Reading mode: Light Dark

Doesn't anyone like the 1.6x multiplier ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim kelly
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Doug Caesar said:
When I purchased the D30, my 200 f/2.8L immediately gave me the
field of view of a 320mm f2.8, a savings of several thousand
dollars, with closer focusing and without the weight. My 100mm
macro became, effectively as far as field of view, a 160mm macro,
just 20mm shorter than the 180mm L lens, at about half the price or
less and at less weight to lug around.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is what the D60 gave you (due to its smaller than 35mm film sensor) is a reduced field of view. Remove from the discussion for the moment comparisons on picture quality of the D30 vs film -- if having a reduced field of view from your existing lenses saves you from buying bigger lenses, you could do that cheaper by imagining a smaller rectangular frame inside the view finder of a film-based SLR. Then you can crop that picture later.

I'm starting to think that what most D30 users (who shoot telephotos) really enjoy is the higher effective magnification of the viewfinder picture.
 
We have to get a hologon zoom for our camera. So mr Zeiss, there is some work to be done

Harry Meijer
sarbos said:
I would need a 11-22mm to be able to do the same with the D30...

So :-(

ah, btw,
sarbos said:
And I dont mind spending 5000$ for a 14-28 2,8
Click to expand...
Where did you hear about such lens? I think it would cost
35000$!!!, since such a lens dosen't exist... I can make up a price
too... :-)

CU,

Sarbos
Click to expand...
 
This simply isn't true, unless you're also assuming more pixels on a larger sensor. Otherwise, your crop would have fewer pixels and wouldn't scale as well.

The people who like the multiplier aren't comparing a 3MP D30 to some mythical 8MP full-frame camera. They're saying that given the choice between a 3MP camera with a multiplier and one without, they prefer the multiplier.

Now if you're offering me an 8MP full-frame camera, we'll talk.

I just noticed that you specify a film SLR, which is a completely separate discussion. Leaving aside the hassle of scanning, the D30 holds up pretty well against a full-frame 35mm scan. I'm willing to wager that the D30 would handily stomp a scan of a relatively small crop.

-- Erik
Robby Villabona said:
if having a reduced field of view from your existing
lenses saves you from buying bigger lenses, you could do that
cheaper by imagining a smaller rectangular frame inside the view
finder of a film-based SLR. Then you can crop that picture later.
Click to expand...
 
Only if his sensor is correspondingly higher resolution. If his full-frame sensor has the same resolution as the 1.3x sensor, he'll have fewer pixels in the portion of the image that corresponds to the 1.3x sensor.

-- Erik
lhsmith said:
If you would 'have it all" with a 1.3x, ...then what would the guy
with the full-frame have? ("it all" PLUS?)
Click to expand...
 
Just like I didn't use a pair of scissors to crop my slides I dislike having the field of view cropped by the multiplier effect.

And forget the issue of "only using the best part of the lens". It is offset by the additional enlargement required.

So, let us have that full frame dSLR--Kjeld Olesen http://www.geocities.com/acapixus
 
Sorry Larry, but given that a CCD/CMOS sensor has a fixed number of pixels and does not 'grow' additional pixels as you crop, I don't understand the logic of your argument, and I have to agree with Erik's post.

As you say, it is possible to simply crop the centre from a full-frame sensor in order to achieve the same multiplier effect, but in doing so you are throwing away pixels. Your argument is not comparing like with like -- you appear to be comparing a 6 or 8 Mpixel full-frame sensor with a 3 Mpixel 1.6x multiplier sensor. In this case, yes, the full-frame does indeed "have it all". However, if the comparison is between a 3 (or even 4) Mpixel full-frame sensor and a 3 Mpixel 1.6x multiplier sensor, then for photographers who need telephoto capability above wide-angle capability the 1.6x multiplier is a positive advantage, since cropping a 3 or 4 Mpixel full-frame would entail an unacceptable reduction in resolution.

For a fixed number of sensor pixels, then the smaller its physical dimensions the smaller (and cheaper) the physical size of the lens needed in order to achieve the same effective focal length, which to my mind is a positive advantage (of course the downside is that a physically smaller sensor may mean more pixel noise and there are depth of field issues).

