Reading mode: Light Dark

Using the word "Crop" seems Demeaning

Go to last post
joslocum said:
I believe that Crop tee-shirts or a Crop Tops are mostly for women, but hey, whatever these days!

8882002alt2_1.jpg
Click to expand...
Nope. It just has the 'crop' icon on the front and says 'Oh Crop'. It's gray, full length and fits my 6'2" frame just fine. In case you're interested:

Loading…

www.spreadshirt.ca

David

--
The smartest governments in the world can't stop a virus from spreading, but they can change the temperature of the Earth if you send them enough money. Ummmmmmm.....
Viewbug: https://www.viewbug.com/member/David_Pavlich
 
joslocum said:
I hear it all the time here.

-Oh, you have a crop camera.
Click to expand...
If I have a crop camera and put on it old but good lenses from the 70ties or 80ties, I crop the image these lenses "beam" towards my sensor: I cut out the border where these lenses build long ago almost all have major problems and keep the best parts for the photos. In this case cropping means getting rid of the crap and keeping the stellar parts for the photo!
joslocum said:
...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.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Fryd said:
Jean Lestrale said:
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....
Click to expand...
It sounds like what you are really trying to express is "angle of view". When people say "50mm equivalent" what they usually mean is "46° angle of view".

If you want to be clear, and express things in a system independent manner, just say "46°". Thats clear, and works across all sensor sizes.

When you stop to think about it, it's bizarre that digital shooters are in the habit of expressing angle of view in units of "focal length required on a traditional 35mm film SLR"
Click to expand...
Either way, all these figures do is show a limitation; not a "power", as many people seem to believe. If you have a real 10mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera, you have the same limitation as a real 16mm lens on a FF camera. There is nothing you can do to compose with a wider angle. At the other end of the focal length range, a real 500mm lens with a 1.6x would have the angle of view of a real 800mm on a FF. Again, however, that is only a limitation, as the crop factor hides more of the image circle. That does not "grab" or "reach" more detail from small or distant subjects. Only a higher pixel density can do that, with a given lens.
 
The Polaroid large format camera is basically a view camera. With the correct lens and film/print material one could make an 8 x 10 without cropping. There are apparently 2 20 x 24 cameras in use (see link, read the FAQ section). https://20x24studio.com/

dale
 
Last edited:
mrdale said:
The Polaroid large format camera is basically a view camera. With the correct lens and film/print material one could make an 8 x 10 without cropping. There are apparently 2 20 x 24 cameras in use (see link, read the FAQ section). https://20x24studio.com/

dale
Click to expand...
These things must have been amazing. My first thought is, How good do the seals (back) have to be to keep the light out?

And this would be a fun conversation with a friend visiting your house:

Friend: I really like that print; where did you have it enlarged?

Me: I didn't have it enlarged, it comes out of the camera that way.
 
Klaus dk said:
joslocum said:
Klaus dk said:
I'm not sure being offended on behalf of a sensor is something that can be solved in a photography forum.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really trying to solve anything; and or course, not one single person on this website will ever use a word other than Crop, ever.

But I will say, other than being beaten like a rented mule here, I have enjoyed the responses.

Keep 'em comin', I can handle it.
Click to expand...
Oh well, there's always the ignore list for those who are only in it to waste time.
Click to expand...
I'm on a few forums including a watch forum. I've never ignored or followed anyone or any thread to the best of my knowledge. But it seems here on DPR that if you post a single response on a thread you get notifications. I could probably change to default settings but I generally like to hear what people think, whether or not it aligns with my views or beliefs. Plus I might learn something!
 
joslocum said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am still annoyed by this post. You hear it all the time here? OK then provide some examples. Shouldn't be hard to find
 
Michael Fryd said:
John Sheehy said:
Jean Lestrale said:
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....
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I doubt if it's really ever a good thing; it is just a tolerable thing since we are mostly talking about 3:2 vs 4:3, where the diagonal is not changed by a huge amount if we crop to the other aspect, and the difference in sensor sizes compared tends to be much greater. Compare 1:1 to 16:9 or 2:1, however, and then the error becomes more significant.

Let's put these all into a common denominator: 18.

1:1 is 18:18 with a diagonal of 25.5
4:3 is 24:18 with a diagonal of 30.0
3:2 is 27:18 with a diagonal of 32.4
16:9 is 32:18 with a diagonal of 36.7
2:1 is 36:18 with a diagonal of 40.2

The diagonal difference between 3:2 and 4:3 is 1.1x, much smaller than the range in sensor sizes, or even between two close sensor sizes of a different class. The difference between 2:1 and 1:1, however, is 1.6x.

All numbers are rounded to one decimal place, accurate enough for this discussion.
 
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
 
tbcass said:
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
Click to expand...
Perhaps surprisingly, surface area is not important, unless you want to artificially limit the comparison to the same light per unit area. This limitation is a habit left over from the days of film.

With digital, the key metric is total light captured. This is light per unit area multiplied by the sensor area.

Angle of view, aperture diameter, shutter speed and the light from the subject are the four main factors in total light captured.

As long as you keep the same angle of view, same aperture diameter, and same shutter speed, a smaller sensor will gather the same amount of light as a larger sensor.

