how different is it to shoot with a full frame sensor compared to a 4/3's sized sensor? i am making the switch as soon as i can afford the D700. will i have to relearn DOF's and exposures? i love the field of view of 35mm film and the low light capabilities of the D700. am i going to be able to get really good bokeh still or will i have to learn that all over too?

DOF for a given f stop and focal length is less with a larger imaging area. Exposure is exposure.

Also - since when was 135 equivalent "Full Frame'? I'd of thought that 120 format r 4x5 was full frame. 135 has always been an amateur cropped format. ;-)

Are you saying the D700 is not full frame?

everything is converted from 35mm when dealing with focal lengths so i assume its the standard by which things are compared. you should word things differently so it does not appear condescending. everyone who writes about 36 x 24 sized digital sensors classify them as full frame. i apologize for not knowing you consider it amateur cropped format.

btw- wikipedia says - full frame is the size and dimension of 35mm film and is also known as full gate. it is the original size of the film willam dickson and thomas edison used in 1892 for the film blacksmithing.

i can not find the reference for your description of full frame.

i am not trying to start an argument. i was asking what the difference is between the two formats.

46&2 ! tool is an awesome band.

Hells yes!

And I don't really know what Mr. Ford is talking about. The D700 is full-frame... well, minus 0.1mm since the sensor is 23.9 x 36mm :) Shooting with full-frame v. four-thirds may take some getting used to, but you will have a much larger field of view and image area to work with, so it should be fun!

thanks. i am really looking forward to it!

Is irony lost on you two?

I was making a JOKE. About how everyone now has adopted the phrase FULL FRAME. But that phrase NEVER existed before digital and 135 was never considered a FULL of anything when it came to film. It was not until late in the day that someone called Barnack shoved motion pictue film into a camera. When people had been using 4x5, 8x10 and larger in glass plates for the previous decades....

Just a bit of social commentary...hence the ";-)" at the end.

Let me try that again.

;-)

its hard to know when something that is in writing with no inflection is a joke. the ;) at the end could have been an apology for being rude, like saying no offense to something offensive. i tend to be more literal when i type which is why i interpret things the way i do. i will retype full frame film into a bing search engine and educate myself.

As I said - it is just a bit of social commentary and trivia.... life and language change......

;-)

;-)

;-)

Deep sigh!

I have decided that those who know me will easily be able frickin' figure out if I'm jokin' or not. The rest of you bastards can just shove it!!

Just go for the full frame cam. Nothing new to learn, except you can't get the best out of it without lenses built for it.

I don't think so. It is actually the most used pro format outside the studio..

Yes Dear.

It probably is... I am just high lighting the fallacy of saying something is full format or crop format. That is like trying to measure what is half a hole....

:-)

:-)

:-)

Hi Warren,

I have both, an Olympus E1 and a D700.
As these are different camera concepts, they cannot be compared directly.

Picture quality:
If you don´t think about resolution (large prints) and you choose a good lens
on the 4/3 camera and you get the right lightning + exposure, there will be no significant difference in picture quality for normal use.

When it comes to low-light conditions, the D 700 makes extreme more usable
pictures, not consequently better photos.

DOF
If you use a tele lens, say 200 mm and open aperture, say 2,8 and
a small distance to your object (large image scale) you will have
a small DOF with the 4/3 camera, too.

Bokeh
The quality of Bokeh depends on the choosen lens, not on the sensor.

As Lars said, nothing new to learn, execpt "thousands" of menue items.

Good luck

Frank

As large the image area, in digital or film, you have more bokeh ... this is for same lense in APS-C or "full frame" .

I don´t like APS-C cameras because viewfinder is too small, and not easy to me use manual focus on that cameras.

APS-C is bether for sport or nature shots where you want to use the crop factor to have more zoom.

And you can take nice pictures with both APS-C or "full frame". :-)

That, along with formulas for DOF and circle of confusion can be found in my Leica Manuel, 1947.

you don't get more zoom with a smaller sensor, you only get less field of view, the magnification is the same.

Here we go again!

Warren you statement is a semantics argument. Effectively you do get more zoom on crop cameras. Virtually everybody in the world refers to it that way even though it is technically not correct, as you point out. My 70-300mm is just that 70-300 on my F100, but when I use it on my D90 it "effectively" becomes a 105-450mm.

