Reading mode: Light Dark

Tokina and Tamron. Why no 4/3rds support?

Go to last post
If you were to replace that 300mm lens with a normal 25mm lens, that same field of view would only consume the very center of the field, and that would be encompassed in only 667K of Pixels. In fact, the longer lens DOES magnify the same portion of the image twelve-fold, and instead of occupying only the center 667K pixels of the image, it now occupies 8 megapixels of image data.

Hence, in fact, there is now TWELVE times as much actual information content preserved from that same portion of the field of view by using the longer lens.

In fact, the amount of information captured from that exact field of view, IS magnified by 12X. The information is there with the longer lens. It is NOT there with the shorter lens, and it is NOT there if you tried to replicated the same effect with a digital zoom.

So, bottom line is, you're wrong. The crop factor DOES matter. More information is captured within that same field of view. Period.
 
As long as the lens is capable of resolving the pixel density of the reduced field, there is no difference conceptually between the concept of "crop factor" and of "magnification factor".

This is because by cropping the image to a smaller field, but that smaller field has the same number of image pixels as the larger image field. So, in fact, if both the APS sensor and the 4/3 sensor have 8 megapixels, the same lens WILL have a higher magnification factor when used on the smaller sensor, so long as the smaller sensor still has a pixel density that is not beyond the resolution of the lens.

When using digital zoom, this is not the case, because zooming into the image actually causes fewer distinct pixels of information to fill the entire field.
 
DSLR systems use these things called "lenses" not "field-of-views." They were (with a few exceptions) designed for 35mm film--- 24x36mm. It is currently too expensive to make sensors that are that big for mainstream consumers, so they make smaller, cheaper CROPPED sensors. There is no magnifying element between the lens and sensor---they just fail to capture all the light the lens gathers. PERIOD.

If you look out of a 24"x36" window---you get a certain field of view. If I mask-off (or "CROP") all around the edges, the view isn't magnified, just cropped smaller. Same thing with sensors. You are just throwing away detail.

I think you are confusing pixel density with magnification here. Of coure a higher pixel density sensor captures more detail in a given area than a same sized lower pixel density one (assuming all things equal) But that doesn't change the fact that a full frame sensor with identical pixel density/quality will ALWAYS capture more information than a cropped sensor.
 
If true, I'd love to hear how the crop factor of the Nikon D2X magnifies the view when using its high-speed 2x crop mode vs its "standard" 1.5 crop mode----how is ANYTHING magnified??? Is it not just a fancy digital-zoom????
 
rander3127 said:
--That is a possibility, but in reality, the 2/3rds sensor was more
than good enough for P&S and allowed them to keep the cameras
somewhat smaller. The move back to 1/1.8 was a huge mistake, IMO.
-Rich
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. The 2/3rds sensors are bigger, but are they big enough to make a significant difference visible in real life photos? The last camera with a 2/3rd sensor was the Samsung Pro 815 and the ones before that Samsung were the KM A200/A2, Sony F828, Olympus 8080, Canon Pro 1, etc. Now they were all decent performers in terms of image quality, but none really stood out and none of them was any good in higher ISOs, and many of later cameras with smaller sensors beat them in those areas.
 
When a Nikon D2x is in crop mode, actual pixels are being thrown away.

In my example, I'm comparing an 8 Megapixel small (4/3) sensor with an 8 megapixel larger (APS) sensor. In that case, it's the BIG sensor that actually is throwing away detail, because the lens can FAR outresolve the bigger sensor, so it's wasting the lens' ability to resolve finer detail The same lens, used on a smaller sensor with the same resolving power, so long as it is STILL sufficient to resolve all the pixels on the sensor, will show MORE detail, and the frame, when blown up to the same size as the APS shot is blown up, will be magnified to a greater degree.
 
The fact is, when you crop, you then blow the image up to a greater degree to get the same size image. That's the magnification factor. It's the same as the crop factor, when the viewed image is a fixed size (such as an 8x10 print) or a full 17" monitor screen.
 
Tony A201566 said:
That said, it still is a CROP factor,
Click to expand...
Actually, the more objective terminology would be to say that four thirds format has a smaller FoV for a given focal length and has a higher pixel density and (given the same technology) resolves more detail per linear distance - more lp/mm.

