answers: 305

  1. Nicholas
    09.11.2017

    Good afternoon. Technically, I'm zero, but the essence of the FF-Krop case is roughly clear, but not completely. Now I have 2 Canon cameras: 7D and 6D. For my everyday “masterpieces” I absolutely do not need maximum resolution, because I don’t deal with dermatology and I don’t look at the seams in brickwork at 200% magnification. Therefore, I use 99% SRAW (I try to build a frame right away, so that I can sprinkle almost nothing later) and very rarely MRAW, when I know in advance that it will be necessary to crop a little too much .. I do not know about digital values ​​of pixel sizes, but I know that a pixel is 6D is fatter, more light-sensitive, etc. I have on 7D 18 megapixels in full resolution, 10 megapixels in mRAW and 5 megapixels in sRAW. To get the capabilities of TELE as a crop, I need to make a 6D frame in full resolution of 20 megapixels, and then crop it to the size of the APSC sensor, i.e. 2,5 times smaller and I get a picture with the maximum possible resolution of 8 megapixels (this three times for the eyes!), BUT ... these are fat light-sensitive pixels by an order of magnitude better technically than pixels in 7D! If I use MRAW (11 megapixels), then I get a 4,4 megapixel image of CROP from FF (which also suits me perfectly). Am I reasoning correctly or not? I just can't decide on the second 7D camera - to sell it and lose TELE or not sell it (I really, really like this wonderful camera even for our days and will give odds to any Canon crop, except 7Dm2. I am not interested in any videos, screens, Wi-Fi , GPS, dual pixels, etc.) and use, when necessary, 6D as a MORE QUALITY crop? If I get a better quality CROP with a size of 6 megapixels and 8 megapixels with FF 4.4D, then it suits me, because I don't want to carry 2 bricks with lenses for free! Moreover, I get a better quality CROP with a low noise level and a more beautiful picture. This means I can raise ISO without compromising image quality, which is very important in TELE modes. Am I reasoning correctly or not? Could you advise me how to proceed in this case. Thanks . Nikolay

    Reply

    • Oleg
      10.11.2017

      You can not "sprinkle" anything, but simply buy another lens with a larger focal length. You can sell one of the cameras and buy lens / s. Or not to sell if you have the funds, and keep one camera as a spare. Or put one lens in one camera, and another lens in the other, in order to change lenses on one camera as rarely as possible and, as a result, reduce the likelihood of dust getting onto the matrix.

      Reply

      • Nicholas
        10.11.2017

        I have a Tamron 70-300 VC USD (I was lying and waiting for FF) - a good lens for a reasonable price and has proven itself well on crop, I don't like only 112 mm on Crop, so I bought Canon 55-250 is stm. I don’t want a heavier and larger Tamron, and I don’t need such focal ones. I also do not like changing lenses and once bought a second Canon crop camera specifically for a telephoto camera, but I sold it without ever using it. I'm just thinking: if KROP from 6D is a better quality KROP (compared to a crop camera), and I don't need a TV range very often (I specially put the Japanese-assembled Canon 28-135 wagon as a staff, it is much better than the Thai one. two, tested and Thai sold), then wearing one camera is preferable. So I was interested in the question - will the crop from the 6D be better (due to the thicker and more sensitive pixels) of the crop camera or not? For example, if we compare a 20 megapixel camera 70D (I bought it for trial - I sold it, because I didn't like it) and 20 megapixel 6D, then at the same size we will get 20 megapixels of small, less light-sensitive, and therefore noisier and with a worse DD , and in the case of 6D - 8 megapixels of fat photosensitive ones, with low noise and high DD! That is the question!

