Using the word "Crop" seems Demeaning

I get that 35mm film was around for so long that it became the standard size, but if you really look at a FF sensor it is quite small physically. I mean, how many FF sensors would actually fit on a standard sheet of paper?
Irrelevant. The standard is the standard. Let it go.
Never rest on your laurels they always tell you. Yet here, it seems to be demanded. One must comply with...the standards. You must use nomenclature from 60 years ago whether you like it or not! Just let it go, they say; that's the way it is.
Foot and meter are much older than 60 years and "still" in use.
A gas-burning combustion engine is the standard for cars. It's been the standard for 100+ years. Why would you ever change it? However, Tesla seems to be doing ok.
Tesla has a tiny share of the cars market.
Now there is an "equivalent" of "horsepower" for electric cars. You must say horsepower because it is the standard even though we haven't had horses on the road in 120 years.
Yet, HP is still in use today. EV cars changed nothing in this respect.
I think they should be called Crop Cars.
More like FF cars. Try finding V6 sedans on the market now aside from the luxury brands. I think that only the top trim of the Camry has one. The new ones a crop.
 
Equivalent FL is not a measure of an angle of view. It is a measure of what FL on the reference FF format would give the same AOV. FL or equivalent FL translates easy to magnification (similar triangles); there is also the tradition as a factor.
 
Why do you care? Other people are entitled to express a view on a public or open forum. It’s not realistic to expect other people to change their behaviour in a way that improves how you feel about life.
The word crop is just part of the language that is used. I am sure some will use it in a loaded and egotistical way or to bait others who feel insecure about their gear. But, why would you want to empower their weaknesses by allowing puerile commentary to bother you?
just enjoy your gear and stop concerning yourself with the opinions of others.
 
I hear it all the time here.

-Oh, you have a crop camera.

...or...

-Oh, I see you have a crop sensor, so that's why...

...or...

-Is this the original image or did you crop it?

...or...

-Should I crop it in camera or in post?

Mostly you hear this from amateurs and pros who have full frame cameras, which they believe to have the largest sensor and is superior to anything smaller. Well, the medium format folks may disagree and Ansel Adams would have a good laugh as I believe his used to shoot in 8" x 10" format.

If you own a medium format camera is a FF considered a crop camera?

Let's discuss.
I think you missed the origins of "crop".

It comes from when ILC (SLR) became digital and used a smaller sensor than film size the system originally was designed for. (At the beginning it was called "focal length multiplyer" which is really wierd as focal length is not affected).

There are medium format crop cameras too, with sensors larger than FF.

Technically a MFT camera is not a crop camera at the system is designed for MFT. Although the sensor used has a crop factor of 2x.
I gotta tell ya', I haven't missed much. I've been into photography since the stone age including shooting with a Nikonos underwater camera and two strobes.

I'm making more of an observation about the standard by which we judge sensors and which ones are Cropped.

I think sybersitizen in reply #3 sums it up. Cheers!
There is no such reply. Great summary indeed LOL!

Fogel70 is right. When 35mm SLR system cameras became digital, and SLR owners added a digital body to their set of bodies and lenses, their new digital bodies only produced an image that was a crop of the image they were getting from their 35mm SLR bodies with any given lens.

Hence the term “cropped-image sensor” was both sensible and correct, and was shortened to “crop sensor”. Nothing insulting, nothing demeaning, just an accurate and necessary descriptive term.

OTOH I do understand your concerns about trolls with an attitude problem. Unfortunately eliminating the word “crop” won’t reduce the trolling. Just ask the m43 vets whose DPR forum has been constantly trolled by “sizists”, even though the term “crop sensor” is relatively rare there.

cheers
 
I'm not sure being offended on behalf of a sensor is something that can be solved in a photography forum.
 
I'm not sure being offended on behalf of a sensor is something that can be solved in a photography forum.
The only way to settle this is for the OP tochallenge someone to a duel :



d368f9826a1042b288609f41e1784dd5.jpg
 
Equivalent FL is not a measure of an angle of view. It is a measure of what FL on the reference FF format would give the same AOV. FL or equivalent FL translates easy to magnification (similar triangles); there is also the tradition as a factor.
In other words, you are saying: Equivalent FL is not a way of measuring AoV, it's a way of measuring AoV. This statement seems to have a logic problem.

You seem to be making a distinction based on the fact that the measure is based on a standard reference model.

