This article is written in photographic slang and, moments, filled with my subjective opinions. This article describes the nuances of using cropped cameras and lenses, which few people pay due attention to.
Crop identification
'Crop', 'Crop', 'cropped camera', 'cropped camera', 'cropped sensor', 'cropped sensor' are synonyms for a camera with a reduced light-sensitive element (matrix, film). These concepts are strongly intertwined with the concept crop factor and basic information about crop can be found in the section ' Crop factor '.
Full frame Full Frame, FF, FF, Full sensor size are synonyms for cameras that have an original, not reduced photosensitive element. Nowadays, many amateur photographers believe that FF cameras are a panacea and the peak of the evolutionary development of modern digital cameras. Due to the fact that the price of amateur cropped cameras is several times lower than for full-frame cameras, a lot of amateur photographers use cropped cameras and dream of switching to full frame. Matrix size full-frame cameras is equal to the size of standard 35mm film (film type 135). But full frame is not the limit.
There are medium and large format cameras where the sizes of the photosensitive element are several times larger than the sizes of the photosensitive elements in full-frame cameras. Oddly enough it sounds, but modern full-frame digital cameras are narrow format... It turns out to be a kind of deception - on the one hand, a full frame is something beyond, on the other hand, a full frame is just a narrow format.
Photographers who have been shooting medium or large format all their lives most often look down on today's prohibitively expensive 'Full Frame Cameras' Nikon D4s, Canon 1DX and the like. I am writing this to the fact that there should be a clear understanding that full-frame cameras are just one of the steps in the evolution of camera engineering.
Crop Excellence
Since I use the Nikon system most of all, I will give examples based on Nikon's photographic equipment.
Basically, everyone knows that with the help of a FF camera it is easier to control the depth of field. With a full-frame camera, it is easier to achieve a thin depth of field, blurring the background and background.
But there is a second side to the coin, in which crop surpasses full frame. To get the same angle of view from a full frame lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8G ED N used on a full-frame camera, on the crop you need to use an analogue - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX. We assume that 17mm crop and 24mm full frame give approximately same viewing angle and omit the difference 1.5mm EGF (Эequivalent Фsnack Рdistance, 17mm * 1,5-24mm = 1,5mm). But due to different real focal lengths, lenses have different depth of field and different hyperfocal distance... In practice, this has the effect that 17mm is easier to achieve a wide depth of field than 24mm full frame. For example, this is expressed by the fact that when I photograph a group of people in low light (for example, in a temple), the thin depth of field of the 24mm@F/2.8 lens is very strongly felt in the full frame and some of the people who 'fall out' of the field of focus are blurred. I do not need anyone to be blurred in the picture at all. At the same time, if you shoot the same scene with a 17mm@F/2.8 lens on a crop, the field of focus will be larger, this will allow you to capture all people in the field of focus, and when you print such a picture, all participants in the shooting will admire their sharp image. In this case, the lenses use the same aperture, and photographing occurs at the same shutter speed.
Often you can see a recalculation of aperture for cropped lenses. For example f / 2.8 for Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX on cameras Nikon DX will have the equivalent of f / 4.2. You can look at the example of Nikon 14-24 2.8 on photozone.de. This does not mean that such a lens has a real darker aperture (smaller real aperture in terms of T-stops) when used on cropped cameras - this only means that the depth of field for such a lens will be F / 4.2 equivalent to full-frame cameras. Attention: this recount does not affect the exposure, it only affects the recalculation of the depth of field.
Thus, using Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX at 17mm and F / 2.8 we get the equivalent of 25.5mm and F / 4.2. That is, to get the same large depth of field as with a cropped lens Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX, 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 a full-frame lens, this will entail not only an increase in depth of field, but also a decrease exposure. The exposure will have to be compensated either by a longer shutter speed, or a higher ISO sensitivity or a higher flash output.
When you change the aperture by one stop, the depth of field changes in two times. F-stop numbers are F / 1.4, F / 2.0, F / 2.8, F / 4.0, F / 5.6, etc. The difference between f / 2.8 and f / 4.0 is one stop (two times). It turns out that when using a cropped lens, we gain more than twice the depth of field in magnification (F / 2.8 versus F / 4.2). To be precise, the depth of field is 2.25x for Nikon DX cameras. The increase in depth of field is linearly related to the size of the matrix. In fact, Nikon FX and Nikon DX sensors differ in their area by 2.25 times. The number 2.25 is very simple, you just need crop factor (Kf = 1.5) squared: 1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25.
