Once again about crop and EGF

Correct recalculation of EGF, when it is done and for which lenses. Why does the conversion need to be performed even for lenses originally designed for crop cameras? This is the most frequent question that is asked here in the comments on Radozhiv or to me in private messages. I answer this question so often that I have come up with my own set of simple and uncompromising rules on this matter.

about crop and EGF

about crop and EGF

Rule 1

Rule 1: EGF (Equivalent Focal Length) is linked to the frame size 36 X 24 mm.

It is the EGF that is recalculated, but not the focal length (FD). Everything is recalculated / reduced exactly under the frame 36 X 24 mm (full frame, narrow format, small format photography).

EGF is used for convenience. The 36 X 24 mm frame was chosen because it is one of the most common frame sizes. The EGF calculation provides a quick understanding of the viewing angles of a particular lens. Photographers are not used to operating with viewing degrees or angular field; it is much easier to express themselves in terms of FR, EGF and physical frame size.

Rule 2

Rule 2: the lens always indicates the focal length (FD), not the EGF. Focal length (FR) is a physical parameter and does not depend on the size of the used frame.

Various markers in the lens name such as Nikon DX, Canon EFS / EF-S, Pentax DA, Sony DT, Konica Minotla DT, Sony E, Sigma DC, Tamron DI II, Tamron DI III, Tokina DX, 7Artisans APS-C ( they are different for each manufacturer) indicate that the lens can only project an image onto a circle / rectangle no more than a certain radius / diagonal. Crop factor (Kf) of this or that lens or sensor just shows how much this diagonal is larger or smaller than the diagonal of a 36 X 24 mm frame.

An important example: 'DX' marker on lens Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical for DSLR cameras with APS-C sensor, which use crop factor Kf = 1.5X, does not meanthat this lens gives a 35mm EGF when used on a cropped camera with an APS-C sensor with Kf = 1.5X (Nikon DX format).

35 mm is FR, not EGF. The Nikon DX mark only means that this is a lens that cannot project images onto a 36 X 24 mm full-frame sensor (Nikon FX), but can only work with cropped sensors no larger than Nikon DX / APS-C Kf = 1.5X.

In fact, this is only an indication / recommendation to use this lens exclusively on Nikon DX series cameras / cameras (which crop factor Kf = 1.5X). Therefore, the EGF of such a lens on a Nikon DX camera will be 52.5 mm (35 * 1.5). The same remark applies to all other systems and other markers described above.

Rule 3

Rule 3: EGF recalculation is always performed for all lenses. To find the EGF, you need to multiply the focal length of the lens (FR) by crop factor camera (Kf).

Simplification for the rule: as crop factor of full-frame cameras with a frame size of 36 X 24 mm is equal to one, then it can be argued that in this case the numerical value of the FR will be equal to the numerical value of the EGF. Large and medium formats have Kf <1. A full frame has Kf = 1. Cropped cameras have Kf> 1.

Examples

Example 1... A lens designed for use on cameras with a cropped (reduced) sensor. Nikon DX VR AF-P Nikkor 18-55 mm 1: 3.5-5.6G... DX marker.

  • EGF on cropped cameras with an APS-C sensor and a crop factor of Kf = 1.5X (Nikon DX) will be 27-82.5 mm.
  • The EGF on cameras with a full-frame sensor and a crop ratio of Kf = 1X (Nikon FX) will be 18-55 mm (but the lens will not be able to fully work).
  • EGF on medium format cameras and crop coefficient Kf = 0.82X will be equal to 14.76-45.1 mm (but the lens will not be able to fully work).

Example 2... A lens designed for use on full frame cameras. Sigma 50 mm 1:1.4 DG ART... DG marker.

  • EGF on cropped cameras with an APS-C sensor and a crop factor Kf = 1.6X will be 80 mm (50 * 1.6).
  • EGF on cameras with full-frame sensors with a crop factor of Kf = 1X will be 50 mm (50 * 1).
  • EGF on medium format cameras with a crop coefficient Kf = 0.55X will be equal to 27.5 mm (50 * 0.55, but the lens will not be able to fully work).