        Reply

      • Vasil
        30.12.2017

        I will add a few words about the physics of processes in the matrix.
        Nikon D5200 and Nikon D610 or D750
        Both there and there are 24,7MP matrixes, but the physical dimensions are different. If you count (23,5x15,6mm 6000x4000 and 35,9x24mm 6016x4016), then it turns out that,
        the pixel size on the FF matrix is ​​2,35 times larger, which means that
        FF has a better signal to noise ratio, respectively, you can use a higher ISO.
        pixel transistor saturation occurs at large values ​​of charge (amount of light), respectively, a wider dynamic range
        All this can be seen in the comparative evaluations of two cameras (matrices).

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        31.12.2017

        You won’t believe it, but there are people who are sure that the crop gets as much light as the ff. From here there is no difference in ISO. I could not convince them.

        Reply

      • serge
        31.01.2018

        We take the magnifying glass, go out to the balcony and focus the sun on the palm. When the radius of the light spot is 35 mm, we will not feel anything, we focus in a radius of 24 mm - oh! it has become warmer, focus on a point - there will be "wava". Therefore, energetically, the light hits the same with the same composition of the frame, but on the FF this energy is distributed over the area 2 times larger. Hence, the maximum IRR at ff is 2 times higher. These are just my thoughts, I do not pretend to be accurate. :)

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        31.01.2018

        A lens has only one focal point. The little ray on the palm is not at all the same as the image in the camera.))

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        31.01.2018

        Lenses are considered the height of engineering. It's not so simple here. To understand why everything is just like that, and not some way, you need to understand geometric and physical optics.

        If you really want to, it’s easy to find university textbooks in these disciplines on the Internet.

        Reply

      • serge
        31.01.2018

        No, of course, if you put a lens on the crop for a full frame, then black velvet will swallow the light pieces by the difference of matrices with appetite. And then really less light will fall on the crop matrix.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        31.01.2018

        No, lenses from a full frame have nothing to do with it. If in a nutshell, the smaller the area of ​​the focused image on the matrix, the more rays need to be refracted. As a result, energy is lost, and most importantly, additional aberrations appear that need to be corrected. After correcting these aberrations of energy (brightness), even more is consumed.

        Reply

      • Onotole
        31.01.2018

        I think the ambush here is that you and your opponent each understand the purely humanistic concept of “more light”.
        In fact, there is a luminous flux and there is illumination, that is, the same luminous flux, but reduced to the area where it falls. And if the luminous flux itself in the case of crop is, of course, reduced, then the illumination of each square millimeter remains the same, all other things being equal, because the area of ​​the matrix is ​​also reduced.
        Take any FF frame shot with certain exposure settings. Cut a crop of any size from it in the editor, at least 1 to 100 (similar to darkening part of the matrix). Is there less light?
        To answer this question, you need to compare the exposure parameters and exposure. The frame did not become darker, and the parameters remained the same. This means that the illumination of the matrix from the crop does not change. All other things being equal, the total amount of light depends directly on the area of ​​the matrix, so FF (as opposed to crop) shows good results in low light conditions. If you make the pixels fatter, up to the FF level, then the crop will stop showing worse results, in fact it will be the same cropping of a part of the frame in the editor.
        So this is which side to look at.

        Reply

      • Sergey
        31.01.2018

        All right said. The larger the area of ​​a pixel, the more light falls on it, and, as a result, the pixel gives more accurate information about the light incident on it. Thus, matrices (FF and crop), consisting of the same letters (in size and in hardware) will have the same sensitivity to light.

        Reply

      • Alexey C
        31.01.2018

        On this topic, I liked the articles on DPReviw with competent reasoning and cool pictures.

        Here, about how the size of the matrix affects the photo
        https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

        Here, about the effect of pixel size on noise:
        https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise

        And here about the types of noise:
        https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise

        In short, on the fingers, then the F number (more precisely, the T number) of the lens determines how much light will physically fall on the conditional square millimeter of the matrix, regardless of the size of the matrix itself.

        If the writings in the compared matrices use approximately the same technology / characteristics, then their KDP for processing light in this 1 square meter. mm matrix is ​​approximately the same.

