Why does Nikon keep making FF lenses?

wrote in message
ups.com...


On Jan 28, 1:24 pm, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
It would be nice if there was a nice technical parameter that would also
be equal to 1.5. But as far as I know there isn't. So we are stuck with
'crop factor' until somebody invents a better term.


I vote for "Ratio of Present Camera's Sensor Width to (Approximately)
36mm", or, in short form "RPCSWT(A)36mm". Not terribly snappy, it must
be admitted, but accurate.

Well, it would be more accurate if you put it the other way around, though
diagonal, not width, is usually the preferred comparison. But
"RPCSWT(A)36mm" is easily 3,000% better than "crop factor," anyway. So you
are to be saluted.


Notice also how it cleverly adjusts itself
to the camera to which it is applied ("Present").

Yes, fiendishly clever.

Neil

"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
.. .
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Bryan Olson" wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
[...]
In the case of the many (and increasing number of) DX lenses, the lens
does *not* cover the larger sensor. So the image could not be said to
be "cropped" even if your interpretation were correct, which it is not.

Or course it is. What is the relationship between the image on the
35mm full-frame sensor and the one one the ~APS-C-sized sensor?
The latter is exactly a crop of the former. It is *not* equivalent
to using a longer lens on the former.

It is equivalent, in the terms everyone cares most about.

Don't project your own lack of care onto everyone.

Why would *anyone* care about a nonexistent "crop"?



That's all the factor does, it provides a focal length equivalent.

Except that it's not equivalent, as we've seen. On the other hand,
the part about the image on the smaller sensor being exactly a crop
of that on the larger sensor, that's correct.

Show me *exactly* what you would do with the number 1.5 to "crop" something.
Then tell me why you would have any interest in doing that.

I've asked this before. No takers so far. We seem to have people determined
to use the nonsense term "crop factor," but all they can do is scratch their
heads when asked how and why they would crop anything with it.




No one uses it to crop anything.

You can hide your head in the sand, but that's how things are.

Oh, listen to this. A guy who refuses to accept industry-standard lens
focal length conversion,

One would have to be pretty gullible to use "industry-standard" that
way. Check the size of an industry-standard 2/3inch CCD.

The 2/3 inch refers to the video tube diameter, not the size of the CCD
itself. I'll agree it's a silly way of describing it for digital camera use.
Maybe a bright idea from the same guy who came up with "crop factor."


And why
should "hi-speed" be a lower speed than "full-speed"?

You've got that backwards. (Like I'm surprised.)



but insists on using the nonsensical expression "crop factor" which NO
ONE in the camera industry endorses, and no literate person outside the
industry either for that matter, -- pontificating on "how things are."

Google up "crop factor" and you'll find some good explanations.

I doubt it. If you could have found any sensible explanation on Google you'd
have given it here by this time.

Neil

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...
In article coh.net,
(Philip Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article coh.net,
(Philip Homburg) wrote:

So we are stuck with
'crop factor' until somebody invents a better term.

"focal length multiplier" is just too long for 35 mm camera users to
type out, I suppose.

Yes, and it is even worse than crop factor. Nothing changes in the
focal length when you use a different sensor/frame size.

Lens equivalent multiplier then. I know the concept from various charts
comparing various focal lengths on various formats, and nobody ever
before digitals came in said anything about crop factor. And there were
half-frame 35 mm cameras in that day, and there are still various
formats to shoot on 120 film and various sizes of digital backs for
medium and large format cameras.

Very true. "Crop factor" is a recent silliness that seems to have originated
in the newsgroups, or perhaps on some website edited by an enthusiast with
an uncertain grasp of language. It surely is not used by camera or lens
manufacturers, who are generally more careful about their terminology.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:04:34 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

The focal length doesn't change. The sensor size is different, and 'crop'
refers to that difference.

T H A T I S N ' T W H A T A N Y O N E C A R E S A B O U T.

Obviously, you do.
The emphasis, by the way, is yours.

--
Reggie Bush, according to
federal agents, turned up
in old taped conversations
discussing gifts and cash
with sports agents during
his USC days. It's serious.
If he turns out to be corrupt
enough, he could get four to
eight years as governor of
Louisiana.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:23:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Don't project your own lack of care onto everyone.