It is of importance though, because FF-105mm compared to 105-equivalent crop frame (i.e. 70mm) do not share same DOF properties (at equal f-stop). I think that what Warren was referring to. And of course correct me if I am wrong...

It seems to me that the "semantic argument" works okay for the concept of "zoom," but less well for depth of field.


Yes, they do...see the following.

Specifically, one does not automatically get a more shallow depth of field by virtue of using a larger sensor--all other things being equal.

Take a lens that can be used for both a "full frame" camera and a "reduced frame" camera (works the same for digital or film):
Using the same lens at the same aperture at the same distance from focal plane to subject, the depth of field will be exactly the same.
The reasoning behind the claim of differing DOF's comes from the fact that to fill the frame equivalently (i.e., the image areas are the same), the "full frame" sensor must be closer to the subject, and that alone accounts for the difference.

Now to argue that all of this is merely semantics is to take an anti-intellectual approach to optics and, dare I say it, to photography (not you, Clyde, I know you understand optics). I've worked with (and largely *had to* work with) everything from "1/2 frame" spy cameras to 11"x14" view cameras using everything from super-wide to extreme telephoto lenses. In every case, I have had to be in control (or at least aware of) the depth of field at any distance and how to control the depth of field (e.g., hyperfocal distance, Scheimpflug effect--you can get the Scheimpflug effect with the Lens Baby) to get what I or the client wanted to see in the final product.

Anyone who wants to attain deep learning about photography would do well to understand both the common-use expressions and the real, underlying physical differences between lenses, sensors, films (go film!), shutters, exposure values (both time and f-stop), camera-subject distances, balancing flash with continuous light sources, balancing color between different light sources, how to persuade the model to disrobe (just a test to see if you read this far), etc.

I think that what I was trying to say, but on the other way. In my example you have to use different lenses for achieving the same equivalent focal XXmm (105mm in my example) hence different DOF properties. The same principle applied with SAME lense (i.e. same DOF) will come up with different equivalent focal lentgh depending on the sensor size. Hopes my statement make sense but. again correct me if i am wrong, that is interesting.

Compression effect for sure is different...

Hmm...now how about bellows factor?

I think that is the true. I have experience of less DOF when we go larger in format, and more DOF when we have small sensors.

But this is related to distance from lenses to film or sensor, is smaller in smaller sensors ?

Bokeh is related to others factors, such the diafragm of the lense, i have experienced more blades, more bokeh. I learn it´s caled "circle of confusion"

I have a Meyer Gorlitz 180mm with 16 blades, the diafragm hole is almost circular and this lense is a bokeh monster !

But i don´t have any formation in optics, only experience :)

I only use bellow correction loss table for long exposures with large format view camera, but i think it´s important do that too when use long bellows for macro with SLR´s

It seems to me that the term "equivalent focal length" has been reified with the boom in digital sensors of varying kinds. However, it is just a figure of speech.

The notion of equivalent focal length is very helpful. It tells me that to get the approximately same coverage at the same distance from the subject on 35mm film, medium format film and large format (specifically, 4"x5") film, I should use 50mm, 80mm and 165mm lenses, respectively. That in no way suggests that the 50mm, 80mm and 165mm lenses vary in their properties with the format of the camera, because they don't.

The focal length of a fixed focal length lens is a non-variable physical property of the lens itself. The rest, as Clyde would say, is semantics.

so if i want to make a close up portrait at low light situation and have both eyes sharp it seems that the full frame wouldn't allow us to use the lower aperture and still have the face sharp (due todistance). am i completely off? :)) i dont have a FF

That is interesting practical situation. My understanding is that for same aperture :
- option 1 you use the same lens on both camera. Same lense = same DOF. But you will have to shoot closer with th FF camera to achieve the same crop (which may affect DOF).
- option 2 you shoot at same distance and therefore you must use different focal length (more tele for FF) and you'll get shallower DOF with th FF

In a situation like that, I think I would just use a different lens. Right now, I'm using a 50mm on APS-C size sensor. When I switch to Full-Frame, I'll probably get a short tele normal lens, like an 85mm or 105mm or something for tight, cropped portraits. That way, I don't need to get closer to the subject and I'll be able to maintain a large enough DOF (depending on light) to get the entire face sharp.