        If matrix A (FF-864mm2) is 4 times larger than matrix B (4/3 224mm2), then it will receive a total of 4 times more light, despite the fact that their pixels have similar efficiency and are illuminated with the same intensity a stream of light.

        The more light the matrix has retained from the original real-world object (over the entire area, and not just a specific pixel), the better the signal-to-noise ratio during processing, and the cleaner the final image (in its entirety).

        If very, very rough, then with 4 times less matrix area, we will get 4 times more noise, all other things being equal (pixel efficiency, illumination per sq. Mm., Etc.).

        The size of a pixel is a separate story that affects the efficiency of a single pixel (by the pixel-by-pixel result), but not always on the final image (which is what we get after the cut). I’m not sure that I can briefly state what is indicated in the article, let alone make it better. And I’m also not sure that it will be interesting to anyone.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        01.02.2018

        Onotole, if you have not noticed, I use scientific and technical terms.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        01.02.2018

        Onotole, once again. With the same lens, the same pixel size, lighting and more, you should literally move away from the subject to get the same frame on the crop. In this case, you will have at your disposal exactly 2,25 times less light rays incident on the matrix. I'm not talking about reducing the brightness of these same rays in the size of the square of the distance. Therefore, to say that if the pixels are the same, then the crop will show the same result, to put it mildly, not correctly.

        Another thing, yes, it will be noticeable only in low light. With good lighting, these brightness losses can simply be neglected.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        01.02.2018

        If they tell me again, so I took my favorite camera with a full frame, took a picture, changed it to crop, moved away and took another picture, but my camera did not change anything in the exposure. Everything is simple. First, the light should be dim. Secondly, you need to excommunicate noise reduction.

        After that, shoot, and most importantly, do not forget to then compress your picture to a full frame to the size of the crop.
        I ask the result in the studio, we all want to see how much these pictures will be identical.

        Reply

  2. Dmitriy
    12.03.2018

    Thanks for the great article. Very informative)

    Reply

  3. Alexey
    01.05.2018

    The FX camera has a DX mode. I would like to know if the DX mode degrades the picture quality or is the picture quality still the same as with FX shooting, only cropped around the edges to crop size?

    Reply

    • Valentine
      01.05.2018

      Only cropping.

      Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      01.05.2018

      It all depends on what is meant by "picture quality"

      Reply

      • Alexey
        02.05.2018

        I mean the dynamic range, low noise at high ISO, the volume of the photo. Will they stay the same as in FX mode?
        Resolution will drop due to cropping, but that's okay.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        02.05.2018

        Alexei, if I take an oil painting and cut a piece out of it. Will the piece have the same quality as the whole picture?
        You will answer me that I am engaged in garbage and ask meaningless questions.
        And you will be right, because these things are incomparable.
        You can compare the whole finished oil painting with another of the same, whole and finished. Or you can compare pieces cut from them.
        That's all.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        02.05.2018

        It is not that simple. Full-frame, or full-format cameras can be considered crop from medium or large format. With such thoughts and such logic, we can come to the conclusion that if Mona Lisa is taken off Nikon 1 crop three times, then only her smile will remain from her. But this is not so.
        As for the quality of the crop mode for full-frame cameras, there are many nuances. As in photography in the sense of art, so in photography in the sense of technical quality, the maximum number of variables and nuances should be considered.
        Not entirely obvious, but the same noises strongly depend on the physical size of the sensor. As an example, these are cameras whose sensors are manufactured in almost the same process and at the same time have huge variations in noise level (for example, d7000 and d800). In this case, each pixel separately makes a similar noise, but the overall picture is completely different, because the area and the number of photosensors are different.
        + A million other things, such as cropping aberrations of a full-frame lens at the corners and edges of the frame when used on crop. Etc. etc.