I am eagerly awaiting the successor of the D30 since from what I know of the D30 I suspect that this will be the camera that I next purchase, however, personally, I do not want it to be full-frame since this would almost certainly either push its price up beyond my budget (if it has a very high pixel count) or mean that larger (and more expensive) telephoto lenses are required in order to achieve a given effective focal length (since a lower pixel count would make the equivalent cropping unacceptable). Therefore, I want the successor of the D30 to have a pixel count of 4 to 5 Mpixels and a sensor size with a 'focal length multiplier' of about 1.3 or 1.4.

But, of course, we all have different needs and therefore our ideal cameras have different specifications.

Terry.
lhsmith said:
I'm starting to wonder about my continuing to post on this issue,
but I just find the whole "two-sides to the story " strange. I just
can't understand there being any disagreement as to whether-or-not
a full frame would be more desirable than a
"multiplier"(cropped-frame) sensor.

If you would 'have it all" with a 1.3x, ...then what would the guy
with the full-frame have? ("it all" PLUS?)

That someone hasn't felt it to be a problem says what, speaking of
its general merit? The next person can say he hasn't felt a 3x to
be a problem. I don't know what this is supposed to mean when
discussing which is the more desirable feature.

The person with the full-frame has ANY "magnifier"(starting at 1x)
he wants to crop-to.

The other guy has only those from 1.6 x(or whatever) up.

Seems clear to me which-of-them has "it all".

Larry
Click to expand...
 
I currently find it invaluable. I need to keep weight and cost down and this gives me the field of view of a 320mm for weight and cost of a 200mm F2.8, and the field of view of a 160mm macro for the weight and cost of a 100mm macro - without loosing pixel resolution!

Sure, if the full frame sensor had more pixels so that a crop to a similar field of view yeilded an identical amount or more pixels then I would be happy (if the body was not too heavy).

Until the day when there are more pixels than I need, and I can easily crop outside of the camera whilst maintaining a resolution I am happy with, then I'm for the multiplier.

Andy.
Jim Kelly said:
Doesn't anyone like the 1.6x multiplier ?
Click to expand...
 
Jim Kelly said:
Doesn't anyone like the 1.6x multiplier ?
Click to expand...
I'd say that I just accept that it's there. I haven't yet been in any situations where I have needed a really wide angle. I guess that I'll probably get a bit annoyed when I get in that situation for the first time.

On the other hand the current sensor enables me to get nice shots of objects far away, that can still be blown up to pretty good sizes without having to buy hideously expensive lenses.

Sure, a full-size sensor with the same pixel density as the current one would be better, but that's just not available at the moment. Until then, I'll just have to work with what I've got.

And if someone asks me about the largest weakness of the D30, I'd say the performance of the AF in low light with no hesitation.

Kind regards,
Hans
 
I'm certainly NOT confused about what's actually going on.

However, it's certainly easier to do what I want with the 1.6 multiplier than to use a full frame CMOS sensor and manually crop out the central portion. Not to mention a lot cheaper (a full-frame CMOS sensor isn't cheap).

Of course, there's always the option of buying both a full-frame CMOS AND a really big, heavy, expensive lens to do what I want. (Well, the full-frame CMOS hasn't arrived yet). But it's not very practical.
Robby Villabona said:
My sentiments exactly. I'd like the 1.6x (or any "multiplier") to
go away just so people would stop getting the illusion that it
magically turns their telephotos to supertelephotos.
Click to expand...
--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
 
If you could get a full-frame CMOS for the same price (and at the same pixel density), then it would be a no-brainer. (Though there's still the issue of manually cropping out the portion you want).

Of course, there's also the issue of having to STORE all that extra data on your compact flash or microdrive.

Nothing comes for "free" in photography.

And don't forget the issue that the pixels outside of the current D-30 sensor won't be as good in terms of sharpness/contrast (no different than current film SLR's).