So you can argue all day long about what "magnification" or "crop factor" means, but the simple fact is that the smaller sensor provides a real and effective advantage over larger sensors with the same pixel pitch for telephoto use - if the lens is up to the task.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
DougJGreen said:
When a Nikon D2x is in crop mode, actual pixels are being thrown away.
Click to expand...
Exactly! and when using ANY cropped DSLR (4/3 ,APS, etc) the problem is acual availiable (full-frame) detail was never captured in the 1st place.
DougJGreen said:
In my example, I'm comparing an 8 Megapixel small (4/3) sensor with
an 8 megapixel larger (APS) sensor. In that case, it's the BIG
sensor that actually is throwing away detail, because the lens can
FAR outresolve the bigger sensor, so it's wasting the lens' ability
to resolve finer detail The same lens, used on a smaller sensor
with the same resolving power, so long as it is STILL sufficient to
resolve all the pixels on the sensor, will show MORE detail, and
the frame, when blown up to the same size as the APS shot is blown
up, will be magnified to a greater degree.
Click to expand...
Again your example is nothing more than a pixel density argument----not a crop factor one. Using your logic, using a puny 1/2.5" 7MP sensor digicam should blow away a full frame DSLR---they don't. If you want to argue high pixel density (without losing quality) is benefical, fine, I never said it wasn't, but understand thet it has little to do with crop factor---which is always a bad thing.
 
Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:
That said, it still is a CROP factor,
Click to expand...
Actually, the more objective terminology would be to say that four
thirds format has a smaller FoV for a given focal length and has a
higher pixel density and (given the same technology) resolves more
detail per linear distance - more lp/mm.

So you can argue all day long about what "magnification" or "crop
factor" means, but the simple fact is that the smaller sensor
provides a real and effective advantage over larger sensors with
the same pixel pitch for telephoto use - if the lens is up to the
task.
Click to expand...
The advantage is in using the same lens with a smaller sensor having the same total pixel COUNT, not the same pixel PITCH. If the sensors actually had the same pixel pitch, in fact the larger sensor would be better, and the other poster's point would be valid - cropping would be lessening the information content of the image. If the total pixel COUNT is the same, and the lens can resolve the finer pixel PITCH of the smaller sensor, that's where the advantage of the higher crop factor (or, if you will, the magnification factor) is actually realized.
Jay Turberville said:
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Click to expand...
 
Tony A said:
DougJGreen said:
When a Nikon D2x is in crop mode, actual pixels are being thrown away.
Click to expand...
Exactly! and when using ANY cropped DSLR (4/3 ,APS, etc) the
problem is acual availiable (full-frame) detail was never captured
in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
But, in fact, more detail IS being captured entirely within that smaller area. That's my point. You're claim that the detail was never captured is patently wrong.
Tony A201566 said:
Tony A201566 said:
In my example, I'm comparing an 8 Megapixel small (4/3) sensor with
an 8 megapixel larger (APS) sensor. In that case, it's the BIG
sensor that actually is throwing away detail, because the lens can
FAR outresolve the bigger sensor, so it's wasting the lens' ability
to resolve finer detail The same lens, used on a smaller sensor
with the same resolving power, so long as it is STILL sufficient to
resolve all the pixels on the sensor, will show MORE detail, and
the frame, when blown up to the same size as the APS shot is blown
up, will be magnified to a greater degree.
Click to expand...
Again your example is nothing more than a pixel density
argument----not a crop factor one. Using your logic, using a puny
1/2.5" 7MP sensor digicam should blow away a full frame DSLR---they
don't. If you want to argue high pixel density (without losing
quality) is benefical, fine, I never said it wasn't, but
understand thet it has little to do with crop factor---which is
always a bad thing.
Click to expand...
No, because in my example, I specifically limited it to the scenario where the pixel density is not VASTLY greater, only slightly so, to the degree that the lens is still completely capable of resolving all of the detail. In your extreme case, that situation is clearly NOT the case.

Whatever you care to call it, Crop Factor, Magnification Factor, or Pixel Density, the fact is, as long as the lens' resolving power has not been exceeded by the greater pixel density, cropping DOES yield higher magnification capability, with preservation of MORE detail.

That is why the benefits of using a good prime telephoto on a 4/3 sensor are genuine, and manifest themselves in greater reach than if the same lens were used on a larger sensor with a lower pixel density.
 