I can measure how long my driveway is in either feet, or Chrysler Minivans. Both are a valid measurement, even though the later is based on an arbitrary standard.

Equivalent FL really is a way of measuring AoV. It was invented by marketing departments to help enthusiast photographers, who had only shot 35mm SLR cameras, to understand the results they would get from their existing lenses when mounted on a DSLR. Prior to this professional photographers understood the distinction between focal length and angle of view, as many pro photographers already shot with multiple film formats.

As far as "tradition" goes, that helps explains how we got where we are, not whether or not it is a measure of AoV.

If you want to talk about similar triangles, then we should be talking about the ratio of sensor size to focal length, not the focal length needed to match the ratio of a 35mm film SLR.
 
OTOH I do understand your concerns about trolls with an attitude problem. Unfortunately eliminating the word “crop” won’t reduce the trolling. Just ask the m43 vets whose DPR forum has been constantly trolled by “sizists”, even though the term “crop sensor” is relatively rare there.

cheers
Constantly? The only thread about FF I see in MFT right now is this one:

Moving to M43 from FF: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Seems pretty friendly and positive. I searched another 5 pages of threads and couldn't find anything about FF. Looks like the mods might finally have started cleaning up the stupid comparisons and allegations that M43 shooters were making. The forum looks a lot better for it.

I think there's a subset of MFT shooters with an inferiority complex who think the FF cabal is out for them. The reality is nobody cares. You won't find anyone in FF forums talking about M43 outside of deciding which system to shoot or w/e.
 
"Crop camera" is just bogus full frame marketing.

Nothing is being cropped in a "crop" camera.

Oh but what if I'm using a full-frame lens, you say? Haven't I just created a crop camera? No. If you disagree, then put a medium format lens on your full frame camera - now you're stuck with a "crop camera" too.
This is not going to be easy - I would need a third party adapter, and I would be stuck with manual controls. One the other hand, the crop Canon and Nikon dSLRs have a mount designed to take FF lenses natively.
Pentax makes, or rather once made adapters to convert its medium format lenses to Pentax K.
Search for "crop" here.
 
there is no requirement for the rest of the world to be ruled by your solipsism.
 
Equivalent FL is not a measure of an angle of view. It is a measure of what FL on the reference FF format would give the same AOV. FL or equivalent FL translates easy to magnification (similar triangles); there is also the tradition as a factor.
In other words, you are saying: Equivalent FL is not a way of measuring AoV, it's a way of measuring AoV. This statement seems to have a logic problem.
No, I am not saying that. My logic is fine.
You seem to be making a distinction based on the fact that the measure is based on a standard reference model.

I can measure how long my driveway is in either feet, or Chrysler Minivans. Both are a valid measurement, even though the later is based on an arbitrary standard.
Actually, the latter could be more useful.
Equivalent FL really is a way of measuring AoV.
No, it is not. If you want to relate it to the AOV, you get a nonlinear relation. If you are shooting with FF, you skip “equivalent”. When you say 24-105, you mean exactly that, focal lengths.
It was invented by marketing departments to help enthusiast photographers, who had only shot 35mm SLR cameras, to understand the results they would get from their existing lenses when mounted on a DSLR. Prior to this professional photographers understood the distinction between focal length and angle of view, as many pro photographers already shot with multiple film formats.

As far as "tradition" goes, that helps explains how we got where we are, not whether or not it is a measure of AoV.

If you want to talk about similar triangles, then we should be talking about the ratio of sensor size to focal length, not the focal length needed to match the ratio of a 35mm film SLR.
There is no much difference.
 
I get that 35mm film was around for so long that it became the standard size, but if you really look at a FF sensor it is quite small physically. I mean, how many FF sensors would actually fit on a standard sheet of paper?
Irrelevant. The standard is the standard. Let it go.
Never rest on your laurels they always tell you. Yet here, it seems to be demanded. One must comply with...the standards. You must use nomenclature from 60 years ago whether you like it or not! Just let it go, they say; that's the way it is.
Well alrighty then, have fun being a one-man army changing something that every other photographer understands, not to mention the industry uses.
A gas-burning combustion engine is the standard for cars. It's been the standard for 100+ years. Why would you ever change it? However, Tesla seems to be doing ok.
Still a small % of the market. But not even remotely the same thing. E-cars will be known as e-cars - just as mirrorless have always been known as mirrorless.
Now there is an "equivalent" of "horsepower" for electric cars. You must say horsepower because it is the standard even though we haven't had horses on the road in 120 years.
Funny then that hp is still and will remain a standard spec for automobiles.
 
Just a strange form of tribalism. I own Panasonic's. They're nice tools that get the job done, and they are paid for. They fit the type of shooting I mostly do.

If someone wants to call the "crop" so be it. It's just marketing.

I remember the absurdity of trying to come up with an abbreviation for "not SLR" cameras. "SLR" is a phrase that's equally silly. I'm surprised "NSLR" wasn't adopted. We did get DSLR, as if that mattered much. At least Leica's "rangefinder" is obvious. But, no. We got EVIL, ILC, MILC and other nonsense.

I think Panasonic has it right with "compact system cameras". Of course, that opens the debate about "compact"

If FF=35mm-like then what format is a Panasonc S1? Fuller Frame? Medium format means there's a Larger format to be Medium format to.
 
Equivalent FL is not a measure of an angle of view. It is a measure of what FL on the reference FF format would give the same AOV. FL or equivalent FL translates easy to magnification (similar triangles); there is also the tradition as a factor.
In other words, you are saying: Equivalent FL is not a way of measuring AoV, it's a way of measuring AoV. This statement seems to have a logic problem.
No, I am not saying that. My logic is fine.
Well now we are into the weeds of discussing semantics. We agree that Equivalent FL is a "measure". Where we disagree is what it is a measure of.

Getting back to the driveway analogy, I think that if we describe the length of the driveway in terms of Chrysler Minivans, then that is a "measure" of the length of the driveway, and the units we are using are "Chrysler Minivans".

In photography we talk about "wide angle", "normal", and "Telephoto", lenses. These are descriptions of their angle of view. The general rule is that a "Normal" lens is one where the focal length is about the same as the diagonal measurement of the film/sensor size. Shorter focal length are classified as "wide", longer are "telephoto". A 50mm lens can be wide, normal, or telephoto, depending on the film format (sensor size) it is being used with.

When we say that a lens has a "50mm Equivalent FL", we are saying that the combination of that lens on that format has the same Angle of View as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film SLR. "50mm Equivalent FL" is a measure of Angle of View, in the same way "4 Chrysler Minivans" is a measure of driveway length.
You seem to be making a distinction based on the fact that the measure is based on a standard reference model.

I can measure how long my driveway is in either feet, or Chrysler Minivans. Both are a valid measurement, even though the later is based on an arbitrary standard.
Actually, the latter could be more useful.
Only if you are very familiar with Chrysler Minivans. If you drive a Miata, a length in feet might be more useful.

But if your parents drove Chrysler Minivans, you might be in the habit of measuring driveway lengths in units of Chrysler Minivans, even if you and your friends are all driving smaller cars.
Equivalent FL really is a way of measuring AoV.
No, it is not. If you want to relate it to the AOV, you get a nonlinear relation. If you are shooting with FF, you skip “equivalent”. When you say 24-105, you mean exactly that, focal lengths.
There are lots of measurements that are non-linear. For example f/stops. Double the f/stop and you quadruple the area of the aperture.

Sound volume is typically measured on a log scale. Increase the sound by 3db and you have doubled the volume.
 
Last edited:
My APS-C sensor gives me everything I need... more would just be a waste of money and file size. When a hammer is well-matched to the nails, you don't need a bigger hammer you need some ideas about what to build !

Also, I express focal lengths in FF equivalent terms, simply because it makes things easier for purposes of discussion. I wish more people would do that, as I don't always know what "crop factor" various cameras may have....
It is questionable to use the diagonal for the factor, since there are different aspect ratios which will lead to cropping for any sensor just to achieve a different aspect ratio.

People like things simple, though, so we don't talk about both a horizontal and a vertical crop factor.

Imagine a sensor with an 8:1 ratio. How useful would the diagonal be, if we needed a square-ish composition?
 