This trick is used in many soap dishes for macro photography. The tiny sensors of digital soap cameras can produce huge DOF with small aperture numbers, which is very important for macro photography. So, to get similar pictures with a simple soap dish and Nikon D3s + Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1: 2.8D on a soap dish it will be possible to calmly remove on F / 5.6 from hands with a short shutter speed, and on a large full-frame lens, you will have to close the aperture very strongly to get the same DOF.
Personal experience:
I described the difference in depth of field in detail only because I often shoot various kinds of wide-angle lenses on an open aperture baptism, weddings, etc. I usually use a 28mm lens. On a full frame at 28mm f / 3.5, it is already very noticeable that people 'fall out' from the depth of field. When printing in a format of 20 X 30 and more, it is already quite noticeable that some people are in focus, and some are 'floated'. Sometimes clients complain to me that part of the picture is not sharp. Using a crop camera and a lens with a similar EGF, you can increase the depth of field by a factor of 2.25 while maintaining aperture ratio and simplify this kind of shooting. I understand that you can close the aperture and get a wide depth of field, but in some cases you can’t shoot at F / 11.0, since there is very, very little light for the scene, and using a flash is highly undesirable.
Conclusion:
Equivalent focal lengths when using cropped lenses allow you to get a large depth of field, more objects in the focus area, more satisfied customers. At the same time, we need the same aperture the lens.
Ultimatu crop
After the previous point, the crop has risen to its feet and can now compete with a full frame. But there is one very serious problem when using cropped cameras. And this problem is the lack of lenses. In general, this concerns the absence good professional fast lenses with a comfortable EGF. Professional photographers, such as wedding planners, studio photographers, and storytellers most often use a specific set of lenses with a certain focal length. Usually this is a range of 14-200mm.
But for cropped cameras there are simply no lenses for comfortable shooting. For example, for Nikon DX cameras there is nothing to replace Nikon 14-24 F / 2.8, Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8, Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8, Nikon 80-200 F / 2.8, Nikon 85mm F / 1.4. There is only a replacement for the Nikon 24-70 F / 2.8 in the form of the Nikon 17-55 F / 2.8 DX (and then, there is a Nikon 24-70 F / 2.8 VR, which, again, has no replacement).
Lenses have historically undergone a number of adjustments to suit the needs of photographers when working on narrow 35mm film. We have developed our own optimal standards. For example, reporting in 'close combat' is easier than ever to shoot with the Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8, and for portraits, weddings, use the Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8. These lenses complement each other to provide the photographer's desired coverage of the focal length range, are very easy to use and are a kind of standard. These lenses have undergone a number of modifications, have been hardened by time, and their focal lengths were chosen for a reason.
As a result, for the Nikon DX crop, there is neither a wide aperture-panorama (14-24 F / 2.8), nor a reportage-wide (Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8), nor a portrait-TV (Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8), no fix portraiture (Nikon 85mm F1.4).
In general, for 'professional photography' on a crop, only the Nikon 17-55mm F / 2.8 can be used as a versatile replacement for the full-frame Nikon 24-70mm F / 2.8.
When using lenses from full-frame cameras, the EGF and full-frame lenses largely lose their functionality on crop. To reinforce my words, I will give an example from personal practice. Using a Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera, I can easily shoot wedding walks and small groups of people at 70mm, all I have to do is step back a little. But when using the same lens on a crop, I have to run back and forth with 70-200mm to shoot witnesses, young people and a few more people. As a result, the 70-200 does not fulfill its function as a normal 70mm lens. For serious photography, crop is a road to nowhere due to the lack of a set of lenses the photographer needs.