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        02.05.2018

        So I say, you can not compare the crop with the frame from which it was cut. What if we compare, then the final result, completed frames with the composition and more. What is the use of guessing about quality only for those. the characteristics of technology and optics, and even separately from all that for which this whole thing was designed?
        Otherwise, the same horses are obtained in a vacuum, which are already full on the Internet.

        Reply

      • Valentine
        02.05.2018

        The first question is, will the same Nikon D700 image be shot in FX mode, and then cropped to a DX format on a computer, and the image taken immediately in DX mode will have a different noise level if we do not consider all other parameters? The second question is, will any other parameters of these two pictures significantly differ in the same experiments?

        Reply

      • Peter Sh.
        02.05.2018

        If you shoot at the limit of the capabilities of technology and optics, then the difference will be very significant.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        02.05.2018

        1) there will be no difference
        2) the answer to this question depends on what exactly is meant by “the same image”. This issue is partially covered in detail by me. here.

        Reply

      • Valentine
        02.05.2018

        Arkady also think thanks. I know about bokeh and some nuances. In general, there is practically no particular difference in how to sprinkle (directly in the camera or on the computer).

        Reply

      • Alexey
        02.05.2018

        Rephrase the question.
        Is there any sense to remove the DX lens with the Nikon D7000 and put it on the Nikon D600 and shoot in DX mode? Let’s drop all the points and compare only the high ISO parameter that is important for me?
        I’ll ask another way, is the noise level at high ISOs the same in FX and DX modes?

        Reply

      • Anders
        02.05.2018

        1) If there is no other lens, then this may be a decision for not changing another.
        2) The same, since the matrix producing the image remains the same, and the exposure mode (and ISO as well) does not change, since the light flux (density) does not change either ...

        The benefit of DX mode is essentially that the files are smaller. And they can be processed faster - the higher the rate of fire of the camera.

        Reply

      • Valentine
        02.05.2018

        If you are thinking that you can change the D7000 to the D600 and use it with DX lenses, then the idea is not the best. Parameters (including the working ISO) will, of course, be better with the D600, but if everything weighs well, the solution is not justified. Take, so with the appropriate optics and other body kit.

        Reply

      • Alexey
        02.05.2018

        The D600 just got it, there aren't many FX optics, 50mm af-s and 70-300 AF.
        But there are a bunch of lenses from the D7000: 18-55, 18-105, 55-200, 55-300, 35. I plan to sell something, leave something for a spare DX camera. Until I buy something from FX optics, I have to use what is. Therefore, the question is whether it makes sense to rearrange the optics from the D7000 to the D600 and use it in DX mode.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        02.05.2018

        My advice is to sell everything and take normal optics on the d600. All these DH modes on d600 with whale 18-55, 55-200, 55-300, 35 1.8 in 90% are not worth a penny. The bicycle has already been invented. By the way, you can carry out your own experiments, since you have both cameras and lenses at hand. This is 200% more efficient than waiting for a response from other users.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        02.05.2018

        In the general case, it makes little sense to shoot on the D600 in the DX mode, this is an additional feature, intended only for rare cases. Personally, I sometimes use this feature to increase the EGF of the lens (reach out).
        As for the noise: the situation here is very difficult to understand. Now many users will come running and indicate that the d600 in the DH mode will make less noise than the d7000. But it is not so. Users assume that the noise level (often referred to as the maximum "working" ISO) will be the same for the FX mode and for the DX in the D600. But in reality, d600 in dx mode will + - make noise like d7000 and maybe even stronger. Here mathematics and linear and quadratic dimensions, primarily the area of ​​the sensor and pixel, play a cruel joke.

        Reply

      • Alexey
        02.05.2018

        Yes, I want to sell everything, there is no sense from them, the picture is not interesting. Recommend FX optics for portraits. I think I’ll take a native fix at 85mm and I need some kind of zoom with near-portrait focal lengths. Is there anything good from NOT Nikon's optics? Nikon is very expensive.