Example 3... A lens designed for use on medium format cameras. FUJINON GF LENS 50 mm 1: 3.5 R LM WR... GF marker.

  • EGF on cropped cameras with Micro 4/3 sensor and crop factor Kf = 2X will be equal to 100 mm (50 * 2).
  • EGF on cameras with full-frame sensors and crop coefficient Kf = 1X will be 50 mm (50 * 1).
  • EGF on medium format cameras and crop coefficient Kf = 0.79X will be 39.5 mm (50 * 0.79).

The focal length is the number or numbers that are written on the lens itself. For some reason, manufacturers of interchangeable optics are not accustomed to writing EGF, which is why a lot of misconceptions and disputes arise among amateur photographers. Only rare compact cameras write several numbers for their lenses - with FR and side by side with EGF, which is very convenient. Smartphone manufacturers often write only EGF.

Materials on the topic

  1. Matrix size matters
  2. Crop identification
  3. Resurrection of the crop
  4. Relationship between focal length, viewing angle, and focus distance
  5. Spherical mirrorless crop in vacuum
  6. What is the focal length of lenses
  7. The dependence of the viewing angle of the lens on the focusing distance (Focus Breathing)
  8. About choosing a fixer for a crop - 35 or 50 mm

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 61, on the topic: Once again about crop and EGF

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Very useful and easy to understand. Thanks to Arkady!

  • Sergei

    Probably it is worth adding about the fact that the aperture ratio of the lens as well as the FR remains unchanged in relation to exposure.
    It is not said about recalculating depth of field, so, for example, Helios 81H 50mm f2 will be itself on an FF camera and equivalent to 100mm f4 on micro 4/3 cameras, but the frame will be exposed at f2, if I don't confuse anything.
    Since the level of readers can be very different, it's worth mentioning that there is usually no point in putting lenses from cameras with a smaller sensor on cameras with a larger one. Although this rule is from the category of "do not dry cats in the microwave." For advanced users, this is obvious.

    It would also be interesting to read the reflections on the perceived angle of view of the lens depending on the aspect ratio of the frame, which is indicated for the diagonal of the frame. I will assume that, all other things being equal, a frame with a 3: 2 aspect ratio will be perceived wider than a frame with a 4: 3 aspect ratio in a horizontal orientation. This may be encountered not only by the owners of micro 4/3, but also by the owners of SF cameras, who will be going to calculate the EGF relative to FF cameras with a 3: 2 ratio.
    Thank you!

    • Arkady Shapoval

      About aperture and depth of field - that's another thing. if you add depth of field and T-stop here, it will take away the attention from the EGF and finally confuse. The related links describe these details.

      • Sergei

        I don’t argue that EGF, DOF and aperture ratio are different concepts, but it seems to me that they go hand in hand in understanding the behavior of a lens on a crop camera. If you think different articles are better - so be it. I think that the notion of EGF is more often interested in beginners who have bought a crop and have just begun to get into the topic and they need to immediately make it clear what they will get from a particular bundle of camera and lens. Of course, they should be aware of the basic concepts. Personally, I often meet people who do not understand all the relationships, get confused, lose money, buying and selling the wrong things that they need well, or proving something provocatively to someone on the forums, and those who oppose them can also be in the tank and think the former are right.

        About the last paragraph, can you say something about the viewing angle and aspect ratio?

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Angles and EGF are calculated diagonally, but in general, the aspect ratio significantly affects the perception of the frame.

          • Sergei

            Here I made a visual picture and answered myself. If, for example, you have in mind a landscape on an ultra-wide-angle lens, with an aspect ratio of 4: 3 and wanting to capture the same information in width, you will have to use a lens with a larger angle of view. Although, judging from the same picture, the difference is not colossal.
            Apart from this, for myself, I concluded that the ratio of 3: 2 is better for landscapes and 4: 3 for a portrait. Vertically oriented 3: 2 pictures on modern large-format screens take only a third of the screen real estate.

      • US6IBD

        Suffice it to say that depth of field is a physical quantity that depends only on the focal length and aperture ratio and does not change for either crop or ff. And it is considered in relation to the real focal length of the lens. For some reason, half of the online depth of field calculators confuse the calculations by introducing a crop factor - for ff and crop they consider different depth of field. Apparently, the EGF value is substituted.

