the real advantage of FLM

[user111]

can i just highlight to everyone the real advantage of FLM (otherwise known as crop factor - in DSLRs): it allows u to view a magnified image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when you are shooting.

i have seen many arguments about why FLM is a "farce" about multiplying focal length because it is really just a crop. yes, it is really just a crop and the actual focal length is not multiplied at all.

BUT this crop allows u to to view a maginfied image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting. That, itself, is already a precious advantage that FF dslrs cannot provide.

hence, if u are like me, more of a tele shooter, i will advise u to go for a dslr with cropped sensor. so as to enjoy a magnified view in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting

unless of course, u like to spend more $ to buy a longer lens

 

[eastwest]

I don't understand the point you are so excited about?

 

[Artosoft]

He is talking about disadvantage rather than advantage of crop factor dSLR!

Regards,
Arto.

 

[waileong]

It's not really "magnified". Eg, if you are shooting a portrait using a 100 mm lens, you will still fill the person's face in the viewfinder by moving backwards until everything fits. You don't stand at the same position as you would if you were using a normal SLR-- if you did, what you would get is a cropped face.

So by moving backwards, you actually make the image smaller so all of it can fit onto your viewfinder. By doing so there's no more "magnification", and in fact, your perspective has changed (good or bad change is a separate matter).

Wai Leong
===

can i just highlight to everyone the real advantage of FLM (otherwise known as crop factor - in DSLRs): it allows u to view a magnified image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when you are shooting.

i have seen many arguments about why FLM is a "farce" about multiplying focal length because it is really just a crop. yes, it is really just a crop and the actual focal length is not multiplied at all.

BUT this crop allows u to to view a maginfied image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting. That, itself, is already a precious advantage that FF dslrs cannot provide.

hence, if u are like me, more of a tele shooter, i will advise u to go for a dslr with cropped sensor. so as to enjoy a magnified view in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting

unless of course, u like to spend more $ to buy a longer lens

 

[denniskee]

if i use a full frame dslr, i can get what you get with the same lens, just need to crop in pp. so far, all full frame camera resolution will still give you more than 6mp after it is crop to 1.5x, higher than like d70, d50, d60, 10d, 300d.

with the same lens, same cannot be said for dslr with the crop factor. but it does have its plus, being able to shoot at high fps as compared to a full frame dslr.

it basically just boils down to what you budget 1st, than your needs. no point doing the comparision, just go and shoot lar.

 

[JediForce4ever]

If I'm not wrong....the crop factor actually increases pixel density right?

like a 10mp 1.5x compared to a FF 10mp.

One thing user111 forgot to mention is that the Crop factor enables you to use the sweetest spot of the lens.....and you can shoot with a wide open aperture with no worries about vignetting for FF lenses.

 

[user111]

if i use a full frame dslr, i can get what you get with the same lens, just need to crop in pp.

that is my whole point: the real advantage of cropped sensor over FF sensor is that with cropped sensor, with the same lens, at the same distance away from the subject, u get to see a larger image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting, and not waiting until u go home and crop in on the computer.

this is the point that almost every FF sensor advocate misses out .


but then i know at lot of people still dun get what i am trying to put across. lol . nevermind.

 

[imouyang]

that is my whole point: the real advantage of cropped sensor over FF sensor is that with cropped sensor, with the same lens, at the same distance away from the subject, u get to see a larger image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting, and not waiting until u go home and crop in on the computer.

this is the point that almost every FF sensor advocate misses out .


but then i know at lot of people still dun get what i am trying to put across. lol . nevermind.

The emphasis that u have is real time... I get the pt... This eliminates the need to crop(provided u frame correctly already)

 

[user111]

yeah i am very happy at least one person understood what i meant. ok thread close now i can go back to sleep

 

[roygoh]

I am not sure about your DSLR, but my D1x's viewfinder is "cropped" compared to a FF film SLR. So the benefit you described is not true at least for the D1x. So the same object at the same distance viewed through the same lens will appear the same size on both film SLR and D1x. While the sensor is cropped to give apparent focal length increase, the viewfinder is also cropped at the same percentage.

I had to add a DK17 viewfinder magnifier to bring it closer to the size of a FF film SLR...but not as big still.

Newer DSLRs may have additional optics built in to the view finder to magnify it. Otherwise your argument does not stand.

 

[r32]

What are you on about? The basic premise of the full frame SLRs is that the viewfinder is a lot brighter and wider in comparison to "looking into a tunnel" that is the characteristic of crop-factor SLRs. Therefore magnification doesn't come into play - your vision in the viewfinder is cropped the same way as the image gets cropped coming off the lens.

 

[user111]

resoultion and viewfinder brightness and other variables aside, to put in in layman terms, what i mean is that for eg if u mount a 300f4 on eos 300d u will get the more satisfying view of 480mm effective view instantaneously as compared to while if u mount 300f4 on eos 5d you will never get to see 480mm effective worth of view until u go back home and crop on the computer ..which is not as satisfying.

 

[user111]

if anyone still doesnt get it then nevermind. thanks. was just trying to highlight a misconception for all.

 

[pai]

can i just highlight to everyone the real advantage of FLM (otherwise known as crop factor - in DSLRs): it allows u to view a magnified image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when you are shooting.

as someone has already pointed out, because cropped sensor dslrs have smaller viewfinders, what you're seeing isn't a magnified image, but a cropped one.

i see what you mean: this "in-viewfinder crop" means you can frame the cropped image easily, instead of estimating where and how much you can crop from a full-frame image.

but it does seem (to me at least), that we're making a virtue out of a necessity here. :angel:

 

[irrelevance]

i don't think it works that way....

