Reading mode: Light Dark

Crop Factor with Digital Lenses

Go to last post
and in the future, potential detail will not be captured due to sensors density's out performing our lenses.

for example, on the d200 you can see that the 300mm f/4 doesn't even achieve the maximum resolution (2250) of the d200 sensor . . .

 
Why are you assuming this is a problem with the lens? That would mean if I put that same lens on a D2x, I would get the same results, which might not be true.

In any case, it's true that eventually we'll reach a limit if we haven't already. A FF sensor will continue to have an advantage over DX in this regard, as the medium and large format cameras have over 35mm, and as the DX has over point and shoot cameras with their tiny sensors.
 
DonBJr said:
In any case, it's true that eventually we'll reach a limit if we
haven't already. A FF sensor will continue to have an advantage
over DX in this regard, as the medium and large format cameras have
over 35mm, and as the DX has over point and shoot cameras with
their tiny sensors.
Click to expand...
Thats my point, it seems the future evolution has to be geared towards more real-estate in regards to resolution on these sensors.

Also, I think another evolution will be dynamic range, but doesn't this also have the same correlation as resolution, in the respect that, dyanmic range is bounded by the amount of noise? Larger and better designed sensors have less noise and characterstics that approach closer to 16 bits of data.
 
Steve Bingham wrote:
...
Steve Bingham said:
A 12-24mm, because of the crop factor that takes place inside the
camera, now only has a field of view equal to a 18-36 in the Ninon
DSLRs.
Click to expand...
But a 12-24 is much harder to build than, say, a 17-35 35mm lens, which is why the 12-24 is only f4 compared to the f2.8 17-35. For wide angle work crop is a bad thing.
Steve Bingham said:
1-Advantage. A 200mm becomes a 300mm, only smaller and lighter.
2-Advantage. Your "18mm" now has the depth of field of a 12mm -
because it is.
Click to expand...
Your 200 gives you the Field of View of a 300mm lens on 35mm, but it may not give you more reach. Reach is a function of pixel density not crop.

Depth of field is always a function of focal length and distance to subject so you get about 1.3 stops more DOF from a crop camera, which may or may not be useful depending on what you are shooting. In practice 35mm can get the same narrow DOF as an f1.8 prime out of an f2.8 zoom (good for portaits etc).
Steve Bingham said:
3- Disadvantage for some is they want less depth of field.
Personally, I need all I can get. This is critical with longer
lenses as DOF becomes a real problem. In landscapes DOF is also
very critical. However, when selective focus is needed, it becomes
a disadvantage. Some get around this by raising the shutter speed
and shooting with a wider f stop.
Click to expand...
DOF is a kind of swings and roundabouts thing for landscapes. You need to stop down more with 35mm to get the same DOF, but then diffraction effects cut in later so you can stop down more without losing quality. It's basicaly a tie here.

For selective focus you can't raise the shutter speed past the point that you lens is wide open. That's the point at which 35mm still has 1.3 stops advantage.
 
None. The FF 18-35 aparently performs as well as the DX 18-70 in the same range for approximately the same cost. The FF 17-35 apparently performs as well (if not better) than the 17-55 in the same range (although more expensive). OK, maybe one advantage, cost. DX is cheaper to produce (less glass).

--
Geoff

WSSA member#68
PBase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/tuckeruk
 
so lets say i'm photographing an infinite landscape with the 60mm f/2.8, and say the landscape has " near middle far " to it . . .

given diffraction, DOF, and lens MTF characteristics, (on say a D200)



In the past, in film days, I would choose a real high f stop, say f/16 or f/32, (to maximize by DOF)

but now I see it isn't maximizing my MTF and isn't minimizing diffraction at the sensor . . .

My question is, or I should say, what I do is set the aperature to the best MTF say f/8, set my hyperfocal focus point, push the shutter, open the file in CS or view on the viewfinder at largest magnification to see if all parts of the shot are in focus, and at the best detail possible . . . trial and error is my current system
 
That is the million dollar question isn't it :)

According to nikon here are the benefits:

"DX Nikkor lenses are designed for coverage of this sensor format, implemented consistently in all of Nikon’s Digital SLR cameras to date. The smaller image circle opens up a variety of exciting opportunities in optical design such as ultra wide focal lengths, larger zoom ratios and smaller and lighter constructions, that were previously impossibly expensive or complicated to achieve in the traditional 135 format."

"Due to the smaller sensor size, DX Nikkor lenses can be designed a smaller physical size than comparative 135 lenses. DX Nikkor lenses will incorporate many well known and trusted Nikon lens technologies, aspherical lenses to significantly reduce distortion, ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements to minimize chromatic aberration, Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SI-C) for excellent color reproduction, Silent Wave Motor Technology (SWM) is also used for ultra quiet auto focus."

In my opinion the cost beenfits that we should be seeing from smaller and lighter lenses that need less glass aren't being really seen. Take for example the 12-24; it's grossly overpriced in my opinion.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com
 
True, but there are other trade-offs related to the size of the sensor (or film). These same factors will still exist, so there will still be a range of formats to choose from as there has been up to this point or we'd already all be using the largest format available.
 
i happen to generally agree with that sentiment and its one reason i do not have any DX lenses other than the 10.5 fisheye. but, there is a part of me that thinks that nikon would add some type of crop factor into the FF body, where if you hook up a DX lens only half the sensor is used.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top