        Reply

      • Alexey S.
        02.05.2018

        Alexei, if you like the numerical representation, then you can get some estimate by clicking on the link
        http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D600,Nikon%20D600(DX), Nikon% 20D7000

        If you want to better understand the issue, then I recommend the above article by Arkady and several additional links
        about crop factor (a DX mode is essentially what it is)
        https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/4
        about the noise
        https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise
        and about pixel size
        https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise

        About the portrait lens - I personally really like the 80-200 mk3 (which, in principle, is not expensive). But it may not suit you for a number of reasons (for example, weight).
        I advise you to decide that you need a fixed or zoom, focal, and aperture, how important autofocus is and what is the budget.

        Reply

      • Valentine
        02.05.2018

        Arkady, I'm probably very wrong, but in all the documents I've seen, the DX mode of full frame cameras is called “cropping”. That is, I have not seen direct indications that the camera is using a smaller sensor area at the time of shooting. On the contrary, the description rather says that recording (including in raw) is taking into account cropping. Even if DX lenses are not able to fully cover the entire matrix, and that means some deterioration should take place, but with my eyes I did not notice it, maybe because I had too little to do with it.

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        02.05.2018

        Yes, about it and speech, or what?

        Reply

  4. SERGOS
    12.12.2018

    lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX, when using Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8G ED AF-S N we will have to close the aperture to f / 4.2. But in the case of the full-length -UV. ARCADY, apparently AF-S N should be removed-the slip \ otherwise it does not fit. This is in the section below the photo "the superiority of the crop"

    Reply

  5. Denis
    11.02.2019

    Hello!
    Unfortunately, I have a Nikon D5100. When I bought, I did not know about such subtleties as crop and FF. In the future, perhaps I will exchange it for FF. Right now I need a wide angle lens. Looking forward to the future on the Tamron 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 Di OSD for Nikon
    But I can’t find anywhere how the photo from the FF lens will look on a cropped fotik. How much will they be cut and how?
    Thanks in advance for the answer :)

    Reply

    • Valery A.
      11.02.2019

      Hello. Nobody will trim anything, you will see the same width picture as on 17-35mm on the whale 18-55 (-105). The wide zooms on the crop are tokins, sigma, and nickor with focal lengths of 10 (11) -16 (20) mm.

      Reply

      • Denis
        11.02.2019

        Valery? Yes? They just told me in the photo store that such a lens would not work and would crop the picture very much.

        Reply

      • Denis
        11.02.2019

        Can I use a Tamron 17-35mm F / 2.8-4 Di OSD for Nikon on a Nikon D5100?

        Reply

      • Novel
        11.02.2019

        Denis, Tamron 17-35 on crop will give you the same picture as your kit lens 18-55, if you use it only up to 35 mm (well, one almost invisible millimeter from the bottom). The difference is that a full-frame Tamron will be able to work on a camera with a full-frame sensor, and your whale 18-55 will form a smaller circle on a large sensor, so Nikon will cut out only the central part of the image equal in area to the sensor of a cropped camera. And vice versa, Tamron forms a circle larger than the size of the crop matrix, so part of the image will be roughly "cropped" - this was what the store said.

        It makes no sense to use full-frame widths on crops. They are big, heavy, expensive and you won't see much difference. 35 mm, well, 24 is still all right - this is the limit, then it is better to use widths for the crop matrix.

        If you had it - yes, you can use it, there will just be a gain in aperture ratio. And buying it on purpose - you just won't feel much difference with a whale lens. It is better to take for the future at a wide angle either high-aperture fixes, or telephoto lenses (well, unless they offer you this lens for a very cheap price).

        If the capabilities of the whale are not enough and you want even wider, Valery offered an alternative. 11-16, 11-20, 12-24, extra wide-angle sigma 8-16. It is for the crop.

        Reply

      • Denis
        12.02.2019

        Roman, the problem here is that shirikov for Nikon crop cameras ... Not available in Ukraine: / I can't find ANYTHING ...