        • Roman

          The term “equivalent grip” simply means that the cropping will be done in the same way. That is, when shooting with the same lens and a cropped camera, you will have to move further away, which will automatically lead to an increase in the grip.

          • US6IBD

            This is what brings confusion. The photographer simply frames the object on the crop as he likes, and does not imagine in his mind - how would it look on the FF ???
            A person absolutely does not bother with how far one has to move in order to get the same frame as in FF, but operates with a SPECIFIC distance to the object and the physical data of the lens.

            • Roman

              I agree that you need to select your own focal points for each type of camera, and where on the crop the staff will be 30 mm, and the moderate width is 24, on the full frame it will be, respectively, 48 and 37.5 mm, but there is also a way to compare the forehead -head-forehead with similar framing, especially for portrait lenses. Not looking at perspective distortion and other things. And here they are already trying to frame the same. Although stupid, of course. If I have a shirik in my hands, I shoot it as if it were shirik, looking for an appropriate composition. On a TV set like on a TV set. Extra confusion.

        • Vio

          “And does not change either for crop or ff” - 100%, but a lot of PROS by a photographer on YouTube tells that it depends :)) Well, what can you say to them? That depends - period.
          The key point, as it turned out. Such articles should start with this :))

          • Alexey

            I'm already tired of posting this picchu

          • Alexander

            Doesn't change for those who shoot spherical horses in a vacuum. And for people filming ordinary earthly subjects, it even changes, because they have no goal to get the same depth of field. they have the goal of getting the same frame content (say, a bust portrait in both frames, and not a bust portrait in FF and a front portrait on a crop), and for this you have to step back a little if you have a camera with a smaller sensor in your hands.

            • Roman

              So this is not entirely true. If you are shooting a 50 / 1.8 full frame bust, then you need some 30 / 1.8 cropped for the same purpose. Instead of 50 mm and move away. Otherwise, you, in fact, change the focal length of the lens when you transfer it to crop, and then try to achieve the same framing. And you also have other completely promising distortions climb.

              And okay portraiture, what if it's a wide angle? Where will you go there, by 20 mm, for example?

              • Alexander

                Why 30mm, if the speech is in comparison of the same focal length on different matrices? The stump is clear that the equivalent of fifty dollars on the crop will be 30-35 mm, but this is not about that.

              • Roman

                Why compare the same focus on different matrices, come up with an equivalent depth of field, re-frame and complicate everything additionally?

              • Ruslan

                So this is not entirely true. If you are shooting a 50 / 1.8 full frame bust, then you need some 30 / 1.8 cropped for the same purpose. And not 50 mm and move away.

                Just the opposite. If you want to take a bust or half-length portrait, then you take a fifty-kopeck piece and take it off, moving a little further in the case of a crop crop (and not taking a 30-ku). If you shoot such a portrait at 35 or 30, you will get a distorted face of the model, tk. physics has not been canceled. 30 and 50 shoot completely differently in terms of building the geometry of the foreground object.
                A 30mm lens, put on a crop (for example, Canon) and having a total EGF of 48mm will NEVER geometrically shoot the same picture as a 50mm lens will. EGF is the ANGLE of view, but not the focal length. Only the viewing angle will be the same, but not the focal one. The focal length is a CONSTANT value! 18mm cannot shoot like 35mm, like 35mm will never shoot like 50mm, and 50mm won't shoot like 85 and so on. This is the mistake of many novice photographers, and sometimes of some “pros”.
                If you shoot bust portraits at 30mm, then the model's face will be incorrectly distorted. In many topics, this has already been discussed repeatedly.
                See example below:

              • Ruslan

                Here is another example:

              • Sergei

                Roman, sorry to answer you, the answer is intended for Ruslan, but he cannot answer directly.
                In general, Ruslan, do not mislead people. The examples you have given do not correspond to reality. The first example does not match in framing, as can be judged by the distance between the pupils of the model on the left 148px on the right 134px. And where did you get the lens for the 24mm mic, if it is a zoom, why not set it to 25mm. It looks more like both images were taken with an FF camera.
                In the second example, the same both shots are on ff, on the left is wide, on the right half, everything is fine.
                Taking into account the EGF on a 25mm microscope, on ff 50mm from the same distance and with the same framing, the proportions and perspective of the object being shot will be the same. On the contrary, if you compare frames in aspect ratio (crop for micro), the angle on the micro will be even narrower, and not wider, as we are invited to draw a conclusion based on your example.
                I don't understand why we need such stuffing and attempts to discredit the micra out of the blue. It has limitations, understandable, but certainly not in that.

    • Sergos

      it’s also “how to say” about not drying cats in a microwave oven ... if you take pictures with lenses designed for apsc matrices, on a full frame (say 42 megapixels without a low-pass filter) while getting 18 megapixels of sharper pictures, it turns out very well. how they write on your website - happiness is not in megapixels, but in the rational use of the f-camera in order to obtain a high-quality image in a technical and artistic sense

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Supplement on the topic "Crop, EGF, vignette and medium format".

    It's no secret that many lenses designed for a narrow frame format (36x24 mm) vignet when mounted on a medium format camera. This happens because the image circle formed by such lenses fits into the rectangle or square of the medium format frame only partially, forming a vignette at the corners of this frame.
    But there are narrow-format lenses, the image circle of which is much larger than 36x24 mm. They work great on medium format without forming vignettes. The reason for this "open-mindedness" is a topic for a separate conversation, here I just want to share my experience of using narrow-format lenses on a medium format camera.

    After buying a medium format digital mirrorless camera Fujifilm GFX 50R (frame size 44x33 mm, crop factor 0,79), I had a natural desire to try my manual lenses on it. Having tried my entire manual park (FR from 17 to 300 mm) through the appropriate adapters, I came to the following conclusions:

    1. Almost all lenses of the 36x24 mm format tested create an image field “with a margin” and do not give vignettes in the medium format (44x33 mm).
    2. The image vignette created by a lens often depends not on its optical design, but on the design of its body.
    For example, the RMC Tokina 17 / 3,5 lens has a high rim to protect the front lens, which is the reason for the vignette. When you remove this border, the vignette should theoretically disappear.
    3. Often the vignette is caused by a wrong lens hood.
    For example, when I put the Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 58 / 1,4 lens with a deep hood 62 mm in diameter on a Fujifilm GFX 50R, I got a noticeable vignette in the image. When replacing the hood with a shallower one with a diameter of 55 mm, the vignette disappeared.
    4. As a rule, wide-angle lenses (FR 17-35 mm), standard lenses (FR 50-58 mm), portrait lenses (FR 80-100 mm) and tele lenses (FR 135-300 mm) do not give vignettes to vignette.

    List of lenses tested on Fujifilm GFX 50R (tested without hoods):

    RMC Tokina 17 / 3,5 — vignette, cannot be used with a hood in medium format;
    Olympus OM Zuiko 24 / 2,8, Olympus OM Zuiko 28 / 2,8 - weak vignette;
    Mir-1A 37 / 3,8 - almost invisible vignette;
    Olympus OM Zuiko 50 / 1,4, Porst Color Reflex 55 / 1,4, Vivitar 55 / 2,8 Macro, Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58 / 1,4 - no vignette;
    MC Jupiter-9 85/2, Olympus OM Zuiko 100 / 2,8, Minolta Rokkor 100/4 Macro, Olympus OM Zuiko 135 / 2,8, Olympus OM Zuiko 200/4, Tamron Adaptall-2 300 / 5,6 Macro - no vignette.

    B-mount lenses (Pentacon Six) have not been tested. they are designed for medium format with 60x60 mm frame sides and are guaranteed to cover medium format crop 44x33 mm, as well as rangefinder lenses with M39 thread due to the absence of an adapter to medium format in nature.