For both cropped and FF dSLRs, "what you see is what you get".

Ignoring the .8-.9x crop factor of the viewfinder inherent in most SLRs, A lens with 50mm lens will give you different fields of view, depending on whether it's projecting onto an 1/1.8" sized sensor, an APSc sized sensor, a 35mm sensor, or a medium format plane. And the viewfinder just displays what you are going to capture on the recording plane. No special magnification or anything.

Cheers
Sing

 

[roygoh]

if anyone still doesnt get it then nevermind. thanks. was just trying to highlight a misconception for all.

If you think a cropped view in the viewfinder is more satisfying than cropping later on the PC, then that is your personal preference and there is no argument about it. But I don't think any one else is having a misconception.

In your original post you said that the FLM provides a magnified image on the viewfinder, which you claimed is the "real" advantage of FLM. Some of us are just trying to point out to you that the view finder of a DSLR with FLM is also cropped by the same percentage compared to the viewfinder of a FF DLSR. An object will appear as the same size in the view finder when viewed with the same lens, whether on FF or cropped frame DSLR.

FLM does not give you any magnification in the viewfinder. That I know is true on current generation of DSLRs, D70, D1X and Canon 350D at least.

When you compare FF versus cropped frame DSLRs, what you see in the view finder is close to what you get in the actual image, and you see that in real time. The "real advantage" you are so passionate about does not seem like any advantage to me at all.

 

[r32]

resoultion and viewfinder brightness and other variables aside, to put in in layman terms, what i mean is that for eg if u mount a 300f4 on eos 300d u will get the more satisfying view of 480mm effective view instantaneously as compared to while if u mount 300f4 on eos 5d you will never get to see 480mm effective worth of view until u go back home and crop on the computer ..which is not as satisfying.

The more pixels are packed into a given area of the image sensor, technically, the better the resolving power will be. But for simplicity's sake, let's assume that there are 300 pixels per square inch in both a 1.6x crop sensor, and there was the same pixel density in a full frame sensor. In that same vein, whether or not your sensor has been cropped, your final image resolves the same amount of detail.

But that isn't the case with Canon's diverse lineup of sensors. The fact is that a 20D/30D packs more pixels into the same given area (higher pixel density) than a 1D Mark 2, or even a 1Ds Mark 2. Therefore, assuming everything else (lens and focal length) remained the same, the 20D actually resolves more detail that the two 1-series bodies. It would however have cropped out the border of the image that the rest have retained to varying degrees.

Your blanket statement that all cropped DSLRs offer a bonus magnification factor does not hold true. Not all 1.5/1.6x cropped cameras have as high a pixel density as the 20/30D's 8 megapixels. At the other end of the scale you have the D30.

Try convincing someone that a D30 will resolve more detail than a 1Ds Mark 2, just because its got a 1.6x multiplication factor. Other factors must be considered.

But at the end of the day, if you like your images pre-cropped, well that is your preference.
I would rather have a wider image that allows me the leeway to crop later on. You can't reconstruct the image that has been left out in the sensor's natural crop.

 

[vince123123]

Hmm, I always thought that having a lower pixel density makes for a better quality image. Compare the size of a DSLR's CCD (lower pixel density) compared to the tiny compact camera's CCD (higher pixel density), both are at the same Megapixel level...

The more pixels are packed into a given area of the image sensor, technically, the better the resolving power will be. But for simplicity's sake, let's assume that there are 300 pixels per square inch in both a 1.6x crop sensor, and there was the same pixel density in a full frame sensor. In that same vein, whether or not your sensor has been cropped, your final image resolves the same amount of detail.

But that isn't the case with Canon's diverse lineup of sensors. The fact is that a 20D/30D packs more pixels into the same given area (higher pixel density) than a 1D Mark 2, or even a 1Ds Mark 2. Therefore, assuming everything else (lens and focal length) remained the same, the 20D actually resolves more detail that the two 1-series bodies. It would however have cropped out the border of the image that the rest have retained to varying degrees.

Your blanket statement that all cropped DSLRs offer a bonus magnification factor does not hold true. Not all 1.5/1.6x cropped cameras have as high a pixel density as the 20/30D's 8 megapixels. At the other end of the scale you have the D30.

Try convincing someone that a D30 will resolve more detail than a 1Ds Mark 2, just because its got a 1.6x multiplication factor. Other factors must be considered.

But at the end of the day, if you like your images pre-cropped, well that is your preference.
I would rather have a wider image that allows me the leeway to crop later on. You can't reconstruct the image that has been left out in the sensor's natural crop.

 

[r32]

Hmm, I always thought that having a lower pixel density makes for a better quality image. Compare the size of a DSLR's CCD (lower pixel density) compared to the tiny compact camera's CCD (higher pixel density), both are at the same Megapixel level...

True most of the time - the tighter the pixels are packed the more noise you would expect. That was why there was a big discussion going on when Canon introduced the 20D, which claimed 8mp where the 10D only had 6mp, but not only that, much improved noise control.

So to a certain extent, better technology can pack more in a given area but with less noise.

 

[vince123123]

So how come you say that higher pixel density "resolves more detail"?

True most of the time - the tighter the pixels are packed the more noise you would expect. That was why there was a big discussion going on when Canon introduced the 20D, which claimed 8mp where the 10D only had 6mp, but not only that, much improved noise control.

So to a certain extent, better technology can pack more in a given area but with less noise.