        Reply

      • Novel
        15.02.2019

        Yah? I just went to OLX and immediately on the request “Tokina 11-16” found a bunch of offers, about a dozen of them for Nikon.

        Reply

  6. anonym
    14.02.2019

    Hello everyone. The experiment took the Olympus from 40-150 and the Nikon D90 from 18-105 and the target indicated below and got the result of 70mm Olympus = 90mm Nikon (58 = 75,82 = 105, etc.) the crop between m4 \ 3 and DX is understandable.
    Then he took a Nikon D90 from 18-105 and took a picture from a distance of 1,5 m of a frame measuring approximately 75x50 cm at a focal length of 50 mm, then he set Nikon 50mm f / 1.8D AF and took a picture from the same distance and the same frame and got the same result , and where is the crop between FX and DX?

    Reply

    • Michael
      14.02.2019

      Duc 50mm should have been put on FF, then you will see. Focal length is a characteristic of the lens, not the matrix

      Reply

      • anonym
        15.02.2019

        OK. But someone said here that when using an FX lens, say 100 mm, on the DX camera I get a bonus of 50 mm (total 150). where is the bonus?

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        15.02.2019

        Bonus? A narrower viewing angle on the crop, compared with the viewing angle on ff, that's the whole bonus.

        Reply

      • Novel
        15.02.2019

        Roughly, the cropped sensor works as a 1.5x (Nikon) - 1.6x (Canon) tele-converter without a drop in aperture and not as significant a drop in image quality as when using an optical tele-converter. The teleconverter enlarges the image, introducing its additional distortion, and the crop cuts out the central part of the image, exacerbating the lens flaws. Drop in sharpness and chromaticity. But on most good lenses, this is almost invisible, especially if you do not chase high-resolution crops.

        Reply

      • anonym
        15.02.2019

        "A crop cuts out the center of the image, exacerbating the flaws of the lens."
        Maybe reducing the flaws?
        After all, soapy corners and edges "fall off" on bad lenses.

        Reply

      • Novel
        15.02.2019

        And that too. But when testing for sharpness and aberration, it is extremely rare that a full-frame lens shows comparable results on the crop and never the best.

        Reply

  7. Ali
    08.03.2019

    An interesting article, although written a long time ago. I read it with pleasure, thanks. I noticed that they forgot to mention the professional cropped camera D300s. Superb camera in its characteristics. At the time of writing, there was no such jump in cropped cameras in the signal-to-noise area at high light sensitivity. Now modern cropped cameras, such as the D500, D7500, are noisier at higher ISOs than the famous D700.

    Reply

  8. Ivan
    09.11.2019

    there is an opinion that medium format lenses transmit twice as much light, is that so? And does this mean that in order to get the same exposure under the same lighting conditions, shutter speed and ISO:
    - SF lens on a medium format camera, the aperture will be f2,8
    - on a full frame with an SF lens, the aperture will be f4
    - on the crop with an SF F8 lens
    That is, in other words, on the crop and the SF lens, can I shoot late at night by unscrewing the aperture by 2.8 and not lifting it ??
    Is it possible? Or is it partly true?

    Reply

    • Roman
      09.11.2019

      Wrong opinion. That a medium format 80 / 2.8, that some full-frame 85 / 1.8, covered up to 2.8, that some telephoto lens designed for a crop at a focal 80 and aperture 2.8 will give you the same aperture when photographing the same scene (well, with correction by 1/3 - 1/2 stops due to different light transmittance).

      The difference between all three lenses is in the size of the image circle. For medium format, the frame should be 60x60 cm, for full - 36x24 mm, for crop - 24x18 mm.