I get that 35mm film was around for so long that it became the standard size, but if you really look at a FF sensor it is quite small physically. I mean, how many FF sensors would actually fit on a standard sheet of paper?
Irrelevant. The standard is the standard. Let it go.
Never rest on your laurels they always tell you. Yet here, it seems to be demanded. One must comply with...the standards. You must use nomenclature from 60 years ago whether you like it or not! Just let it go, they say; that's the way it is.
Well alrighty then, have fun being a one-man army changing something that every other photographer understands, not to mention the industry uses.
A gas-burning combustion engine is the standard for cars. It's been the standard for 100+ years. Why would you ever change it? However, Tesla seems to be doing ok.
Still a small % of the market. But not even remotely the same thing. E-cars will be known as e-cars - just as mirrorless have always been known as mirrorless.
Now there is an "equivalent" of "horsepower" for electric cars. You must say horsepower because it is the standard even though we haven't had horses on the road in 120 years.
Funny then that hp is still and will remain a standard spec for automobiles.
Lots of measurements have historic roots.

Many Americans measure distances in units of the size of a long dead king's foot.

Many Europeans measure temperature using units based on the phase changes of a common liquid.

Up until recently, the Kilogram was defined to the mass of a particular platinum-iridium reference item. When you said that something had a mass of 5 kilograms, you were saying it had a mass five times that particular reference object.

THE Kilogram maintained by the General Conference on Weights and Measures

THE Kilogram maintained by the General Conference on Weights and Measures
 
My APS-C sensor gives me everything I need... more would just be a waste of money and file size. When a hammer is well-matched to the nails, you don't need a bigger hammer you need some ideas about what to build !

Also, I express focal lengths in FF equivalent terms, simply because it makes things easier for purposes of discussion. I wish more people would do that, as I don't always know what "crop factor" various cameras may have....
It is questionable to use the diagonal for the factor, since there are different aspect ratios which will lead to cropping for any sensor just to achieve a different aspect ratio.

People like things simple, though, so we don't talk about both a horizontal and a vertical crop factor.

Imagine a sensor with an 8:1 ratio. How useful would the diagonal be, if we needed a square-ish composition?
You are correct in that it's hard to express a two dimensional relationship with a single number. Yet, that's what a "crop factor" tries to do.

The crop factor is based on the diagonal angle of view. M43 is said to have a 2X crop factor, as that's the factor that maintains the diagonal field of view.

Whether or not this is a good thing is an interesting discussion.
 
OTOH I do understand your concerns about trolls with an attitude problem. Unfortunately eliminating the word “crop” won’t reduce the trolling. Just ask the m43 vets whose DPR forum has been constantly trolled by “sizists”, even though the term “crop sensor” is relatively rare there.

cheers
Constantly?
In the past. I haven’t looked recently.
The only thread about FF I see in MFT right now is this one:

Moving to M43 from FF: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Seems pretty friendly and positive. I searched another 5 pages of threads and couldn't find anything about FF.
Excellent. Way overdue.
Looks like the mods might finally have started cleaning up the stupid comparisons and allegations that M43 shooters were making. The forum looks a lot better for it.

I think there's a subset of MFT shooters with an inferiority complex who think the FF cabal is out for them. The reality is nobody cares. You won't find anyone in FF forums talking about M43 outside of deciding which system to shoot or w/e.
Yeah I am familiar with the passive-aggressive crapola excuse and blame-shifiting the FF sizist trolls use to ‘justify’ their longstanding misbehaviour, which, BTW, the forum mods had to take action on, to the extreme extent of actually banning threads about equivalence or that got turned to equivalence. And that’s how the forum came to look a lot better these days.

Attempting to re-write history doesn’t wash. I was at the core of the cleanup when it happened, working with the mods, so I know what I’m talking about, whereas you I presume were a non-using bystander throwing in theoretical comments like they were gifts to the ignorant masses, filled with entitlement.

Just drop it, please. You are out of your depth if you think you are a historian of the m43 forum and its travails.
 
Yeah I am familiar with the passive-aggressive crapola excuse and blame-shifiting the FF sizist trolls use to ‘justify’ their longstanding misbehaviour, which, BTW, the forum mods had to take action on, to the extreme extent of actually banning threads about equivalence or that got turned to equivalence. And that’s how the forum came to look a lot better these days.
"Equivalency" is a way of showing that in most cases you can take the same photo with a full frame as with a crop body. I would think that those who feel a need to defend crop bodies would find this a very useful tool. In particular, it shows us that in many situations, full frame does not offer a noise advantage over crop bodies.

"Equivalency" does show that full frame cameras tend to have a wider "shooting envelope" than crop bodies. It also shows us where the envelope is wider, and helps us understand whether the difference is significant to a particular photographer.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top