But, yes, if a full-frame CMOS (with equal pixel density) were available at the same price, and the quality of those outside pixels were acceptable (they should be, I think), then I'd get the full-frame model.
lhsmith said:
I think the ranks of those saying I like it BETTER would shrink
immediately, if two models were available (at the same price). It
would be amusing to see those lightbulbs going on over so-many
heads at once.
Click to expand...
--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
 
lhsmith said:
I don't agree that this is "the standard argument". The discussion
is usually (ok, "often") about the desireability of full-frame vs
"multiplier" format DIGITAL cameras.
Click to expand...
If you go back and read the post to which I was responding, together with the first part of my reply, you'll find that is exactly the issue I was making - that there is not currently such a full-frame sensor digital camera - and therefore the "if" was a big if. Would I rather have a full-frame sensor with the pixel quality of the D30? Of course! - No issue there. If you go back and search the threads, you'll find many with arguements about the 1.6x "multiplier" stating you can do the same thing simply by cropping a full frame image. But the only way you can do that (at least using a Canon camera) is by using a film body. The arguements don't say "some day you will be able to do the same thing by...."
Larry H. Smith said:
If one had a full-frame sensor, he would in fact have BOTH the full
angle-of-view of his widest lenses, AND the equivalent of ANY
"multiplier-factor" applied to ANY of his lenses, achieved by
voluntary cropping in the computer, exactly the same as he is now
FORCED to accept, since it is done in-camera FOR him (like it or
not).
Click to expand...
Yes, "if one had a full-frame sensor", which one does not. I'm talking about my choices today, not in the future, and today the in-camera crop of the D30 gives me better quality images than an equivalent cropping of a film image. And, at least up to 11x14, it gives me equivalent quality of a full frame film image using a larger, heavier, more costly, longer lens on a 35mm film body to acheive the same image in-camera. So, for now, I'm very happy as purchasing a D30 has saved me the cost of a 300 f/2.8 and the difference in cost between a 100mm macro and the 180mm L macro - more than what I paid for the camera! And I don't have to lug around all that additional weight - not as young as I used to be, bad back, and the weight is a very real factor for me. Indeed, as I don't often go beyond 11x14 anyway, I can see myself using the D30 on the telephoto end for a long time to come, while using some newer larger sensor D-something in the future for wide-angle.
Larry H. Smith said:
Those who keep trying to believe that they are somehow getting
"more" from this "auto-cropping" either still don't get the
picture, or they are saying "It's just as good.", when they really
mean "I don't care that it isn't."
Click to expand...
I'm getting "more" in the sense in which I discussed it. I'm not getting more than some hypothetical full frame sensor, but such, at least at a price a mere mortal can afford, does not currently exist.
Larry H. Smith said:
When you consider that you have paid for lenses that cover the
entire 35mm frame, a camera that will not show you what the lens
was prepared to give it, is giving EVERYONE less, ...no matter how
you choose to sugarcoat it.
Click to expand...
Here you have an excellent arguement, and I agree, which is why I buy only lenses that will perform well on a (future) larger sensor. In a way, lenses for the D30 are more expensive than what you could otherwise get by with, since the additioanl magnification required to acheive a given final image size is greater, placing more demands on the lens, and requiring that only top lenses be used to acheive good results.
Larry H. Smith said:
A cropped frame may be state-of-the-(available)art today, ...but
that doesn't mean it is as good as it will be when full-frame
becomes available.
Click to expand...
Again, agreed. But I have to deal with what is available now. And given the choices now....
Larry H. Smith said:
I think the ranks of those saying I like it BETTER would shrink
immediately, if two models were available (at the same price). It
would be amusing to see those lightbulbs going on over so-many
heads at once.
Click to expand...
No light bulbs off here - but go back and read my post again and you'll see I was basing my arguement on what is available now (actually, what was available and affordable at the time I bought the D30). Now is when I am taking pictures and appreciating the crop on the long end of things.

Doug
 
That's not quite true. Assuming equal pixel density (regardless of the CMOS size).

It IS true if (with full frame), I can go to a higher focal length on my lens to fill the full frame. (And if those extra pixels result in a higher ppi that is noticably sharper on prints).