      Reply

  9. Igor
    14.11.2019

    Hello everybody! Please tell me (do not scold too, just completely confused):
    There is a Nikon D3500 with a whale lens 18-55 DX VR 3.5-5.6G. If you buy a fixed Nikon 35mm f / 1.8G AF-S DX lens, then the picture was taken on an 18-55 DX VR lens with the focus set. 35mm distance will be the same as the 35mm f / 1.8G AF-S DX? Or taking the last lens, I get a closer shot (that is, as 35 * 1,5 = 52,5 mm focal length)?
    Thank you for your reply!

    Reply

    • Anonymous
      14.11.2019

      In both cases, you will get a picture at 35 * 1,5 = 52,5 mm focus. distance

      Reply

  10. Igor
    05.12.2019

    Good afternoon, experts. Please help with advice. I want to use my sprinkled Nikon D7000 to measure the exposure for Zenith ET. What is the exposure ratio between the cropped matrix and the full frame?

    Reply

    • Michael
      05.12.2019

      1 (unit). It does not depend on the frame size.

      Reply

    • BB
      05.12.2019

      It does not depend on the frame size. It depends on the light transmission of the lens (T-stop), and if you use different optics, they will have different light transmission (for example, Jupiter-37a with 4 lenses and some kind of zoom with 17 lenses).
      The b / w film ('silver') has a rather wide DD, so that film allowed errors up to 1.5-2 stops, and stretching the frame when printing. With color negative inexpensive films it is worse.

      Reply

      • B. R. P.
        05.12.2019

        Slides are even worse.

        Reply

      • Igor
        05.12.2019

        Can you say specifically in my situation. The crop is Nikon D7000 + Nikkor 1.8 50mm, and the manual is Zenith ET + Helios 44-2 2.0 58mm. So I can set the desired aperture on the Nikon, in mode A, ISO 200, like on film, and the shutter speed will tell me the automation, then transfer the settings to Zenith and just take pictures without correction?

        Reply

      • Roman
        05.12.2019

        Well, ideally, the camera’s exposure meter measures the amount of light entering the sensor and corrects for the light transmittance. On average, you can shoot one film, look at the result. If there will be an overexposure or overexposure everywhere, compensate for the future.

        Reply

      • Rodion
        05.12.2019

        In short, yes)

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        06.12.2019

        It will not always be possible to set the shutter speed prompted by Nikon on Zenith.

        Reply

      • Rodion
        05.12.2019

        By the way, the light transmission of Jupiters is very low - due to the use of thick lenses and simple enlightenment.

        Reply

      • Roman
        05.12.2019

        Yes, therefore, it is not a fact that the 17-lens zoom on its 3.5 will not be really brighter than Jupiter.

        Reply

      • BB
        05.12.2019

        And also, if you don’t get bored with carrying another camera, you can buy a light meter, the Soviet ones cost a penny. Compare the accuracy of the measurement with DSLR and check by practically shooting the test film.

        If the Zenith is fifty dollars, and the crop is fifty dollars, then “measuring the exposure” while standing in one place Nikon will take into account only the central “cropped” part of the frame (plus, take into account the exposure metering mode).

        Reply

  11. Nikolaj
    23.12.2019

    Hello everyone! I have such a question, how do I know that the video shot on the camera is cropped, by some characteristics or already by the captured video? If possible in more detail with an example, if not difficult! For example, I do not quite understand where to look.

    Reply

  12. Alexander
    01.05.2020

    Arkady, good hour! The question is off topic. I have a canon 600d. actually it doesn’t matter. The question is, what is the RAW + JPG format for? And how does it affect the life of the cameras?

    Reply

    • Alexey
      01.05.2020

      Often this is used in order to reduce the amount of processing - a well-shot frame can be taken in JPEG, and if it is required to stretch the exposure or WB misses, then they take RAW, this does not affect the camera resource in any way, because the frame is physically the same.