There is one more thing - third-party manufacturers have realized the nuance described above and released equivalents. For Nikon 14-24 F / 2.8 there is Tokina 11-16 F / 2.8, for Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8 there is Tokina AF 50-135mm F / 2.8. Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8 replacements were never invented. On the one hand, I often recommend third-party lenses, but I only do this for hobbyists. On the other hand, there is one unwritten rule for professionals to use only 'native' lenses on their cameras. Let me give you an example, so I came to a wedding with 'Tamron', 'Sigma', 'Tokina'. They ask me, what is this lens? I answer - 'Tamron', 'Sigma', 'Tokina'. In response, I only hear “There ... What? ... Sigma? Bokina? " And all my professionalism and trust in me is multiplied by zero. It is difficult to prove to the client that important how to take pictures, and not using any technique. Give everyone only Nikon, Canon, Sony.
Of course, it should be understood that the concepts of 'professional photographer' and 'professional photographic equipment' have very vague boundaries.
We can also mention Canon cameras with APS-H sensor - Canon EOS-1D, 1D MarkII, 1D Mark II N, 1D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, which have crop factor 1.3 and for which neither the native manufacturer nor third-party ones produce lenses taking crop into account. Only full-frame native lenses are suitable for such cameras.
Conclusions:
For full-frame cameras, there are lens solutions with a convenient set of focal lengths. For cropped cameras, there are practically no such lenses.
Crop evolution
In the previous paragraph, I tried to defeat the crop. At this point, I will try to finish it off.
Not only professional lenses have evolved, but also a number of simple 'dark' zooms. Usually, for comfortable, simple photography, the 28mm-XXXmm range is used. For example, 28-50mm, 28-70mm, 28-85mm, 28-100mm, 28-105mm, 28-200mm, 28-300mm. Such lenses are called universal, with their help you can practically shoot anything. Most of their versatility lies in their ability to use the wide 28mm field of view on a full frame camera. The equivalent of 28mm on crop is 18mm, for example 18-55m, 18-70mm, 18-105mm, 18-135mm, 18-200mm, 18-300mm.
For example, Nikon has over 10 class 28-XXX universal autofocus lenses and their modifications. All these lenses are practically unprofitable when used on cropped Nikon DX cameras, as they completely lose their versatility due to the fact that 28mm gives EGF at 42mm (almost fifty dollars). Now the good old lenses, for example, the Nikon 28-105mm F / 3.5-4.5 Macro with outrageous image quality and super fast focusing, are sold for $ 150, since no one needs them.
This is true not only of universal lenses, but of almost all full-frame lenses that have been designed for full-frame cameras. Black magic happens on crop, constantly full-frame lenses with specific goals and objectives'turn into something'. For example, a fifty-kopeck piece in a short-portrait, any shirik into a standard lens, over a shirik into a wide one. The only thing unchanged is the telephoto. Televik and televik on the crop.
The main advantage of crop marketing experts highlight 'free' increase in equivalent focal length. In fact, such an increase is needed only in very rare tasks. For example, I very rarely need a lens longer than 200mm at full frame. Few photographers can really use this advantage for shooting distant subjects. For an ordinary amateur photographer, such an increase EGF often not needed. Many remain deceived by what is usually said about the increase EGF for telephoto lenses. Everything is extremely simple there - the longer the focal length, the better. But due to the fact that the EGF increases not only for telephoto lenses, but for all lenses, from this wide angles suffer greatly. That is, the wide angle of a wide-angle full-frame lens simply disappears when using such a lens on a cropped camera. In general, it is better to shoot wider than narrower - the image can then be cropped, but not vice versa. Because I really like the expression: 'crop eats frame'.
Conclusion:
When using cropped cameras lost the ability to use a huge number of old full-frame lenses with excellent optical and mechanical performance. Often such lenses cost a penny, and their image quality is at a high level.
Crop accuracy
Another important point is accuracy of the focusing system when used on crop and on a full frame of FX lenses. It is connected with hyperfocal distance and a feature of the focusing system of each lens separately.
To shoot the same subject with the same full-frame lens in crop and full frame with the same crop, you need get closer or further to the subject. The difference in shooting distance between the Nikon DX camera and Nikon FX will be 1.5 times. For example, if you need to shoot something with a cropped camera and a full-frame lens from a distance of 6 meters, you will need to shoot something with the same lens and a full-frame camera with the same crop from a distance of 4 meters.
