This is a small article about a small difference in the size of the matrices of the cropped Nikon DX and Canon APS-C cameras.
Matrix size for Nikon and Canon APS-C cameras
Most cropped cameras Nikon and Canon have APS-C matrix format (Advanced Photo System type-C).
Everyone knows that crop factor for cameras Canon APS-C is Kf = 1,6. And for cameras Nikon APS-C (aka Nikon DX) crop factor is Kf = 1,5. Higher value crop factor Kf - the smaller the sensor is used in the camera. It would seem that the difference between cropped Nikon and Canon cameras is a mere trifle - 1.6 versus 1.5 (approximately 7%), but in fact Kf shows only the ratio of frame diagonals. The area of the matrix (its actual size) is equal to the ratio of the squares of the linear dimensions.
It is easy to calculate that the physical dimensions of cropped cameras Nikon and Canon APS-C format differ by (1,6 * 1,6) / (1,5 * 1,5) = 1,14. It means that the matrix in Canon APS-C cameras is 14% smaller than the matrix in Nikon APS-C cameras (Nikon DX). I have never met a figure of 14%, apparently nobody wants to talk about it. Matrix size in a SLR camera is a very, very important indicator when choosing a camera and affects a bunch of nuances, in more detail here.
But in fact, the indicators Kf = 1.6 and Kf = 1.5 are slightly approximate. If you take two APS-C cameras Nikon and Canon, for example, Nikon D5200 и Canon 650D then their matrices differ in size by only 10%. It is easy to calculate. Matrix size Canon 650D is 22,3 x 14,9 mm (proof link), and Nikon D5200 respectively 23,5 x 15,6 mm (proof link) Thus the area of the matrix Nikon D5200 is 366,6 sq. Mm vs 332,27 sq. Mm у Canon 650D... Total - the difference is 10%. Of course, this is not 14% calculated by the crop factor, but nevertheless differences by as much as 10% cannot be ignored. This small difference affects, for example, the fact that Canon launches a Canon EF-S lens 15-85mm 1:3.5-5.6 USM IS to reach EGF 24-136 mm.
You will find a lot of interesting information about cropped cameras and their application in the section Crop Evolution. In the general case, it cannot be said that the smaller sensor size in the Canon APS-C is worse or better than the Nikon APS-C, a larger value crop factor it just has a stronger effect on certain parameters related to the effects when using crop cameras.
Conclusions:
It is now known that the sensor size of all Nikon APS-C cameras is greater than the sensor value of all Canon APS-C cameras. This is another nuance when choosing an amateur SLR camera, especially when choosing a system Nikon or Canon.
Arkady Shapoval.
Sensibly!
Thanks Arkady!
But the smaller the sensor, the more depth of field? And sometimes this is so lacking ...
and sometimes vice versa, the depth of field is too big, and you can’t do anything, so there’s a double-edged sword, everyone chooses for himself what he likes
Sorry! But still proof link)))
And thanks for the article, I read with interest your “thoughts on the photo”.
There is an error in the text (which I noticed in many other posts as well): “the value [...] is greater than the size of the sensors”. In the Russian language there is no turnover “more for”. Correctly spelled like this: “greater than [...]” or “greater than [...]”.
Let it be for you ... Well this is a site dedicated to photography, not the purity of the Russian language.
Who cares what the site is about. Literacy does not negate this.
Are you amateur photographers or, like that minister, when he said that in the word yoghurt the stress should be on the letter “U”. And in both cases it turns out that this yogurt is shit, which cannot be eaten ... Why cling to words? A person is trying for you, and you are also hugging…. The meaning in any case is clear and it is the same….
___ab, for all of Odessa I won’t tell you, but you don’t need to teach them what they know smartly! It's not a mistake. )
ask +5
“In the Russian language there is no turnover“ more for ”.”….
But there is in Ukrainian (more for ..) Do you really want to say that this somehow distorts the meaning of what has been said or introduces misunderstandings into the reading of the article? ))) No need to soar the brain to yourself and those around you with such “nuances”.))
Alexey, you can't say better! And then clever people gathered here, you better think about the meaning of what is written ...
I don’t understand why everyone attacked me. I just pointed out a mistake in the text that could be reasonably corrected, like any other mistake, typo or inaccuracy.
The bug was fixed as soon as your first comment appeared. Thank you for your attention.
___ab, do not be offended for God's sake! No one pounced. Simply, everyone tried to explain in his own way. )
No, just look at this poet! Him checkers or go?
But what do you say for the canopy APS-H?