DougJGreen said:
Tony A said:
DougJGreen said:
When a Nikon D2x is in crop mode, actual pixels are being thrown away.
Click to expand...
Exactly! and when using ANY cropped DSLR (4/3 ,APS, etc) the
problem is acual availiable (full-frame) detail was never captured
in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
But, in fact, more detail IS being captured entirely within that
smaller area. That's my point. You're claim that the detail was
never captured is patently wrong.
Click to expand...
So is the D2X capturing more detail in that smaller area?? Does a Canon 300D not lose information than a Canon 5D with the same lens would get??
DougJGreen said:
DougJGreen said:
DougJGreen said:
In my example, I'm comparing an 8 Megapixel small (4/3) sensor with
an 8 megapixel larger (APS) sensor. In that case, it's the BIG
sensor that actually is throwing away detail, because the lens can
FAR outresolve the bigger sensor, so it's wasting the lens' ability
to resolve finer detail The same lens, used on a smaller sensor
with the same resolving power, so long as it is STILL sufficient to
resolve all the pixels on the sensor, will show MORE detail, and
the frame, when blown up to the same size as the APS shot is blown
up, will be magnified to a greater degree.
Click to expand...
Again your example is nothing more than a pixel density
argument----not a crop factor one. Using your logic, using a puny
1/2.5" 7MP sensor digicam should blow away a full frame DSLR---they
don't. If you want to argue high pixel density (without losing
quality) is benefical, fine, I never said it wasn't, but
understand thet it has little to do with crop factor---which is
always a bad thing.
Click to expand...
No, because in my example, I specifically limited it to the
scenario where the pixel density is not VASTLY greater, only
slightly
Click to expand...
Make pixel density DEAD EVEN then argue crop factor......

so, to the degree that the lens is still completely
DougJGreen said:
capable of resolving all of the detail. In your extreme case, that
situation is clearly NOT the case.
Click to expand...
if ANY case where pixel density is removed from the equation represents an extreme case, then real life has tons of extreme cases.
DougJGreen said:
Whatever you care to call it, Crop Factor, Magnification Factor, or
Pixel Density, the fact is, as long as the lens' resolving power
has not been exceeded by the greater pixel density, cropping DOES
yield higher magnification capability, with preservation of MORE
detail.
Click to expand...
Cropping means to "cut away." It is patently impossible to crop an image and get more detail---stick with the D2X, it can do 1.5 and 2X cropping--same lens same camera--show me how it crops while obtaining more detail. Or, does cropping just fail to capture detail. P.S. pixel density and crop factor are very different things---THIS discussion was about crop factor--try to stick to it.
DougJGreen said:
That is why the benefits of using a good prime telephoto on a 4/3
sensor are genuine, and manifest themselves in greater reach than
if the same lens were used on a larger sensor with a lower pixel
density.
Click to expand...
Again it's that little "with a lower pixel
DougJGreen said:
density" bit that you are using to rig the game. Apples to Apples density for density... cropped cameras lose.
Click to expand...
 
DougJGreen said:
DougJGreen said:
DougJGreen said:
That said, it still is a CROP factor,
Click to expand...
Actually, the more objective terminology would be to say that four
thirds format has a smaller FoV for a given focal length and has a
higher pixel density and (given the same technology) resolves more
detail per linear distance - more lp/mm.