The focusing system is often easier to sharpen the lens at medium focusing distances. This can be related to the step of the focusing ring. When focusing in the infinity region, the focus ring pitch is very small, which may cause more problems with focus accuracy in this range. When using an FX lens on a crop, focusing is shifted toward infinity, which generally degrades the accuracy and smoothness of focusing. This is a very subtle nuance that can not always be traced. It takes a lot of practice to feel the difference.
And also an important point - the shorter the focusing distance, the visually the subject appears sharper (although the depth of field decreases).
Crop weight
It is often said that cropped cameras weigh less than full frame cameras. This is not always true. For example, full frame cameras Nikon D700, D800, Nikon D800E, Nikon D600 weigh less than the cropped Nikon D1, Nikon D1h, Nikon D1x, Nikon D2x, Nikon D2xs, Nikon D2h, Nikon D2hs. Also full frame Nikon D600 weighs about the same as Nikon's cropped ruler D500, D300, D300s, D200, D100. In the general case, the weight of the camera is determined not by the size of the sensor, but by the belonging of the camera to a certain level, for example, professional or amateur. The weight of the camera is very dependent on the materials of which the housing is made. Typically, professional cameras have an all-metal body, unlike amateur cameras that use plastic. So it turns out that professional flagship (with a combo body) cropped cameras of the Nikon D1, D2 series weigh more than an amateur full-frame Nikon D600 or professional Nikon D810, D800, D800E. The weight of the camera can be both a plus and a minus, like everything else in matters of crop.
Crop speed
The implicit advantage of the reduced sensor on cropped cameras is the ability to quickly read the signal from the cells of the matrix and lower power consumption. In fact, this greatly affects the video. So, the first Nikon camera that could shoot video was not Nikon D3s, Nikon D90. Now Nikon D7100, D7200, D5200, D5300, D5500 can shoot Full HD at 60 frames per second, and more expensive cameras Nikon D600, D610, D800,D800E, D4 can squeeze a maximum of only 30 frames per second in Full HD mode. This also affects the photo shooting speed. So cameras with interchangeable lenses Nikon 1 J1, Nikon 1 S1, Nikon 1 V2, Nikon 1 V1, Nikon 1 J2, Nikn 1 J3 and Nikon 1 AW1 can take pictures at a speed of 60 (sixty) photos in one second. It turns out that crumbs Nikon 1 s crop factor 2.7X shoots 5 times faster than Nikon D4s or Canon 1DX. Such speed is possible due to fast reading and signal processing from a 'small' matrix.
Crop cutting
Unlike Canon cameras, Nikon full-frame CCMs can operate in DX image mode. This means that any full-frame camera can only use the central part of its sensor, which is completely identical in size to the classic Nikon DX crop. To do this, simply select the DX image area in the camera menu. Thus, using any Nikon FX cameras, you can simultaneously have at hand an analogue of a cropped camera. For example, in Nikon DX mode, the camera Nikon D800 takes 16MP pictures, in size and quality almost the same as when using cropped cameras Nikon D7000 or D5100. True, in Nikon DX mode it is inconvenient to sight through JVI. By the way, some Nikon DX cropped cameras can work in their specific optional cropped mode. These cameras include Nikon D2x и D2xs with an additional crop for high-speed shooting Kf = 2X and Nikon D7100 with the possibility of additional crop Kf = 1.3X.
The future of crop
Of course, crop cameras have been and always will be. But here in the professional segment, cropped cameras no longer have a place... For example, Nikon no longer releases TOP cropped 'combo monsters', the last of which was Nikon D2xsreleased way back in 2006. In 2007, Nikon's line of TOP professional cameras was replaced by a full-frame line, the first of which was Nikon D3. In the future, the entire range of such cameras includes exclusively full-frame models.
The same fate befell the line of cropped TOP cameras Canon with an APS-H sensor. Latest model, Canon 1D Mark IV, was released in 2009, replaced by a full-frame camera in 2012 Canon 1D X.
Crop quality
All the previous ones are just flowers :) (which are on screensavers). For me, as a photographer, full-frame cameras are valued more than cropped cameras due to lower noise at equivalent ISO values. Full-frame cameras have higher ISO values that allow you to take pictures of acceptable quality. If we take cropped and full-frame cameras of the same generation, then full-frame shots will always be more flexible in post-processing, they are much simpler 'draw out'and finalize (especially when shooting in RAW).
Let's take the latest full-frame model among Nikon cameras - D4s, and the latest advanced cropped - D7100, even according to synthetic tests, it is easy to see that the 'working' ISOs of Nikon D4s are 2-3 times higher than those of Nikon D7100 (link dxomark.com). I can say with confidence that no Nikon cropped camera has yet grown in terms of noise at high ISOs even to the very first full-frame Nikon D3. The same situation can be observed with Sony and Pentax cameras. And if you do not take into account Canon EOS-1DS then Canon has exactly the same situation :).
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Global output:
Crop is insidious. Now you know that:
- A full frame can be considered crop from medium format cameras;
- Crop has the advantage of greater depth of field with the same F number and the same viewing angle. This is important for shooting using wide-angle optics;
- For crop there is no line of professional lenses with convenient focal length. In my opinion, this is a very serious drawback of crop;
- Cropped cameras cannot be used properly with a huge number of good old full-frame lenses;
- When using full-frame lenses on crop, the smoothness and convenience of focusing changes;
- Cropped cameras are not always lighter than full frame cameras;
- Full-frame cameras have a significantly lower noise level at high ISO;
- Among professional cameras, there is less and less space for crop.
Extension here.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Please tell me whether it is possible to use full-format lenses on cropped cameras?
Can.
Olga! And even very successfully! True, the camera is a little heavier! FF optics are too heavy!
I bought a D5300, I’m sitting, reading, and respect for the author. Regarding crop lenses, I understand that 18-140 is now optimal from the point of view of focal lengths (if you do not take into account the power) for family shots? I read your review. Like and In terms of sharpness, the tests went around the new 18-300. And the feeling that 18-55 is not enough for me at the long end.
18-140 is a good lens for your tasks.
for D7100 which TV do you recommend? Thank you in advance!
For example Nikon N AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1: 2.8GII ED VR
And how in the professional segment relate to full-frame mirrorless cameras, for example Sony a7?
http://vadim-pp.livejournal.com/18012.html
Interesting note:
“- Crop has the advantage of a larger depth of field with the same F number and the same viewing angle
"Full frame cameras have noticeably less noise at high ISOs."
It seems to me that these two points are leveled by each other when shooting handheld in a dark room. To achieve one depth of field for crop and FF, on the FF you need to press the aperture to the stop and raise it to the ISO level. Total noise image will not change.
Yes. all right.
more importantly, the crop is usually a smaller pixel with all the pros and cons, and when working with televisions you can get a type of digital zoom with a high pixel density.
For a crop, there are more good optics with a stub ... and here it is already interesting: is there a big difference in the picture with the same exposure ... which one to give preference to? high iso ff or longer crop exposures ... for example d600 + 28-70 (75) and d7100 + 17-50vc (os) ... purely mathematically (metering works this way) a crop with a stub will cost ISO 800 (1600), and ff is already + 2stop , 3200 (6400) twist ... in the reviews, Arkady, and 3 stops successfully compensated with a stub ... well, the budget of one option is 2 times larger than the other ... what thoughts do you have about this alignment?
I would not say that crop has more good optics with a stub. There may be more simple optics with a stub, but there are very few real lenses for work. For example, for the same Nikon with a stub there is generally nothing interesting with cropped lenses. I do not consider 17-50 third-party manufacturers, as these are third-party manufacturers.
Also, the stabilizer does not give control over moving objects in the frame, it only compensates for camera / lens shake, because the lens aperture or ISO camera in general is a priority.
Thank you for the article!
I am facing the choice of a fix for Nikon 7000. Advise, please, I do not want to blunder.
Thanks in advance
I advise you to specify information for what purposes you need a fix.
Taking pictures of a child, family, walks, in a cafe. Indoor and outdoor
Nikon 35 / 1,8g
Julia! What kind of fix did you mean, and what are the goals? here are examples of fix ff sigma 50 \ 1.4
Arkady good day! I read your article, you wrote everything correctly. I have a Nikon d90, everything suits except the depth of the image, the volume so to speak. Say what you like for a full frame, blurry foreground and background come out better due to the larger matrix. I also noticed, and here no one even hinted at this, namely, that on the crop you run into the threshold at which blurry is generally possible. I mean the distance from the photographer to the object, in the full frame this size is more enlarged, I tried to shoot on the Nikon d700 myself and established the pattern that the size of the matrix directly depends on the distance to the object at which you can blur the background. So, the full frame exceeds the crop by 2 times. So I want to buy a full frame, namely Nikon d750, and leave the d90 as a second camera!
For macro photography or small-scale subject shooting - crop cameras with initially larger depth of field will be more convenient than expensive full-frame cameras. So not everything is so simple. Different cameras are needed for different tasks.
Maybe you just need to learn how to use lenses with different focal lengths and aperture?
Do not forget what photography is - drawing with light. If there is an idea, a design, a game with light in the frame, if the frame is successful, if it is interesting, then it affects the crop last time or if
Andrey Kuznetsov! Completely agree with you! Nikon d7000 + sigma ff 50 \ 1.4
In my opinion, photography, as a kind of creative activity, has its own objective and subjective side. The objective side is light, color, foreshortening, composition, exposure. The subjective side is the author's idea or concept of the picture, the ability to shoot (to embody the idea), the desire to shoot and the desire to learn, i.e. constantly improve their skills. Everything else is not essential, fundamental. “Full frame”, “incomplete frame”, “crop” is all verbiage, this is from the Evil One. If the right hand tempts you, cut off the left (just kidding). If the standard size 4/3 or even APS-C seems to you insufficient for realizing your creative ambitions, and overestimated self-esteem pushes you towards 35 mm, urgently switch to 1/2, or better immediately to 1 / 3,6. You will soon realize that 4/3 cameras offer fantastic vistas that you never knew before. The lack of good interchangeable lenses for DX format cameras is an economic problem, but not a technical one. Historically, the 36x24 frame has become the standard, and there is a huge park of optics for it. Lay a new track, i.e. creating a large park of optics for cropped DSLRs is irrational from a production point of view. Enlarging a camera sensor is easier and cheaper now than it was 10-12 years ago. The universal passion for “full frame” will lead to the fact that in 5-7 years even “soap boxes” will become full-frame, and the DX format will gain a second birth, but already as an exclusively professional standard for solving specific tasks in those genres and directions where it has its own advantages. This is my prediction. Evolution makes a turn and always returns to the starting point, but at a new level. The evolution of photography is no exception. We will live and see. And in this transitional period, it is better for a self-respecting amateur photographer to acquire a solid professional crop, time-tested and people-tested, than to exchange for an unfinished, compromise in all respects amateur “full frame”. Most lenses have worse image quality at the edge than in the center, and crop in the middle, i.e. collects cream.
dear LDS, your logic is not meaningless! it is possible that it will be so! I started with the amazing ultra-sound Panasonic Lumix FZ-50. Only the field of this camera I realized that I want to continue to hold the photo in my hands! I have a dezaf no, but nikon d7000 and the ff sigma ex line, it’s mastered! I always want the best, but the reality is a bit different! but, I am very colorfully wielding what I have in my state today!
For most lenses, the image quality at the edge is worse than in the center, and the crop works in the middle, i.e. collects cream.
=============================================
true if you are talking about using FF optics on a crop. if you put crop optics on crop - there is no win)))
and if you put old lenses on the crop, you will just cut all the beauty, such as twisting on helios)
Wonderful article.
I will bring in my five kopecks - there is such a widely known article in narrow circles - http://afanas.ru/ROF/
I highly recommend reading and comprehending it ...
My thoughts on the topic:
It is not entirely correct to compare two files with the same exposure taken by different cameras with the same aperture and shutter speed.
Because these two frames may possibly have different perspectives, depth of field, noise and, as a result, visually differ greatly ...
There are many (ideally infinity, but in real life - a finite number, with a certain step, number) different sets of apertures and shutter speeds that will give the same exposure. And to choose this particular one (with equal aperture and shutter speed), throwing out the ISO brackets is not very correct.
Two frames can be compared if they have the same exposure except for the same exposure:
- perspective;
- DOF;
- exposure;
- noises.
Moreover, we can talk about the same noises only if two “spherical matrices in a vacuum” of the same company, one year of manufacture and with the same pixel size! )))
If we compare the crop and the full format with each other - this “matrix model” fits well with a 36 Mp FF and a 16 Mp crop from Nikon. For example, D5100 and D800 are models of close production years.
Or you can compare the D3x or D600 with the D3000 or D5000 (respectively 24 megapixels FF versus 10-12 megapixels crop), models of similar release years.
Then, to achieve “the same frame” (And by shutter speed, And by exposure, And by depth of field, And by perspective, And by noise), you need to enter equivalent values:
EGF = Kf * FR - "equivalent focal"
Aeq = Kf * A - "equivalent aperture"
SHISO = Kf * Kf * ISO - “Equivalent ISO”
If we take a picture on the D5100 with the following settings:
- shutter speed 1/100;
- aperture A = 1 / 3,5 (Aeq = 1,5 * 3,5 = 7,85);
– ИСО=1000 (ШИСО=1,5*1,5*1000=2250);
- FR = 100mm (EGF = 150mm).
And a snapshot on the D800 with the following settings:
- shutter speed 1/100;
- aperture A = 1/8 (Aeq = 8);
- ISO = 2250 (SHISO = 2250);
- FR = 150mm (EGF = 150mm).
Then these two pictures should be almost identical ...
Similarly, you can try it yourself ...
And if we identify “identical” photos, we can compare all the others “in numbers”.
Those. how many stops you can deviate from the equivalent parameters is better!
re-read, saw an error:
for crop - aperture A = 1 / 3,5 (Aeq = 1,5 * 3,5 = 5,25);
for FF - aperture A ~ 1 / 5,6 (Aeq = 5,6);
I agree with Skela. Conclusions: to achieve the same frame on the FF, you will have to clamp the aperture and raise the ISO, which practically eliminates the advantage of high working ISO FF. For nature photography this is important.
BUT in this article Arkady did not note another dirty crop. Due to the peculiarities of optics when shooting at infinity (i.e. landscapes), the detail of a picture depends mainly on the size of the matrix (and not on its megapixelness). Therefore, the landscape from the crop will be inferior in detail to the landscape with the FF (and so on to a large format).
“For example, 'close-quarters' reporting is as easy as shelling pears to shoot with Nikon 17-35 F / 2.8, and for portraits and weddings use Nikon 70-200 F / 2.8. These lenses complement each other to provide the coverage the photographer needs, are very easy to use and are sort of the standard. ” - here in my opinion it is confused, instead of 17-35 it is more logical to 24-70
?
nothing messed up. Read the article on 17-35. However, it's a matter of taste. If there is 35 mm and the telephoto starts at 70, then there is not much sense in keeping 24-70 for its 35-70 range - it is easier to buy fifty dollars. 24-70 is really in demand if you can't move at all and you need to shoot in a diverse way and quickly (count the registry office). And so a step forward, a step back .. oh, how many times have written about it))) True, if shooting wider than 24 is not interesting, then 24 -70 is just right. I like super-widths - you may not. In a very “close combat” 24 little
not at all.
A more practical bundle for televisions is shirik, missing the middle range.
After all, the article deals with the classic "standard". and 17-35 in the range of 17-24 in a full frame just for a narrow amateur and non-standard shooting
D500 obіtsyaє zmіniti situation
It is written in the style of “Chef truncated truncated disappeared, why did you buy a crop” and not everyone has the opportunity to buy FF, I use lenses for both crop and FF on the crop, and it's okay, everything works out, life is on the crop. If you know the capabilities of your lens and camera, you can always get a good result in any situation.
oleg! very support!
sigma 18-35 1,8 and sigma 50-100 1,8 to 1,8 give the same flu as 2,8 per ff, and accordingly compensate for the advantage of ff in ISO. Convenient for work focal. Cheaper than a set of cheap ff, and due to autofocus on modern crop, better than the initial ff.
Nikon has a stable 24-70, there is nothing to replace it with Sigme. The same applies to the stable 70-200, where 50-100 is standing on the sidelines, the more focal, even in terms of, do not reach 200 mm.
FF certainly win, except for money. But for a 200mm report, it’s not very necessary, and in the report a stabilizer is also not needed. You can, of course, strive for the technique to do everything for you, but if you can’t shoot cool for example on d7100 18-35, 50 1,4, 85 1,8 then why do you need ff. This is a rhetorical question.
I do not agree! The question is more practical! And he is the answer!
(if you can’t shoot cool for example on d7100 18-35, 50 1,4, 85 1,8 then why do you need ff.)
Nikon D7000 + Sigma 50 \ 1.4 ff
Thank you so much, Arkady! Found answers to several questions at once! I am probably the oldest amateur here ... I started as a child with glass plates ... so I have more than 60 years of experience. Several years ago, having mastered the computer, I switched to digital ... and now I set my sights on the full frame and your article left no doubts about this! Although I understood something myself, having shoveled through "tons" of the Internet ... I always liked your articles for their clarity and, I would say, the lack of cold academicism, which causes special trust and warmth. Once again - thank you very much for your work in this necessary and wonderful business!
and the blog is interesting! and most importantly, without running over each other, and without folding!
The article is interesting and useful, but at the end of 2016 Nikon released prof.crop d500. All the same, I think that crop can be perfectly shot using full-frame lenses, it’s just that crop can be taken with them completely differently than with dx optics! And although they taught Nikon fx cameras switch to dx mode, it is better to have a dx camera by the second camera! although this is only my opinion. everyone decides for himself! and as regards optics, native or not, I shoot sigma with full-frame optics, though they were selected for a long time!
For Ontebeotega: Your surprise at the term “narrow format” is due to the fact that you are a young man. And therefore you do not know that film photographic equipment consisted (and consists) of two large classes of cameras -
narrow format - film width 35 mm (frame size 24x36 mm)
widescreen - film width 60 mm (frame 60x60, 60x90 mm)
========
and in digital photo technology:
The technology of photosensitive matrices only a couple of years ago made it possible to approach the size of 24x36 mm, and the matrices themselves were called full-format. But in terms of the old photographic technique, this is the same "narrow format"
1. There is a camera with crop 2.
2. There is a 25mm lens for FF cameras with the “correct” adapter to the camera according to claim 1.
3. There is a “25mm” (“50mm EGF”) lens for cameras with crop 2, the corresponding system.
4. There is a “12.5mm” (“50mm EGF”) lens for cameras with crop 4 with the “correct” adapter to the camera according to claim 1.
4. We shoot the same thing with these three lenses at the same aperture and the same ISO. We are not interested in the qualities of the picture now.
Question:
Will the same exposure be required to get “equal” frames or not?
... My unenlightened opinion: in comparison with the third lens, with the second one will have to increase the shutter speed fourfold, and with the first one - 16 times. Because the luminous flux reaching the plane of the matrix will be the same, but with the third lens it will only fall on the central quarter of the matrix area (and it will be comparatively - fourfold - “overexposed”), and in the first case, only a quarter of the light flux will fall on the matrix (the rest past).
What’s wrong, what’s wrong?
Quote from the article above:
“You can often find a recalculation of the f-number for cropped lenses. For example, f / 2.8 for Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX on Nikon DX cameras will be equivalent to f / 4.2. I'm not lying, you can see the example of Nikon 14-24 2.8 at photozone.de. This does not mean that such a lens has a real darker aperture when used on cropped cameras - it only means that the depth of field for such a lens will be equal to F / 4.2 in the equivalent for full-frame cameras. ! Note: this recalculation does not affect the exposure, it only affects the depth of field recalculation. ! ”
Attention and attention again!
Thank you, I read this statement.
My question is why this is not the way?
In essence, it boils down to the question: what is the “correct adapter”?
Q: Could a lensless adapter be “correct”?
And: if the shutter speed is maintained even with a lensless adapter, what will happen if the adapter is a collecting lens? Double for the case of using FF lens on crop 2? Can (necessary) be reduced exposure by four?
Do special lenses for crop need to be recounted for 35 mm ether? Is there for example a sigma DC 17-70, will it still be 17-70 or 21-105?
Sorry not 21-105 but 25-105