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-H
My personal opinion is that APS-H is neither fish nor meat. On the one hand, the sensor is larger and this is good, on the other hand, full-frame lenses will be “castrated”, and you cannot fit cropped EF-S lenses there, and there would certainly be vignetting.
Thank you for the article. I always read with pleasure and do not go deep into the philological nuances, because I think the meaning is sometimes more important than the method of presentation.
I felt a very noticeable difference in the size of the crop. Recently I bought myself, so to speak for the collection, for a song, Zapop 30D (as the shoemakers themselves call it “shit-thirty”). By the way, the device turned out to be nothing, but it's not about it. So, having 50mm objective both for that camp and for ours, I saw this difference with my own eyes. The angle of view on the Boot is approximately 60mm on the Nikon. I'm already used to what I will see through 50mm on the crop, but here at first I was confused. It seems to be an insignificant difference, but already at once the entry could not determine the frame boundaries. Then of course I got used to it, but the sediment, as they say, remained.
PS And they have something (about Sapop) that is very convenient, but there are things that, like a hardened Nikonist, simply enrage. Okay, I still took it “for pampering”, and in order to have both systems on hand, especially since there is something for the enemy camp on the farm (trashy 50 / 1.8 and puff 430EX II) just in case.
Well, well, well, friends! There are no enemies! Very stupid and artificially inflated confrontation Kenon-Nikon. Both systems in all sectors are very good and user friendly. It's about personal preferences. Here cars in appearance are so diverse, and you get into the salon - the feelings are the same! Or will we prove who has flatter fatter in the soup ?????
Now both systems are friendly only to the photographer's wallet ... The times when all these manufacturers thought about the user ended with the collapse of our Motherland, the USSR! And now only profit comes first….
Yes, Nikon has a slightly larger matrix. It’s like compensation for a longer working period and the inability to fully use many lenses) So there is no obvious advantage either way, you need to choose for the purpose and taste :)
That's right, do not forget about the working distance
And let's better __ab again, we will scold, why he clings to the words, than to argue who has the best device. As for me, both systems are very worthy. The point I think is not that NIKON is 10-15% better than KENON, both are good, each in its own way.
And about __ab I was joking.
Hello everyone! Sorry, that is off topic. Need advice with arguments. The choice of crop (D300, D7000, D5000) between: 1. Zeiss planar 85 / 1.4. 2. Zeiss planar 50 / 1.4 + Nikon 85 / 1.8 G (D). 3. Nikon 24-120 / 4.
And what do you think the cameras of which manufacturers have better ergonomics: Canon or Nikon?
The question is eternal. Personally, I like Nikon more (I use them), but the owners of Kenon, I am sure, have a different opinion. And you get used to the camera and it becomes the most convenient. :)
which is what it is (not about Nikon, but about ergonomics in general), the hands adapt to the camera and almost no need to think about how to change this or that parameter - the hands themselves crunch with buttons / wheels, it got to the point that when Canon EOS fell into the hands 1100d (my friend gave a couple of frames to snap off), then I (also canon, also eos, but 50D) had difficulties when changing the shutter speed, although it seems like the system is the same, I’m not talking about Nikanors at all - I couldn’t master them))
So I was also at a dead end when, after my Nikon D90, I was allowed to shoot with the D3000. After all, amateur cameras are very different from advanced and PRO. Including Nikon. I would like to hear the opinion of photographers who use Nikon and Canon alike - which is more convenient in principle? It's clear that you can get used to everything. But we can say that, for example, sneakers are more comfortable than shoes. ;-) Can't you compare DSLRs in the same way? Not better, but more convenient!
It is impossible. You can only talk about individual models, and not about brands.
So compare your classmates! I am not calling for comparisons between the 350D and the D4. But Canon EOS 5D and Nikon D300, for example, can. I just talked with Canon very superficially. It is interesting to compare the convenience of settings, the location of the buttons, in general, the convenience of everyday use. In fact, even the class of the camera is not important here. The general ideology of building cameras is important! Really no one can answer such a question ?! It seems to me that if I shoot with two cameras of different brands, I could understand which one is more convenient for me.
It is impossible. Even 5d and d300 can not be compared, then a full-format, or crop. You can for example, you can for example 7d and nikon d300. For these two, subjectively, Nikon is much more convenient, and the choice of the focus point and many other goodies. I’m shooting on both Nikon and Canon. My 350d is very simple, when compared with the simple Nikon D40, the canon 350d is more convenient, especially when choosing ISO, WB, metering mode. Therefore, I repeat, it is possible to compare only individual cameras of a similar type, but in no case the whole brand.
This was what was interesting to me. It's just that each manufacturer's DSLRs have their own specific ideology: handles, buttons, menus ... So I swung at the brand as a whole. And the technical characteristics do not matter here. If the device fits comfortably in the hand, it simply and clearly allows you to control the shooting process and does not force the photographer to pervert at the same time - then it is convenient. There is nothing to dispute about the quality of the photo. For Nikon cameras of different generations, the ideology of the menu is similar, the differences are only in the added functions. The buttons on PRO cameras practically do not change, everything is very conservative. The shape is slightly modified, it often becomes more convenient. Canon is just a dark horse for me. But I think they also have an “ideology”.
But how are Canon's in the hand, more comfortable than similar Nikons?
Zeiss is certainly a thing! But I think that crop 85 is a little different. Yes, and 85ki chromate ... 50 dollars for the eyes should be enough. I would take Nikon's G-series autofocus. Reporting is more convenient and cheap. I take 1.8% of the photos at 90 / 105. If you need long-range, then 2.8 macro is better. Generally a valid lens. Cutting. Although not quite f4, rather f85, but the chromatite is less than Nikon's 24s. I didn't like 120-XNUMX. heavy and without zest. probably better to look for some light tamron. In general, manual optics for the soul and unhurried shooting.
Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 + Nikon 50 / 1.8G + Granite 11N 80-200 / 4.5 (manual) I have, I think, either a staff for every day with a wide range of focal lengths (24-120), or follow the path of "fixes" ...
What about Sony? there on the crop and the size of the matrix is like Nikon's, and the flange is almost like Canon's (m42 gets up without problems), so also the stabilizer in the carcass! :)
That's right, but regarding ergonomics, Sonya still needs to learn from the first two (IMHO), and when we see Sonya in the hands of reporters, we will assume that Sonya also did something.
If ergonomics means ease of operation, then here I have the opposite experience.
I had fun using the Canon 60D for a while, a good device, I won’t say anything bad in quality, but at one point it was wildly annoying to select a new focus point, you must first press the manual point selection button, and only then select it with a wheel or cross, for everything it all took ~ 1.5 seconds at first, adjusting a bit turned out faster, but not by much :(
On the old Sony a200, all this is done with a cross located conveniently under the thumb, and this did not cause such obvious delays.
Perhaps I did not fully figure out the settings, but this is the first thing that caught my eye and remained in my memory :(
Somewhere I agree, but rather, I meant the build quality and materials used, Sony only A800, 850, 900 and 99 are tolerably well assembled.
The matrix for NIKON is made by SONY, some purely its own, some developed by NIKON.
I will support the opinion that Canon 60D is somewhat slow - I was in my hands for a couple of days. Confirmed the correct choice in favor of the D5100 (I bought a second camera for my wife).
I disagree with you. The focus point of the Canon 60D changes very quickly, you just need to set it up right away - assign a button and then change it with one movement.
Yes, you already have almost everything you need to eat! Personally, I'm for fixes. I'm a little afraid of them in the TV range. But they have no equal in picture quality. Have you thought about purchasing a full frame? I will change my D90 to D800. And the lenses are 20 / 2.8D + 50 / 1.8G + 105 / 2.8Gmicro + 180 / 2.8D. Everything from Nikon. The most inexpensive and high quality. I don’t dream about Zeiss yet… I don’t even know the standard zoom… I can’t look after anything. If to report purely, I have 18-200vr2. But the hand does not rise to put it on the carcass after the fixes because the picture is not important from it ... And it's a pity to sell - suddenly I will shoot a video on it and the D800 ...
Of course, the thought of a full frame does not leave me, but (my own opinion): D700 - beautiful, but a bit old; D800 - expensive (for me the most likely option, although I don't make money with photography and I feel some uncertainty about its extreme necessity); D600 - I am extremely worried about the 1/4000 min exposure (I don’t understand why Nikon did exactly that) and the concentration of focus points in the center of the frame (the charm of AF tracking disappears).
I completely agree! The D800 is practically the only device worth taking. the rest is past the checkout! a lot also depends on the camera, not only on the glass. I'd probably take a carcass better than Zeiss glasses ... in theory, with an eight hundred, your glasses will reveal themselves more. and it will be easier to decide on the focal length of future lenses. and at first you can shoot with Soviet glasses. that's where the field for experimentation!
The difference in relation to the areas 23.1x15.4 / 22.3x14.9 = 1,07 (or 7 percent). And here is the ratio of the square crop factors?