So you can argue all day long about what "magnification" or "crop
factor" means, but the simple fact is that the smaller sensor
provides a real and effective advantage over larger sensors with
the same pixel pitch for telephoto use - if the lens is up to the
task.
Click to expand...
The advantage is in using the same lens with a smaller sensor
having the same total pixel COUNT, not the same pixel PITCH.
Click to expand...
Yes. A mistype in the second paragraph. Note that the first paragraph sets up the point correctly.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Tony A said:
So is the D2X capturing more detail in that smaller area?? Does a
Canon 300D not lose information than a Canon 5D with the same lens
would get??
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. My point was SPECIFIC to an comparing an APS sensor and a 4/3 sensor having the same PIXEL COUNT
Tony A201566 said:
Make pixel density DEAD EVEN then argue crop factor......
Click to expand...
But I explicitly was NOT making pixel density even. I was specifically referring to DIFFERENT pixel densities when the total pixel COUNT was even. You are making an argument that is entirely irrelevant to the one I was making. My point was that the term Crop factor is in fact misleading when you are comparing different size sensors having the SAME number of pixels.
Tony A201566 said:
so, to the degree that the lens is still completely
Tony A201566 said:
capable of resolving all of the detail. In your extreme case, that
situation is clearly NOT the case.
Click to expand...
if ANY case where pixel density is removed from the equation
represents an extreme case, then real life has tons of extreme
cases.
Tony A201566 said:
Whatever you care to call it, Crop Factor, Magnification Factor, or
Pixel Density, the fact is, as long as the lens' resolving power
has not been exceeded by the greater pixel density, cropping DOES
yield higher magnification capability, with preservation of MORE
detail.
Click to expand...
Cropping means to "cut away." It is patently impossible to crop an
image and get more detail---stick with the D2X, it can do 1.5 and
2X cropping--same lens same camera--show me how it crops while
obtaining more detail. Or, does cropping just fail to capture
detail. P.S. pixel density and crop factor are very different
things---THIS discussion was about crop factor--try to stick to it.
Click to expand...
Which is why I explicitly did NOT use the term "crop factor" but rather, used the term "magnification factor" Because I was NOT cutting away information content. I was referring to lenses resolving the SAME information content onto a smaller physical size sensor. Cutting away actual information was your idea, and was NOT what I was referring to. In fact, it was specifically contradictory to the example I was citing.
Tony A201566 said:
Tony A201566 said:
That is why the benefits of using a good prime telephoto on a 4/3
sensor are genuine, and manifest themselves in greater reach than
if the same lens were used on a larger sensor with a lower pixel
density.
Click to expand...
Again it's that little "with a lower pixel
Tony A201566 said:
density" bit that you are using to rig the game. Apples to Apples density for density... cropped cameras lose.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually, My apples refer to pixel COUNT, NOT density. I am not rigging the game - I was referring to an 8 MP 4/3 camera, vs. an 8 MP APS camera. That WAS the game - when I was deciding which camera to buy, I was looking at 8 MP 4/3 cameras like the Olympus E-300, and 8 MP APS cameras like the Canon 20D.

It is obvious you are trying to debate a subject I never engaged in.
 
If your point was that 4/3 sensors have an telephoto advantage compared to APS sensors (provided the 4/3rd one has a higher pixel density with the same noise level) then I agree.
 
Yes, that was my point, although I was not referring to noise level, because it's unimportant at low ISOs. (the overwhelming majority of the subject matter I shoot is at ISO 100 or 200).
 
T3 said:
digital_ray_of_light said:
However 4/3rds is also a unique opportunity: Unlike the other
traditional mounts that have millions of lenses out there, 4/3rds
only has the relatively new Digital Zuikos (and PanaLeicas), ported
Sigmas and old OM-lenses with adapter and limitations. So if
someone made good or unique or cheaper 4/3rds lenses they could
sell more of them per one mythical DSLR compared to the traditional
mounts.
Click to expand...
But that's no different from other lens mounts. If the third-party
manufacturers make good or unique or cheaper Canon EF lenses, Nikon
F lenses, etc., then people will buy them. And there are a LOT
Click to expand...
Yes, but they would be competing against 20+ years of Canon or Nikon lenses as well as S/Tam/Tok lenses. With 4/3rds there's only a handful of lenses to chose from, so a new lens has a better chance of success on a per single DSLR basis. But obviously as you pointed out the size of the 4/3rds market compared to the size of the other lens mounts currently diminishes this benefit.
T3 said:
more people using those lens mounts than there are for the 4/3
mount. So in the end, it's not a "unique opportunity" that is
unique to the 4/3 mount, and you're dealing with a much smaller
user pool. Making a "good or unique or cheaper" lens for any of
the more popular mounts means they the third-party lens
manufacturers stand to get a much higher return on their investment
than making a "good or unique or cheapr" 4/3 lens. It would only
truly be a "unique opportunity" if there were only one third-party
lens manufacturer in the fray, and the 4/3 system suddenly exploded
in popularity. But if the 4/3 system exploded in popularity, then
other third-party manufacturers would jump in, and the "unique
opportunity" would no longer be unique anymore.
T3 said:
I think the trigger point for Tamron/Tokina to make 4/3rds lenses
is the size of the 4/3rds market. If/when it gets big enough to
their satisfaction...
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that's the driving reason for Tamron/Tokina not
currently offering 4/3 lenses. The market is just too small. And
splitting an already small market amongst Oly, Leica, Sigma, Tamron
and Tokina 4/3 lenses would mean even less to go around.
Click to expand...
--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.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