Canon Crop factor FF,1.3,1.6 need information

[KHC]

Hi All Canonion.

Need some information to clear the doubt of crop factor on FF,1.3 and 1.6 in canon system.
What the difference FF with 1.3 and 1.6?
Do the 1.3 or 1.6 mean multiply lenses focus length on the lense ?

[aloyyolaaloy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

[Adelfin]

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ensor-size.htm

[totoro17]

which camera is 1.3?

1.3 is better or 1.6? of coz full frame is the best

[xl1]

i like all this replay..... instead of "google it.. or do your own research"
at least still have helpfull people in here...pheww..

sorry for OT

[aloyyolaaloy]

hmm.. you say lei

[FilterFunk]

it depends on what you want to shoot
landscapes/sceneries apparently it will be FF..
for birders/sports.. it might be 1.6x

for a nice mix between the 2.. 1.3x?

[Squid]

More information on Canon DSLR's crop factor at

http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin/Format_size.pdf

[Adelfin]

There will never be a straight answer to what u should get.. It's all dependent on "what YOU need"

all the different crops have different advantages and disadvantages..

1.6x crops help to achieve tighter framing, which helps sports/wildlife photographers as they need a long reach...

FF helps to achieve great wide angle shots, which will be very good for landscapes and fresh perspectives.. it also offers better resolution, details, and better bokeh..

1.3x is in between. But in canon's case, it is basically for sports. Think about it. 1D Mk III has a 10fps frame rate..

Then, there's the cost. 1.6 bodies are cheaper, followed by 5D(FF), 1D Mk III (1.3), and 1Ds Mk II (FF again). do you have the budget for what u want?

Do take note that for FF, u prob need to get very high-end lenses or the images' corner quality will suffer, and this will cost even more..

[cantaresg]

Originally Posted by totoro17 which camera is 1.3? 1.3 is better or 1.6? of coz full frame is the best

I don't really feel that ff will necessary be best (of course the camera who has it probably is).

Basically these are the models that are ff: 1Ds, 1Ds MkII, 5D
These are the models that have crop factor 1.3: 1D, 1D MkII, 1D MkII N, 1D MkIII

[+evenstar]

ok an illustration of sensor crop. hope this helps to clear up doubts.

this is the scenario:
you have:
a 24mm lens
1 FF body
1 1.3x body
1 1.5x body
1 4/3 system


without moving the lens (ie lens position is fixed throughout) nor changing the focal length, you mount different cameras onto the lens and take a picture. the boxes show the resulting picture that your camera will take.




some people may ask, "can i use a 17mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera to get the same effect as a 27mm on a FF body?"

my answer is this: no. reason being, you might be able to get the same amount of scene into the frame, but the perspective will never be the same.

[Gunbucker]

Head on explanation evenstar

[cantaresg]

I beg to differ.

If I am standing at the same location, possibly mounting the camera(s) on the tripod, and I take a snapshot using a 17mm with a 400D or a 27mm with a 1Ds MkII, you should get the same effect. I do not have any pictures to demonstrate this but let's just do a single thought experiment:

Suppose I lay a bottle of pepper, salt and a can on the table and taking a picture of the three objects along a diagnal line. I use 3 different setups: i) 1Ds MkII with 17mm, ii) 1Ds MkII with 27mm and iii) 400D with 17mm.

Using setup 1, I find that the height of the (bottle of) pepper is (for example) 15mm, the height of salt is 10mm, and the height of the can is 5mm, all heights relative to the film size.

Using setup 2, I find that the height of the pepper is 24mm, the height of salt is 16mm and the height of can is 8mm.

Using setup 3, since the image is a crop of the image 1, we can find that the height of pepper is 24mm, the height of salt is 16mm and the height of can is 8mm, if the image is blown up to the 35mm film size.

This should be true for all areas on the "film", and hence the perspective should remain the same. Thus there should be no difference in taking a picture using a ff 27mm or a 1.6 cropped 17mm.

[totoro17]

i thought full frame camera is expensive but actually 1.3 is more expensive....so weird...dun understand

[cantaresg]

Actually not really true also. A ff 1Ds MkII is still more expensive I think.

[aloyyolaaloy]

no lah... its just how well these companies market themselves...
of course more technology means more $ we have to pay..

[Adelfin]

Originally Posted by totoro17 i thought full frame camera is expensive but actually 1.3 is more expensive....so weird...dun understand

the features involved makes the difference...
how many companies can create 10fps cameras? with a buffer of 110 images to boot?

there's also the 45pt af assist.. lots of other things too...remember.. the sensor isn't the only thing u're paying for... size isn't everything... stop looking at cameras at face value.. look at what it can do for you instead..