Why would *anyone* care about a nonexistent "crop"?

Again, you miss the obvious: you care.

--
Reggie Bush, according to
federal agents, turned up
in old taped conversations
discussing gifts and cash
with sports agents during
his USC days. It's serious.
If he turns out to be corrupt
enough, he could get four to
eight years as governor of
Louisiana.

In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Very true. "Crop factor" is a recent silliness that seems to have originated
in the newsgroups, or perhaps on some website edited by an enthusiast with
an uncertain grasp of language. It surely is not used by camera or lens
manufacturers, who are generally more careful about their terminology.

The medium format people have been using different film formats in their
cameras for decades (most of the 6 cm by 7 cm cameras can take backs
that will shoot 6 by 6 or 6 x 4.5 or even 35 mm full frame). Why not
use the same terminology they use for switching formats using the same
lens? Large format cameras can have different backs and formats for the
same lens, also.

Whatever they call this is the same thing that using a lens on different
digital camera format sizes is absolutely equivalent to.

In article ,
y says...
Oh, listen to this. A guy who refuses to accept industry-standard lens focal
length conversion,

What is the industry standard? ie the one used by the vast majority of
the industry.

but insists on using the nonsensical expression "crop
factor" which NO ONE in the camera industry endorses, and no literate person
outside the industry either for that matter,

Are you trying to preach to the makers or the users. I can guarantee
that the user group is by far the larger, and of them, for whatever
reason, the vast majority find it easier to get round the concept of the
"crop factor".

I think a lot of it is "children of the digital age", who were taught
how to crop digital images in nursery school and can comprehend the easy
bit of "this image being identical to a crop of this larger image".

--
Alan LeHun

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
...
In article ,
y says...
Oh, listen to this. A guy who refuses to accept industry-standard lens
focal
length conversion,

What is the industry standard? ie the one used by the vast majority of
the industry.

All digital camera makers that I'm aware of give the 35mm equivalents of the
focal lengths they use, in one way or another. Not just "the vast majority"
of them, ALL of them. This is especially true with fixed-lens cameras where
it is always done prominently.

With interchangeable-lens SLRs that use existing 35mm lenses there is the
obvious problem that even lenses made for a smaller format must continue to
be marked with the actual focal lengths, for consistency. Nevertheless the
concept of converting to 35mm equivalents is so well established that the
manufacturers continue to do so in their published specs. Nikon for example
states that "Equivalent in 35mm [135] format is approx. 1.5 times focal
length." Canon calls it a "lens focal length conversion factor," 1.6x or
1.3x depending on the model.

In any case, this is what is done with the number: the focal length is
multiplied by some factor to arrive at the 35mm equivalence.



but insists on using the nonsensical expression "crop
factor" which NO ONE in the camera industry endorses, and no literate
person
outside the industry either for that matter,

Are you trying to preach to the makers or the users.

Those users who have attached themselves to this silly term. The makers do
not misuse terminology in this way, and do not require what you call
"preaching."


I can guarantee
that the user group is by far the larger, and of them, for whatever
reason, the vast majority find it easier to get round the concept of the
"crop factor".

It's only "easier" because they have seen the ignorant term "crop factor"
used repeatedly in the newsgroups by people who mean lens factor. Nothing is
cropped. The term "crop factor" makes no sense. The people who *use* it
cannot make any sense out of it. I have asked dozens of times already, How
can you crop something by a factor of 1.5? No one answers.

What everyone does with the number, 1.5 or whatever depending on camera
model, is multiply the focal length to arrive at a 35mm equivalent, which
puts the thing in familiar terms for them. That is its sole use and purpose.
No one even *tries* to use it in connection with cropping anything, do they?



I think a lot of it is "children of the digital age", who were taught
how to crop digital images in nursery school and can comprehend the easy
bit of "this image being identical to a crop of this larger image".

Which would serve what purpose in the use of a digital camera? In what way
would knowing that one format is smaller than another by a certain amount
help the user?

Neil

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Bryan Olson" wrote in message
[...]
And why
should "hi-speed" be a lower speed than "full-speed"?

You've got that backwards.

Arg. Yup. I used to know that one well enough that I didn't
think I needed to look it up.


--
--Bryan