That's the only downside to Full Frame that I can see... you have to buy more glass which are made for the larger sensor!

Sorry, Robert, It is completely correct. Depth of field for a given lens is entirely dependent on focal length, aperture and subject-to-focal plane distance, irrespective of sensor size, film type, ISO, etc.

Could you please explain why this is wrong? I can not see how the same lens, using the same aperture at the same distance to the subject would change it's characteristics (of dof) depending on what camera it is on...

Crossposting again Mr Douglas...

...at the same aperture and same distance from subject to focal plane.


Yes,...but it is no the case that it "may" affect DOF. At the same aperture but with a considerable change in distance, it will definitely change the DOF.

I agree with that. There something in "transition" (transition of density or tones or whatever ... don't know the proper word for that) which is smother, more natural and finally better looking with FF. It is particularly obvious with bokeh, or compositions that have abrupt change of DOF.

Distance of camera to subject and subject to background would have a bigger effect on bokeh...

I think you are talking about something a bit different and are not holding other conditions constant. Let us assume that both sensors are identical in build but vary in size. Are you saying that with identical sensors, the bokeh for the larger sensor will differ from the bokeh of the smaller--holding all other conditions constant, including the enlargement of the resulting image?

Not so. We could easily demonstrate this with film.

But if you hold all conditions constant, there can be no difference. I think you may be talking about different degrees of enlargement, which works exactly the same with film as it does with digital.

Yes but conditions are not constant indeed. FF is not only bigger frame but also bigger pixels / lower pixel density (for similar resolution) hence more dynamic, less noise.. isn't that correct ?

Yes, but what King is saying, and that I agree with, is that the sensor size in itself will have no impact on bokeh or dof. Giving the same lens, same aperture, same distance, the dof and bokeh will be exactly the same on a full size sensor and a crop sensor. That is a physical fact. It is the same as taking an image from my 5D II and croping out a smaller image. Will the bokeh or dof be different? Of course not.

I guess what you and Robert are after is that there are other factors that also will affect the quality/characteristics of the image when comparing a ff and a cropped sensor camera. Here things like different sensor technology, pixel size and density, processor etc come into play. Of course this will affect the image with regards to sharpness, dynamic range, noise, etc. But for bokeh/dof the sensor size itself (all other things equal), have NO effect at all.

This is another discussion.

Jacques answered Robert's comment. Conditions are *not* held constant. If they are, DOF remains the same irrespective of the lens or the sensor. Now when it gets down to the pixel level, I don't claim to be an expert. Grain does not resolve to pixels.

King, Thomas,

What you are saying make sense indeed (i.e. "DOF remains the same irrespective of the lens or the sensor if conditions held constant" to summarize). Anyway I think that with regards to initial question ("how different is it to shoot with a full frame sensor compared to a 4/3's sized sensor?") it is interesting to explore the different factors involved here because FF vs. "cropped' sensor is not only a matter of sensor size and focal length equivalence but also deals with different technologies available on the market (BTW all small sensors are not themselves all equivalent for dynamic, sharpness ...)


... I think all those things feed the debate for those about to invest in FF to make sure they will get expected results in return to the money they invest.

Yes I agree. There are many different aspects when comparing ff with cropped cameras. So it is important that we know what aspects we are talking about and some post up we were talking about if ff and crop cameras give different dof and Robert stated that Rui was wrong about his statement.


But of course, there are many other aspects as well...

ok, regarding "crop factor" , if i set a camera up on a tripod which has a 4/3 sized sensor and a 50 mm lens and take a photo and then switch out the camera body to a full frame camera with a 50mm lens the only thing that is lost or gained is field of view NOT magnification. a stationary subject will appear the same with the exception of field of view. it does not become a 100mm lens on the 4/3 sized sensor despite propaganda from camera companies. field of view does not effect a lens focal length. i agree that it has a cropped look of a 100mm lens but that is the only thing.

as far as my initial question, the answers i received should be adequate enough for me to get a head start on understanding the differences i will face when i switch

lastly, i think i should buy a light meter before i buy anything else.

Easy, take a 5D/D700 with a 50mm and a 7D/D300 with the same lens make the photo, of course same distance, same aperture, etc. Then crop in PS the 5D/D700 image to fit the same croping as 7D/D300. :) :)

After this we could discuss all you want about bokeh...

I would like to make this test but I do not have any of this cameras unfortunately :)

i just thought of something. my zuiko 50mm f2 is also a macro and the 50mm i want for the D700 is not a macro, which means either i buy a macro (Nikon calls it micro i think) or a set of extension tubes

- If money is not a problem for you and/or you do lots of macro you may consider the micro nikkor 60mm indeed which is supposed to be great. (also you have Tamron 90 / Tokina 100 / Nikkor or Sigma 105 / Sigma 150)
- If you shoot macro occasionally go for extension tubes. They are fun to play with.

What the hell.... you quoted me..but I didn't post that...

I didn't say anything about bokeh...

i do not shoot macro very often.

This thread has confused me completely. . . I'm told on the one hand that a 50mm on my d90 crop sensor is equivalent to something like 75mm on a 35mm film camera or a FF such as a D700. And on the other hand that it is the same on both cameras but only appears to be the equivalent of 75mm on a crop sensor due to the field of view being smaller. . .
So, on a D90 with a 50mm would i have to stand further away from the model to get the same head and shoulders shot than if i used a 50mm on a D700? I was under the impression I would have to. . .
Or if i had a 300mm telephoto could I get higher magnification on a crop sensor than on an FF?
Would the subject just be bigger in the frame rather than actually 'closer'?
help? ( not that i can afford a D700 you understand. . . :-( One day. . . )
Jon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor


I guess it depends on what people mean when they say "equivalent". I would say that the last sentence is the most correct. The physics of the lens will not change, you are only catching a smaller part of the "full format" frame with the cropped sensor.


This is true. If you want the same "framing" you will need to move further away with the D90. This will also change the perspective slightly compared to the full frame. Now, if this new perspective is the same as shooting a 75-80mm with the full frame, I don't know. I guess here is one point where the statement that they are "equivalent" starts to crack...


You will appear to be closer since you have a tighter framing using the crop sensor. The subject is just bigger in the crop-frame...

Not sure this makes it clearer though... LOL

These are both in most practical terms saying the same thing. The second statement is more technically correct, but the first statement is also correct in a practical sense. I choose to think of it as 50 being the "equivalent" or "effective" 75mm on my D90. For me that's easier because I grew up in photography shooting 35mm film and learned to think of lenses in those terms. The equivalent statement really only applies to focal length and/or field of view. As I said earlier it's mostly semantics, except that there are real differences as others have pointed out in things like DoF and bokeh.


Yes, both of these sentences are true.


Well, only "the same" in terms of effective focal length/field of view.

OK, I kind of get it. A crop sensor lives up to it's name and effectively loses the edges of a theoretical FF frame. So it turns a 50mm into a sort of perceptual telephoto ;-)
So a 50 on a D90 is the same as on a D700 except on a D90 you just get the middle bit of the frame a D700 would get. . .
Kind of. . . I probably need to go away and draw a diagram or something.
I'm beginning to wonder if what I have always assumed a lens actually does is really what a lens actually does. . .
Thanks for the help guys.
Jon

Jon, think of it very simply like this.

You are ten foot away from a person using a D90 with 100mm lens, the face is perfectly positioned and sized in the frame of the image on your LCD screen of the photo taken, (not through viewfinder as this isn't a true reflection of the final image dimensions).

If use stand in exactly same position with same 100mm lens but with a D700 you would have to walk a little bit closer to the person to get the face the same size in the image of the LCD.

So very simply the D90, a so called 'cropped sensor' camera has a magnification factor compared to a 'full frame' sensor. For Nikons the factor is 1.5. The term full frame refers to the 35mm format used for film SLRs. The D700 sensor is the same size as a 35mm SLR, or very nearly apparently.

Another way to look at it is if you took an image with a full frame camera then swapped the lens and stood in the same position and wanted the framing of the image to be the same you would have to step back a bit because the cropped sensor camera has magnified the image by a factor of 1.5, in Nikons case.

Get it now.......

:-)

JP

...meant to say swapped the camera above.....

That's a figure of speech. The cropped sensor has not magnified anything. As the name suggests, it has simply cropped out part of the image area.


The image is not magnified and is not "bigger in the frame". A lens throws a circular image wherein the objects appear at a given size in the focal plane. The objects don't change size (e.g., are not "magnified") when a cropped sensor replaces a "full frame" sensor.

Another analogy. Take for example an 8"x10" portrait print (the "full-frame sensor"). The model's head and shoulders are nicely framed. Now take a 5"x7" matte (the cropped sensor) and lay it over the 8"x10" portrait. Nothing in the print has changed. Nothing is magnified. Everything is the same size as before, but you loose some information around the edges.

And one more. View camera lenses are designed to throw a very large circle behind the lens--considerably larger than the piece of film that is to be exposed. The photographer can position the film anywhere s/he likes within the image area. An image circle large enough for a piece of 8"x10" film (the "full-frame sensor") is, therefore, large enough for 5"x7", 4"x5", MF, 35mm or any smaller film size (the "cropped sensors"). The projected image doesn't vary with the size of film loaded in the camera, but the photographer must select which part of the image circle s/he will capture with each film size.

Those that are seeking confusion may continue, I'm gonna shut up now...

Pi r square.

No, dummy. Pie are round. Cornbread are square.

yep. But I think most people undersatnd practically the concept. It is more about words. As it was stated the term "magnified" should NOT be used for small sensors, because obviously they don't have any magnification feature that FF or film don't have. It is just that the term is wrongly used (I guess first by manufacturers for marketing purpose), instead of more correct "cropped". when small sensors are called 'cropped', with reference to any larger formt (be it FF/135 oir larger) I thing everything has been said. But note that it is merely a convenience with reference to historical standard (i.e. 135). Hope I don't add more confusion... oh well maybe... :)

OK, I tried but I can't shut up without just one more try at this:

How do digital photographers look at images made by lenses??
1. Through the viewfinder of their camera.
2. On the LCD on the back of their digital camera.
3. In a window in an image manipulation program on a computer screen.
4. On a fixed width website like 1x, at @900 horizontal pixels
5. Printed onto a 8.5" x 11" piece of paper printed with an inkjet printer.

In today's digital photography world that's about it. (I say digital, because this idea of crop camera only applies to digital cameras).

Now put a D700 on a tripod with a 50mm lens and compose a shot of King or me or some other old school film guy with a nice head and shoulders framing. Look one last time through the viewfinder, click off a shot and look at it on the LCD. Now swap out only the body for a D90, don't change anything else. Look through the viewfinder, click off another shot and look at it on the LCD. Now take both files and open them in your fav image software, don't crop anything just set basic levels by looking at each image in a separate window of approximately the same screen size. Now print each image to a 8.5 x 11 piece of paper. Re-size each image to 900 horizontal pixels and post them both to 1x or any other website that will allow 900 x XXX images.

Now compare each view #1 - #5 from each camera and tell me if King looks more "magnified" or more "zoomed" in the image from the D90 or not.

In each case 1-5 with the D700 you will see King's head and shoulders. In each case with the D90 you will only see his face and a bit of his neck and hair, no shoulders.

That my friends, is what is know to the common folks as the crop camera "effectively" increasing the zoom/focal length of a lens. Yes there are differences in things like DoF and pixel character and bokeh, BUT the image make by the D90 with the 50mm lens is "effectively" magnified or zoomed more. Period!!

I am afraid, but no.

There are no differences in DOF, no difference in bokeh (except is a different sensor), and the image is not zoomed or magnified. The resulting image in the D90 is like cropping in PS the D700 image. Period!!

So when you look at the back of your D90 or through the viewfinder there is cropped out area of black and a smaller image inset???

When you re-size each image to 900 pixels on the horizontal, the one from the D90 has a cropped out area of black around the face and neck of King with the visible image inset???

When you print each image to 8.5 x 11 paper the one from the D90 has a black border???

No my friend, in ALL practical terms the D90 image is zoomed in more or magnified more than the D700. None of the 5 ways that you look at the D90 image shows any kind of cropping. It just shows King bigger in the confines of the view, (i.e. magnified or zoomed in more)

I'm not making this shit up. I walk around nearly every time I go out and shoot with a F100 and D90. I see this effective focal length/zoom change every day. If I want the same field of view on each in, say a "normal" lens, I put my 35mm prime on the D90 and I put my 50mm prime on the F100. Or if I want a short tele view, I put the 50mm on the D90 and my 85 prime on the F100. In each case I see approximately the same degree of "zoom" or "magnification" in the viewfinder of each camera, no cropping in either viewfinder. So, the D90 is "effectively" showing a 52.5mm view from a 35mm lens and a 75mm view from a 50mm lens.

btw: PERIOD!

:))


When you make a crop in a digital image, are you zooming? Apparently seems that you are closer to the subject, but not, You are cropping. In no dslr cameras this is called digital zoom.

This is an absurd discussion, as you are right in the magnification but it is not an optical magnification, and this is the real point.

NOBODY ever said it was technically an optical magnification!! And no, the "real point" is what you freakin' see when you look at the image!! Your "real point" only matters to some nerd head who has never looked through a viewfinder...

BTW, I'm going to shoot myself in the head if somebody starts talking about DX vs. FF lenses, shhhhhh don't dare bring that confusing shit into this tread whatever you do!!

Sounds like a rash promise.

@King Douglas - thank you for going into detail about crop factor and magnification. most people are confused about that point and your explanation is spot on.

I'm about to leave to drive home, so why not throw out one more volley:

@Warren - In the 5 ways I pointed out that "we" view images made by digital cameras, which one or ones (1 - 5) show the "matte" that King refers to????

Has anybody looked into their crop sensor viewfinder and see a black "matte" hiding part of the image???

Has anybody opened a jpeg made by a crop sensor camera and found a "matte" or border surrounding the center part of the image???

While King's explanation is technically correct, it is the kind of explanation that exacerbates the confusion that surrounds this subject because it bears no relevance to what folks see when they look through their viewfinders or at the LCD's on the back of their cameras.

So, I will continue on in my confused state I guess...

maybe i should have read his whole post.

i will repeat something i wrote earlier, the only thing gained or lost when switching between FF and cropped is field of view. two cameras set side by side with the same lens with the same subject will create the same image except that the cropped frame photo will show less filed of view. maybe the matte is implied and not real?

also, being technically correct means i can call white balance by a new name of either black balance or setting middle gray. the term say what you mean and mean what you say comes to mind....this camera crop/no crop is almost as confusing as transposing band instruments and their fingerings using the harmonic series..

field of view is not focal length and should not be interchangeable when mentioning crop factor. you are getting less of something not more of something and saying so is misleading.

on a 4/3 camera you lose 1/2 the photo/cropping you can do because of the narrower field of view. if they redesigned the lens to have the same field of view and same magnification it would eliminate the confusion. i am not an engineer, but if we can clone sheep we can make a lens with the specifications i mentioned.

Who said so?? I never said anything about one or the other getting more. I think most folks understand that if you have higher "effective" zoom/focal length in a fixed view you will see less of your subject but it will appear bigger. My point is that although King is technically correct in his explanation, what people "see" is far more relevant to understanding the differences between the 2 digital formats. And people "see" the images that the camera/lens create in more or less fixed view ports. (The 1 - 5 from earlier today's post) And in those views we never see the "matte" or crop that King refers to.

I think the culprit in most of this confusion is the term itself. The work "crop" is referring to something we never see. What we see is magnification or zoom or a smaller field of view or what ever you want to call it. SO, to call it a crop is what is actually misleading...

Somebody needs to stop or we will talk in this circular thread for days. So, I volunteer, I really can't say it any clearer, so I'm done. (at least for now)!!

i agree that the term crop is misleading. i was not referring to your comment when mentioned gaining/losing something and i should have been more specific. i apologize for the confusion. i also don't think we are on different sides, we are begging the question, in other words, we are arguing the same point.

what i learned from this post is this, when switching to FF my perspective, field of view, DOF, and bokeh are going to be slightly different, but within a week or two of heavy practice shooting i will adjust and not have issues. i also learned once i get a FF i will not have to deal with/worry about crop factors and the confusion they cause.

thank you all for your contributions and guidance.

You are welcome Warren, I'm glad we all now agree and understand the difference, just in our own terms we choose to express it.

Hi King,
Yes, but as we only see the inner part on the sensor, it acts like a sectional enlargement. Is this right?

Mr. Clyde, do not loose your energy with this kind of nerds. The real point is that zoom/magnification is an incorrect concept and crop is the right one. Period!!

Put your F100 viewfinder in your D90 and tell me what you see...