[nuxnewbie]

Originally Posted by cantaresg I beg to differ. If I am standing at the same location, possibly mounting the camera(s) on the tripod, and I take a snapshot using a 17mm with a 400D or a 27mm with a 1Ds MkII, you should get the same effect. I do not have any pictures to demonstrate this but let's just do a single thought experiment: Suppose I lay a bottle of pepper, salt and a can on the table and taking a picture of the three objects along a diagnal line. I use 3 different setups: i) 1Ds MkII with 17mm, ii) 1Ds MkII with 27mm and iii) 400D with 17mm. Using setup 1, I find that the height of the (bottle of) pepper is (for example) 15mm, the height of salt is 10mm, and the height of the can is 5mm, all heights relative to the film size. Using setup 2, I find that the height of the pepper is 24mm, the height of salt is 16mm and the height of can is 8mm. Using setup 3, since the image is a crop of the image 1, we can find that the height of pepper is 24mm, the height of salt is 16mm and the height of can is 8mm, if the image is blown up to the 35mm film size. This should be true for all areas on the "film", and hence the perspective should remain the same. Thus there should be no difference in taking a picture using a ff 27mm or a 1.6 cropped 17mm.

hmm, ok, but what about background compression?

we do not vary camera-to-subject distance;

we do not vary subject-to-background distance;

but we vary focal length - surely the perspective will be different due to background compression.

use another example, take those super-zoom compacts (with about 5-6x crop factor) and set it to 300mm equivalent. we then slap a 300mm lens on, say, a 1Ds Mk2. Repeat your experiment. Objects should be the same size in the photos with either camera, but the surroundings should appear quite different. This should count as a difference in perspective yah...

[the6thday]

Originally Posted by cantaresg I beg to differ. If I am standing at the same location, possibly mounting the camera(s) on the tripod, and I take a snapshot using a 17mm with a 400D or a 27mm with a 1Ds MkII, you should get the same effect. I do not have any pictures to demonstrate this but let's just do a single thought experiment: Suppose I lay a bottle of pepper, salt and a can on the table and taking a picture of the three objects along a diagnal line. I use 3 different setups: i) 1Ds MkII with 17mm, ii) 1Ds MkII with 27mm and iii) 400D with 17mm. Using setup 1, I find that the height of the (bottle of) pepper is (for example) 15mm, the height of salt is 10mm, and the height of the can is 5mm, all heights relative to the film size. Using setup 2, I find that the height of the pepper is 24mm, the height of salt is 16mm and the height of can is 8mm. Using setup 3, since the image is a crop of the image 1, we can find that the height of pepper is 24mm, the height of salt is 16mm and the height of can is 8mm, if the image is blown up to the 35mm film size. This should be true for all areas on the "film", and hence the perspective should remain the same. Thus there should be no difference in taking a picture using a ff 27mm or a 1.6 cropped 17mm.

don't quite follow how your illustration above leads to the conclusion. you may need to elaborate on how you arrive at the image sizes for each of the setups.

anyway, my understanding of "perspective" is that this refers to the angle of view. for the same subject to image distance, the angle of coverage is different for lenses of different focal lengths. this is constant regardless of the media used to capture the image (i.e. big sensor vs small sensor).

thus, you cannot fully replicate the "effect" of each lens with another lens of a different focal length, just by cropping the picture to obtain the same image to frame proportions. anyone who has taken a zoom lens and walked towards/away from a subject while zooming accordingly to maintain image size will realise this.

thought the picture in +evenstar's post has made this self evident.

[cantaresg]

Originally Posted by the6thday don't quite follow how your illustration above leads to the conclusion. you may need to elaborate on how you arrive at the image sizes for each of the setups. anyway, my understanding of "perspective" is that this refers to the angle of view. for the same subject to image distance, the angle of coverage is different for lenses of different focal lengths. this is constant regardless of the media used to capture the image (i.e. big sensor vs small sensor). thus, you cannot fully replicate the "effect" of each lens with another lens of a different focal length, just by cropping the picture to obtain the same image to frame proportions. anyone who has taken a zoom lens and walked towards/away from a subject while zooming accordingly to maintain image size will realise this. thought the picture in +evenstar's post has made this self evident.

Well, if you zoom while changing the subject distance to maintain the same subject size does change the perspective. But you should realise one condition that was being discussed. The subject distance from the lens is a constant.

The way that I draw the conclusion is through just simple mathematics on enlargement. If the zoom lens enlarges an object by a factor of 2, it does so to all other objects within the same view. On the other hand, if you enlarge a picture by a factor of 2 with cropping, you also enlarges all the items with a factor of 2. And since the 10MP sensor is packed within the "cropped" area, there is no reduction in image quality.

Quoting from wikipedia: Perspective is a property that depends only on viewpoint (camera position). But if moving a lens to a smaller-format camera causes a photographer to move further from the subject, then the perspective will be affected.

Further, if you look at the picture posted by evenstar, the angle of view looks the same as if you use a 27mm lens on a ff. Its not the same for different medium sizes. Look here for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._angle_of_view