A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So, Why FF ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 20th 18, 07:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?


OK but still, what about the image size, field, aspect ratio ...


Think about it. Why would the image size, or aspect ratio be different (for a
print)?


I never said anything about prints, but printed images would
essentially be the same as screen images.

The resulting image/print is still not going to particularly good. An iPhone
would be better.

As far as “field”, who knows what you mean by “field”.

I thought it'd be obvious. I think viewing angle might best describe
it. i.e. the angular size of the total view, e.g. 20 x 30 degrees .
  #23  
Old September 20th 18, 10:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?


If you meant *field of view* that would be lens FL controlling.


Field of view sounds right, but what is "... lens FL controlling" ?
  #24  
Old September 20th 18, 10:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default So, Why FF ?

In article ,
wrote:


If you meant *field of view* that would be lens FL controlling.


Field of view sounds right, but what is "... lens FL controlling" ?


focal length
  #26  
Old September 21st 18, 01:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?


Field of view sounds right, but what is "... lens FL controlling" ?


It means the *field of view* is controlled, or determined by the focal length
(FL) of whichever lens is used.


Only if the size of the sensor exceeds the size of the image produced
on it by the particular lens.
  #28  
Old September 21st 18, 02:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default So, Why FF ?

On Sep 21, 2018, wrote
(in ):


Field of view sounds right, but what is "... lens FL controlling" ?


It means the *field of view* is controlled, or determined by the focal
length (FL) of whichever lens is used.


Only if the size of the sensor exceeds the size of the image produced
on it by the particular lens.


....er, no.

You are the individual proposing the incredible shrinking sensor, and should
understand how that crop effect works.

The FL of any lens regardless of optimization for sensor type will remain a
constant. However, that FL is controlling when it comes to *field of view*. A
16mm lens on an APS-C sensor will have a *field of view* of 83.2Âș, an FX
format 16mm lens on a FF sensor will have a 107Âș *field of view*. If you use
the FX optimized lens on a crop sensor camera the FL remains the same, however,
the *field of view* is not as wide (back to 83.2Âș), hence the crop sensor
effect.

With a 200mm lens APS-C will have a *field of view* of 8.1Âș, on an FF sensor
it will be 12.2Âș, and a 200mm on an MF sensor is going to be about 16Âș.

Take a lens optimized for an APS-C sensor, and use it on a FF sensor camera
which is unable to compensate for the DX lens by electronically down sizing the
FF sensor, you will still have the same lens FL (the constant), but there will
be heavy vignetting. Depending on mount, and/or mount adaptor M43, and APS-C
MILC shooters will not experience the same issue using an adapted FF lens.

So there is little advantage in using APS-C, or M43 optimized lenses on FF, or
MF cameras, where as many M43 & APS-C MILC shooters use adapted FF/FX lenses
without issue.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

  #29  
Old September 21st 18, 09:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default So, Why FF ?

Forget about calling lenses or sensors anything
( e.g. FF = 24 x 36 sensor ) .

A lens will project an image that has a field roughly inversly
proportional to the FL. On 35mm film, a 16mm lens typically had a
vastly bigger field than a 300mm lens.

If the sensor is smaller than the projected image, then some of the
field is lost.

A smaller sensor with the same number of ( smaller ) pixcels, used
with the same lens will record an image as if a longer lens were used.
  #30  
Old September 21st 18, 10:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default So, Why FF ?

In article ,
wrote:

A lens will project an image that has a field roughly inversly
proportional to the FL. On 35mm film, a 16mm lens typically had a
vastly bigger field than a 300mm lens.


nope.

you're confusing projected image with field of view.

a 16mm lens has a wider field of view than a 300mm lens, but its image
circle (what it projects) is about the same, possibly a little smaller.

If the sensor is smaller than the projected image, then some of the
field is lost.


that part is true.

A smaller sensor with the same number of ( smaller ) pixcels, used
with the same lens will record an image as if a longer lens were used.


that's why it's called a crop sensor, and the number of pixels (no c)
is irrelevant.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.