      Reply

      • Alexander
        02.05.2020

        Alexey, it turns out that in the RAW + JPG format they shoot for safety, in case the image in JPG does not satisfy in some parameters? And also, the other day in social networks, "experts" claimed that when shooting in RAW + JPG format, the camera records RAW + JPG on a flash drive in maximum quality. For some reason, I always thought that the quality was determined by the camera and lens, but not the chosen format - RAW + JPG.

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        02.05.2020

        Most likely, the “experts” had in mind the settings of the RAW and JPG formats themselves.

        Reply

      • Ivan
        02.05.2020

        RAW + JPG is not a format, but a shooting mode in which both formats are written to the card for the convenience of the user if he needs an unprocessed file and a file with processing settings of the camera itself. The RAW format does not have any settings, this is what the camera “sees”. The JPG format from the camera is convenient in that it can already be used without wasting time processing the RAW file. Read here: https://radojuva.com/2011/03/jpeg-vs-raw/

        Reply

  13. Yan Serov
    13.07.2020

    But Oleg Zotov took a Nikon D 3200 crop with a whale lens for the experiment and took a number of photographs in his studio: almost no one noticed the difference. Because this is Oleg Zotov! Draw your conclusions, gentlemen-theorists, who think that FF is everything. Otherwise, you talk like you all have a one-man show in Manhattan every week.

    Reply

    • Roman
      13.07.2020

      In the studio, the light and the model are decided so much that any glass with a hole pressed down to 5.6 - 8 will give approximately the same result. I do not like idols, but in a sense you are right - the photographer took it, it is 80% of talent and 20% of technique. And of these 20% of equipment, at least half of the D3200 with a whale lens will provide, if everything else is equal.

      Reply

  14. Alexander
    09.09.2020

    Arkady, good hour! The question is off topic. But I think it will be interesting to many. Shooting with Canon EOS 600D. I bought it in 2013. Two days ago I changed the lens on the grass by the lake to take a macro. There was a gusty wind. When I changed the lens, it seemed to me that dust had flown into the camera. The camera itself has an automatic sensor cleaning function. Actually, I installed this option a long time ago. The next day I was shooting a landscape, I noticed that one distinct speck is visible in the viewing window, and a few more pieces, like with a dusty matrix or lens. But when I showed it, the monitor is clean. I cleaned the lenses a week ago. On all four lenses, it shows dust particles in the same place. The question is: why is the dust visible in the viewing window? As far as I understand, there is no dust on the matrix, where is it then and what to do in this case? Thanks in advance for your reply!

    Reply

    • Alexey
      09.09.2020

      strange question)) we look at the picture

      Reply

      • Alexander
        09.09.2020

        Alexey, if I disassembled the camera and knew its structure, I would understand where and what. and so, nothing is clear.

        Reply

      • Alexey
        09.09.2020

        Well, it's much clearer that the picture is drawn)) all the main elements are there, and the path of light is shown.

        Reply

    • Alexey
      09.09.2020

      and another picture

      Reply

      • Alexander
        09.09.2020

        I understand that there is dust on the mirror?

        Reply

      • Alexey
        09.09.2020

        dust can be on anything from the mirror and up
        mirror -> focusing screen -> pentaprism -> OVI lenses

        Reply

      • Alexander
        09.09.2020

        Alexey, thanks! I figured it out, this is a focusing screen. It remains only to disassemble or change, change the order for a long time, probably I'll just disassemble and blow it with a pear.

        Reply

      • Alexey
        09.09.2020

        it is important to remember that nothing can touch the PV. air can be blown, but without fanaticism.

        Reply

    • Trueash
      09.09.2020

      The dust gets on the sensor in the last turn, because there is a shutter curtain in front of it, and a mirror in front of those. Take it for cleaning anyway, otherwise God forbid it gets into the curtains ...

      Reply

    • Oleg
      09.09.2020

      If you see dust in the optical viewfinder, it is definitely not on the sensor, because the dust on the sensor cannot be seen in the viewfinder.

      Reply

  15. Load more comments ...

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer