format ? (A: you pick your comrpomise between image quality, affordability and portability)..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..

Comment #22

That's quite an explanation... thanks!.

What do you think is the 1.6/1.5/1.3/etc Focal Lenght Multiplier....

AN "OPTICAL" ZOOM?.

Or.

A "DIGITAL" ZOOM?.

Thanks!..

Comment #23

Lets assume you are talking about a 1.5 crop multiplier..

What the c sensor dslr is doing is taking the Film/FF and using the center 2/3 of the image and then enlarging it back up so as to fill the viewfinder..

If you are talking olympus dslr same as above but it is using the center 1/2 of the view before enlarging backup to fill the viewfinder. oly uses a 2.0 crop..

If canon then the fractions do not easily come out so neat. they have a 1.3 or 1.6 multiplier..

All the above is assuming a FF/35mm lens. in such lens the rectangle of 24x36mm fits exactly into the image circle. if using a c sensor lens then the image circle is smaller to start with and the 16x24mm fits into that lens exactly. but note that the image of the 35mm/FF of 24x36 is now outside the c sensor image circle. which is why a crop lens on a FF/35mm dslr vignetts..

Also note that if comparing the actions of a 100mm on a c sensor camera to a 150mm lens on a FF/35mm camera they would appear visually the same, that is the field of views would end at the same places.. but the characteristics of the 100mm or 150mm lens remain, so the dof are not only different sizes but start at diferent places in terms of depth from the camera.assuming a 1.5crop...

Comment #24

GaryDeM wrote:.

Lets stay with prime lenses. there is no such thing as a 112mm lens..

Then you should say "there is no such thing as a 112mm prime lens", in which case I would agree, but to say there is no such thing as a 112mm lens is not true as there are plenty of zoom lenses out there that can be set to 112mm..

DSG.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/..

Comment #25

DaSigmaGuy wrote:.

GaryDeM wrote:.

Lets stay with prime lenses. there is no such thing as a 112mm lens..

Then you should say "there is no such thing as a 112mm prime lens",in which case I would agree, but to say there is no such thing as a112mm lens is not true as there are plenty of zoom lenses out therethat can be set to 112mm..

If you want to be that pedantic, then a zoom lens set to 112mm is still not a 112mm lens, just as a 70-200 set to 70mm is not a 70mm lens, but still a 70-200..

I think the statement '"there is no such thing as a 112mm lens'. holds up.Steve..

Comment #26

Newspaper Man wrote:.

What do you think is the 1.6/1.5/1.3/etc Focal Lenght Multiplier....

AN "OPTICAL" ZOOM?.

Or.

A "DIGITAL" ZOOM?.

Wow - that's quite a question !.

Digital zoom is simple uprezzing, done in-camera usually (though can be done later). And optical zoom is increasing focal length. So I'd suggest it's neither, nor is it a simple "crop" because it's always an apples to oranges comparison - there aren't FF and APS-C cameras on the market simultaneously that use identical sensor technology (including photosite density). So it's important to pay attention to the differences in sensor, both size and photosite density, and consider that you're shooting a different format and the multiplier is simply used for FOV equivalence..

Really, it's similar to 20 years ago, film shooters debating the merits of 35mm versus medium format ... 35mm users could say that they have an advantage shooting wildlife because they don't need such long lenses to fill the frame while medium format shooters would insist that they can simply crop in the darkroom. Then the 35mm shooters might argue that their lenses resolve greater detail in a given area (how true, I'm not sure) while the advantage of medium format is that you get greater detail in the larger frame (not necessarily in a 35mm sized crop). Only then, the argument really hinged on what the lenses could do, because you could shoot the same film with either camera, and therefore a crop from medium format really does give you a 35mm frame; we're not at that point with sensors yet - and FF buyers may not want to ever have the same high photosite density..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..

Comment #27

GaryDeM wrote:.

...however, since the the 2 images were NOT SHOT with the same lens,there is a difference. going in one is assuming that the imagequality of the lenses are the same. or if a zoom was used at the zoomposition of mthe 2 shots 70mm and 112mm he lens quality is the same....

Ok... if you did the conversion... 70mm (112mm in FF/35mm)....

BUT the debate really is....

Hard Core FF dslr users... keeps insisting that the 1.6/1.3/1.5/etc FLM dslr body has NO whatsoever....

================================.

One member said they are "narrow minded"... and I agree with this member....

JUST BECAUSE they've been shooting 20 more YEARS than I do... they just laugh at me... (THEY DON'T even own a 1.6 FLM lens, how can they compare??).

BECAUSE I REALLY THINK... using 1.6/1.5/1.3/etc FLM dslr body has an advantage if you want a CLOSER SHOT of the subject....

================================.

And we really have to limit to JUST ONE KIND OF LENS... because my FF friends and I ALL have the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens....

PLEASE NOTE: i'm NOT saying 1.6 is better than FF... I ACTUALLY LOVE BOTH!!.

I will post more samples... later... thanks for your time....

;->..

Comment #28

Hello dennis,.

Thanks a lot for all your VERY educated lessons....

You are good!..

Comment #29

You might be interested in the following-http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html.

Which is a review of the nikon d2x just after it came out. the author obviously did not intend to make a comparison between the canon 1dsmkII and the nikon but he had it available..

It makes extremely interesting reading. in the article one camera is better that the other in some tests and uses while the other is better in others..

For myself, the arguement between people on whether or not FF is better than a c sensor camera; I feel has been rendered moot. if the people are argueing about with that much vigor and both sides obviously can support their side, then to me it is too close too call. or if 1 is better it can be negated by the skill of the user using the other. for me if someone has a c sensor dslr and truely wants an unargueable improvment in image quality then they should skip FF altogether and go straight to MF. either a MF dslr or a digital MF back which are available up to 45mp now, I believe. doing that you would get an improvement in image quality that noone is going to argue with.

They are outstanding...

Comment #30

Glad it helped, though I have to point out Lin Evans' info on this topic as helping me sort of "see the light" a while back ... I was of the opinion that cropping FF is effectively the same as shooting APS-C as far as tele benefit, but that's theoretical; in practice, the sensor differences are critical to the discussion..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..

Comment #31

Ok guys... here we go....

NOTE: images... NO RETOUCHING!! original from the CF... just fit to 480px....

These sample images show "AN OPTICAL 'quality' ZOOM" from a 1.6 FLM dslr ...in my humble very opinion... NOT digital zoom....

;-y.

You be the judge ladies and gentlemen....

All comments - or + are MOST welcome!.

Full-Frame (5D) @ 70mm (fit to 480px to fit with the message box).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 FLM (40D) @ 70mm.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

================================.

Let me take ALL OF YOU closer at 100 ZOOM!! hang-on gang!.

FF vs 1.6 FLM....

Full-Frame @ 70mm (100% zoom).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 FLM @ 70mm (100% zoom).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Hmmmm... more images to come!! come back in a few....

;-O..

Comment #32

Hmmm....

Let's do both of them @ 105mm....

;-*.

FF @ 105mm.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 FLM @ 105mm.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

=================================.

Ok... ok... YOU GUYS want to see the action figure @ 100%... why not!!.

;-=================================.

FF @ 105mm (100% zoom the action figure).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

1.6 FLM @ 105mm (100% zoom the action figure).

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

=================================.

Hmmm... why is it the 1.6 FLM dslr is ALWAYS brighter???.

MAYBE, just maybe... that's another ADVANTAGE... of....

Both cameras has one (1) 580ex speedlite installed....

;-7.

Ok... one more sample... in a few....

Again... OPTICAL zoom =or= DIGITAL zoom?.

You be the judge....

;-x..

Comment #33

But I would have put "very" in all caps....

Use "crop factor" as a divisor. A sensor with a 1.6 "crop factor" has a diagonal that is 1.6 times smaller than the diagonal of a FF sensor (24mm x 36mm), which is 43.3mm. Thus, a 1.6 "crop factor" sensor has a diagonal measurement of approximately 43.3 / 1.6 = 27.1mm (approximately, because aspect ratio and rounding make it so)..

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

Aletheia wrote:.

The crop factorof the sensor is not a determinant of image quality..

Yes it is. It is not the only one of course, but sensor size is avery significant factor for image quality..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #34

I'm confused about your confusion. What the @#$% are you doing? This continual "testing" of dissimilar concepts in stupid ways doesn't seem to prove anything....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #35

Which again backs up my stance that 105mm is 105mm whether it's on a ff or 1.6 crop. I don't see any sign of optical quality zoom effect from the 1.6 crop...

Comment #36

Sir:.

If you can't stand this... don't reply....

=========================.

But I will let you know this:.

I'm debating with my FF dslr "only" user friends...and they KEEP INSISTING....

"your 1.6 FLM body has NO ADVANTAGE, whatsoever, we can just enlarge our images by 1.6 x bigger... and WE HAVE THE SAME images!!".

Are you a FF ONLY photographer??.

;-7..

Comment #37

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

Which again backs up my stance that 105mm is 105mm whether it's on aff or 1.6 crop. I don't see any sign of optical quality zoom effectfrom the 1.6 crop..

You're right....

Because I haven't posted the FF image (enlarged by 1.6 x bigger)... when you see the images side-by-side....

Then the other member said it right... "the image got pixelated because of the pixels that wasn't there in the original image... was enlarged DIGITALLY".

Is the FF image the same quality (when enlarged 1.6 x bigger)... as from the 1.6 FLM body (using the same lens ONLY)?..

Comment #38

Newspaper Man wrote:.

Sir:.

If you can't stand this... don't reply....

I can stand it. But I don't understand YOU..

But I will let you know this:.

I'm debating with my FF dslr "only" user friends...and they KEEP INSISTING....

"your 1.6 FLM body has NO ADVANTAGE, whatsoever, we can just enlargeour images by 1.6 x bigger... and WE HAVE THE SAME images!!".

You may need new friends? I think their disease has rubbed off on you. They have found out how to get to you. They like to see you agitated. You seem to be trying to agitate us?.

Are you a FF ONLY photographer??.

No. My largest sensor has a "crop factor" of 1:1.7. I have no "friends" with 1:1 sensors. They have 1.6 and 1.5 sensors. We all are mature and stable...don't hassle each other about insignificant nits..

One of my friends is having a mid-life crisis...planning to buy a Nikon D3, move to NM, and do photography full time. His take on this is that a FF camera is better for WA shots and his 1.5 crop camera (D200) is better for telephoto shots. That seems sensible.....

Comment #39

Perhaps the easiest way to approach this with your FF enthusiast friends is to say that if they could magically migrate all their sensor pixels from the FF sensor into the 1.6x crop factor area then shoot with the same lens from the same position and assuming the same number of pixels, there would be little or no difference..

However the full frame sensor only uses 40% of it's sampling sites within that area and because of this it doesn't have the same resolution for that frame as the 1.6x crop sensor. On the other hand if you could magically add 60% more sensor area to the 1.6x crop sensor then spread the available sensing sites evenly over the entire new area the resolution would be the same as the FF..

In the one case you are using the full complement of sampling sites (pixel sensors) within a concentrated area thereby vesting the full resolution within a smaller area while in the other case you are sampling 60% more geography with the same number of sampling sites..

There is no question at all about which image capture will enlarge better or which has more "resolution" within the area sampled by the 1.6x sensor. Using a 12 megapixel sensor as an example, a 4.8 megaixel image will not enlarge as well as a 12 megapixel image. When you crop a 12 megapixel image to 4.8 megapixels you no longer have a 12 megapixel image..

No, the optical resolution of the lens has not changed one bit but the full optical resolution of the lens is not being used by either senor. The "resolving" power of the sensors are absolutely equal but one sensor uses that full resolving power to capture more real estate thus spreading the available sampling power over a larger area. The other concentrates the sampling power within a 60% smaller piece of real estate..

I believe people get confused because they still think in film terms where the media is constant. If you expose a piece of Kodachrome the size of an APS C sensor and another 35mm by 24mm with the same lens from the same distance at the same focal length they each have identical enlargement potential for that portion of the capture made by the APS C sized piece of film. This is not at all what's going on with digital reduced field of view (crop factor) sensors..

A piece of Kodachrome though an analog media can be said to have some equivalence in digital terms. For the sake of this discussion let's just say it's 12 megapixels. So the emulsion contains so much resolving capability which is evenly spread over the entire surface. A square foot of this negative if used to capture a square foot of geography (contact print) has tremendous enlargement potential. A square inch of this negative if used to capture a square foot of geography has much less enlargement potential because you have spread the resolution potential over a geographical area 144 times as large as the large platform 12x12 equivalence..

With digital in the relevant sense, you don't have the resolving power being identical in the full frame 12 megapixel versus 1.6x crop. You have concentrated the resolving power of the full frame in a 60% smaller geographical area. So you loose enlargement potential when you crop the full frame capture. You loose enlargement potential when you "crop" the crop factor capture as well. But when the "crop" is done before sampling and you have the same number of sampling sites concentrated into a smaller geographical area you do not loose enlargement potential until further cropping is done..

Bottom line is that a same-resolution crop factor sensor has a decided telephoto advantage when used with identical lenses from identical distances viz the full 35mm sized sensor of identical optical resolution..

Anyone who argues to the contrary simply doesn't understand the physics and/or has never had extensive experience using both systems side by side..

Best regards,.

Lin.

Newspaper Man wrote:.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

Which again backs up my stance that 105mm is 105mm whether it's on aff or 1.6 crop. I don't see any sign of optical quality zoom effectfrom the 1.6 crop..

You're right....

Because I haven't posted the FF image (enlarged by 1.6 x bigger)...when you see the images side-by-side....

Then the other member said it right... "the image got pixelatedbecause of the pixels that wasn't there in the original image... wasenlarged DIGITALLY".

Is the FF image the same quality (when enlarged 1.6 x bigger)... asfrom the 1.6 FLM body (using the same lens ONLY)?..

Comment #40

What a lesson!!.

I've learned a lot... and now I can really use both cameras wisely!!.

And just turn away from future debates about FF vs. 1.xx FLM... NOT SO NICE....

;-7..

Comment #41

I've learned a lot from this experience and discussion....

NEXT time I will just turn away from any future debates about FF vs 1.xx FLM....

But thanks for some pointers....

;-7..

Comment #42

Newspaper Man wrote:.

What a lesson!!.

I've learned a lot... and now I can really use both cameras wisely!!.

And just turn away from future debates about FF vs. 1.xx FLM... NOTSO NICE....

Yes, just smile and walk away....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #43

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.