But if I'm already maxed out on my focal length (without buying a $4,000+ lens), then all those extra pixels don't do me any good. And when I crop out the center portion, I end up with exactly the same image as I had before (still using only the best part of the lens image -- NOT the lens).
Kjeld Olesen said:
And forget the issue of "only using the best part of the lens". It
is offset by the additional enlargement required.
Click to expand...
--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
 
Well, I bought the 17-35/2.8L strictly because of the 1.6 multiplier. Fortunately (for me), I don't really desire to shoot much at all that's any wider than this lens (with the D-30) will allow (in terms of FOV).
Mike Flaherty said:
Well, it's like this....On my 100-400mm IS L, I love it. On my
17-25mm L, I hate it. It's a love-hate thing.
Click to expand...
--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
 
Robby Villabona said:
The bottom line is what the D60 gave you (due to its smaller than
35mm film sensor) is a reduced field of view. Remove from the
discussion for the moment comparisons on picture quality of the D30
vs film -- if having a reduced field of view from your existing
lenses saves you from buying bigger lenses, you could do that
cheaper by imagining a smaller rectangular frame inside the view
finder of a film-based SLR. Then you can crop that picture later.
Click to expand...
Of course, without discussion of image quality, the advantage disappears. For me (speaking only for myself here) that is the advantage - that I can acheive (up to a given magnification in the final print) the same or better image quality with the D30 as I would with a full-frame film image using a longer lens. IOW, the "in camera crop" of the D30 gives me usable images where an equal crop of a film image out of camera would not. To me, that's a very big advantage - on the long end of things.
Robby Villabona said:
I'm starting to think that what most D30 users (who shoot
telephotos) really enjoy is the higher effective magnification of
the viewfinder picture.
Click to expand...
What this D30 user enjoys is attaining a satisfying and usable image with a given lens on a D30 that I could not acheive with the same lens on a film body and later cropping to the same degree.

Doug
 
Erik Fortune said:
The people who like the multiplier aren't comparing a 3MP D30 to
some mythical 8MP full-frame camera. They're saying that given
the choice between a 3MP camera with a multiplier and one without,
they prefer the multiplier.

Now if you're offering me an 8MP full-frame camera, we'll talk.

I just noticed that you specify a film SLR, which is a completely
separate discussion. Leaving aside the hassle of scanning, the
D30 holds up pretty well against a full-frame 35mm scan. I'm
willing to wager that the D30 would handily stomp a scan of a
relatively small crop.

-- Erik
Robby Villabona said:
if having a reduced field of view from your existing
lenses saves you from buying bigger lenses, you could do that
cheaper by imagining a smaller rectangular frame inside the view
finder of a film-based SLR. Then you can crop that picture later.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm confused now... reading through the other notes, can someone take a minute to explain the "effects" of the 1.6x for a new D30 user?

Thanks,
Matt
Robby Villabona said:
OTOH, you'll see all over the boards messages from people who love
their 1.6x multiplier because it somehow magically boosted the
magnification of their lens -- which is utter nonsense!

BTW, I didn't buy a D30 because many pictures I like taking are in
the 24-35mm wide angle range. I can't just move farther back
because I lose the "drama" of distortion of perspective. I can
live with the 1D's 1.3x, but I don't have $5,500 for a camera...
it's a tough world. My Elan IIE will have to do for now.
John Beale said:
Robby Villabona said:
My sentiments exactly. I'd like the 1.6x (or any "multiplier") to
go away just so people would stop getting the illusion that it
magically turns their telephotos to supertelephotos.
Click to expand...
Sure, the D30 does not have a full-field imager. But it does have
enough pixels to make decent 8x10's on most subject matter, so I
believe it's valid to compare for reference purposes, its output
with what you'd get with a 1.6x longer lens with 35mm film.

I have yet to see anyone print out a D30 image with a big white
border around it to represent the pixels they would have had if it
was a full-frame imager.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jim Kelly said:
Maybe D-SLR makers should make various versions of their cameras
like Nikon did with their D1H (1.5x) speed demon and D1X (1.5x)
resolution demon - but expand that and - also make a D1H and a D1X
with larger 1.3x or 1.0x sensors for the wide-angle crowd.
Click to expand...
Thats the solution! A D1Awsome, comes with interchangeable sensors.

:)
 
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