The disadvantage of the smaller sensor is not that it is smaller, but that you may not be able to get a lens with a big enough aperture diameter.
 
tbcass said:
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
Click to expand...
True, but my point is that you can't take the same photo using all of both a 4:3 and a 3:2 sensor; at least one must be cropped. So, if you need a 4:3 crop from FF, the largest area you can use is 768 of the 864 square mm.

If you need a 3:2 crop from the m43, then 225 square mm becomes 200.

So, using your numbers, FF has 3.84x the area of m43, and at the aspect ratio of 4:3, FF gives 768/225 = 3.4x the area, and 1.96x the diagonal of m43. For any needed 4:3 crop, that becomes 3.41x and 1.85x, and for any needed 3:2 crop, 4.32x and 2.08x.

These are not huge changes in area or diagonal, but start including a wider range of aspect ratios, and then there can be significant losses of area with necessary cropping.
 
sportyaccordy said:
joslocum said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am still annoyed by this post. You hear it all the time here? OK then provide some examples. Shouldn't be hard to find
Click to expand...
Your annoyance has been noted.

Don't worry, this thread will end soon.

I just did a search for the word Crop. Here is the result:



87996977d5764425903e92cc1412342f.jpg.png
 
Michael Fryd said:
tbcass said:
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
Click to expand...
Perhaps surprisingly, surface area is not important, unless you want to artificially limit the comparison to the same light per unit area. This limitation is a habit left over from the days of film.
Click to expand...
I believe the light captured per unit area is equally important with a digital sensor.
Michael Fryd said:
With digital, the key metric is total light captured. This is light per unit area multiplied by the sensor area.
Click to expand...
Total light captured is in a large part dependent on the surface area. All other things equal more surface area means more total light captured.
 
John Sheehy said:
tbcass said:
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
Click to expand...
True, but my point is that you can't take the same photo using all of both a 4:3 and a 3:2 sensor; at least one must be cropped. So, if you need a 4:3 crop from FF, the largest area you can use is 768 of the 864 square mm.
Click to expand...
John Sheehy said:
If you need a 3:2 crop from the m43, then 225 square mm becomes 200.

So, using your numbers, FF has 3.84x the area of m43, and at the aspect ratio of 4:3, FF gives 768/225 = 3.4x the area, and 1.96x the diagonal of m43. For any needed 4:3 crop, that becomes 3.41x and 1.85x, and for any needed 3:2 crop, 4.32x and 2.08x.

These are not huge changes in area or diagonal, but start including a wider range of aspect ratios, and then there can be significant losses of area with necessary cropping.
Click to expand...
I know that but I didn't want to delve that deeply into it because I assume people on DPR are aware of that already.
 
tbcass said:
Michael Fryd said:
tbcass said:
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
Click to expand...
Perhaps surprisingly, surface area is not important, unless you want to artificially limit the comparison to the same light per unit area. This limitation is a habit left over from the days of film.
Click to expand...
I believe the light captured per unit area is equally important with a digital sensor.
tbcass said:
With digital, the key metric is total light captured. This is light per unit area multiplied by the sensor area.
Click to expand...
Total light captured is in a large part dependent on the surface area. All other things equal more surface area means more total light captured.
Click to expand...
We look at this differently.

My viewpoint is that the total light captured is really the issue. Light per unit area and sensor size are the way of getting there.

Similarly, when it comes to exposure, shutter speed and aperture are both important. We shouldn't say that you can't get high exposure from small apertures, or that you always get large exposures from large apertures.
 
Michael Fryd said:
tbcass said:
Michael Fryd said:
tbcass said:
If you are concerned about sensor performance then surface area is important. The surface area determines the amount of light received.

M43 has 225 mm sq surface area.

APSC has 368 mm sq surface area.

Full Frame has 864 mm sq surface area.
Click to expand...
Perhaps surprisingly, surface area is not important, unless you want to artificially limit the comparison to the same light per unit area. This limitation is a habit left over from the days of film.
Click to expand...
I believe the light captured per unit area is equally important with a digital sensor.
Michael Fryd said:
With digital, the key metric is total light captured. This is light per unit area multiplied by the sensor area.
Click to expand...
Total light captured is in a large part dependent on the surface area. All other things equal more surface area means more total light captured.
Click to expand...
We look at this differently.

My viewpoint is that the total light captured is really the issue. Light per unit area and sensor size are the way of getting there.

Similarly, when it comes to exposure, shutter speed and aperture are both important. We shouldn't say that you can't get high exposure from small apertures, or that you always get large exposures from large apertures.
Click to expand...
It appears we actually are in agreement but coming at it from different angles. As I stated, "If you are concerned about sensor performance". By that, I mean dynamic range and noise.
 
sportyaccordy said:
joslocum said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am still annoyed by this post. You hear it all the time here? OK then provide some examples. Shouldn't be hard to find
Click to expand...
I still find it hilarious that anyone finds it to be "demeaning".
 
Mark B. said:
sportyaccordy said:
joslocum said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am still annoyed by this post. You hear it all the time here? OK then provide some examples. Shouldn't be hard to find
Click to expand...
I still find it hilarious that anyone finds it to be "demeaning".
Click to expand...
Noted
 
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