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Examples of the work of some narrow-format lenses on the medium format UPC Fujifilm GFX 50R (photo without cropping):
    MC Helios-44-3 58/2 (EGF 45,8 mm)

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Minolta Rokkor 45/2 (EGF 35,6 mm)

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58 / 1,4 (EGF 45,8 mm)

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Minolta Rokkor 100/4 Macro

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Vivitar 55 / 2,8 Macro (EGF 43,4 mm)

  • Pavel Gorbunov

    Weak vignettes can be seen in the photo taken from the Minolta Rokkor 45/2 and Minolta Rokkor 100/4 Macro lenses. This is the “fault” of the wrong blends.
    When replacing a cylindrical hood with a conical hood in the case of the Minolta Rokkor 45/2 and from a deep hood to a shallow hood in the case of the. Minolta Rokkor 100/4 Macro vignettes are gone completely.

  • Matthew

    And the aperture, depending on the size of the matrix, is not recalculated from physical to effective?

    • Alexander

      We wrote above. It is recalculated, but solely for comparison of depth of field; it does not affect exposure in any way.

  • Rodion

    That's it, that all the confusion is due to the fact that no one wants to count the angles.
    Because the angle of view of the resulting image can be limited by both the matrix and the lens.
    Where the confusion with the luminosity comes from is not clear at all. After all, the luminosity reflects the surface brightness of the formed image, which does not depend on the choice of the size of the lens field used.

    • Trueash

      I think this is partly due to the popular belief that "a larger matrix collects more light." Therefore, for a small matrix, the hole must be larger.

      • Vlad

        In general, this is true. Crop always makes about 2 times more noise than the FF of the same generation and has working ISOs twice as low (adjusted for many factors). Therefore, the aperture 1.5 times larger on the crop is needed not only to obtain the same depth of field, but also to achieve the same image noise (albeit with other exposure parameters). Therefore, we can conditionally say that a crop with 35 / 1.4 gives an identical picture with an FF with 50 / 2.0. With the same exposure parameters and ISO is two times less. Of course, this is all very approximate, and we have not touched DD yet.

        • Alexander

          Crop noise is a completely different topic. It makes more noise, at least due to the fact that each specific pixel is smaller in area and, accordingly, collects less light per unit of time. This does not apply to the equivalent aperture, because no matter what camera you screw the lens on (even if SF, even if Pentax Q), the matrix will be illuminated everywhere the same.

          • Vlad

            The matrix will be illuminated in the same way, but for the same noise level it will be necessary to set a different ISO. The difference in exposure must be compensated for by a different aperture. Therefore, they say that in order to get a picture like with FF, a large aperture is needed on the crop

            • Alexey

              I've already answered this 100500 times. we take the crop and ff, put it next to it. put 50 1.4 on them, open the hole wide open, ISO 100, select the same shutter speed, direct it to a uniformly illuminated target, turn on LV and use ML to look at the illumination level in different parts of the frame. it will be the SAME. (which is what it should be)

              • Vlad

                Yes, that's all clear. The main idea: to equalize the possibilities of the crop and FF in terms of the viewing angle, depth of field and noise, on the crop you need 1,5 times less FD and in the stop a larger aperture. By the way, it was with this idea that Sigma released its zooms with f / 1.8: equalize crop and FF

              • Victor

                I released it, but still it wasn’t a cake: for 18-35 it was 27-52, which clearly does not reach 24-70, for 50-100 it is the same, while the sizes are almost the same as those of their “adult” brothers.

                It is clear that otherwise they would not be so bright, but why bother to fence in the garden?

            • Maksim

              The matrix is ​​always lit the same way. Do not write nonsense.

        • Alexey

          about the noise is nonsense. wrote below.

  • Alexey

    about “recalculating” aperture for the sake of depth of field - if you shoot with crop and FF on the same lens from the same distance at the same aperture, the depth of field will, of course, be the same. another thing is that when shooting on a crop camera, to get a crop similar to FF, you need to move further into the crop factor. well, don't go away, shoot as it is and glue the panorama :)

    • Alexander

      “Well, don't leave, shoot as it is and glue the panorama :)” - panoramas from some auto or motorcycle competitions will come out especially cool)). Joking aside, but in reality there is such a technique as bokerama, i.e. panorama for the sake of bokeh. You come closer to the object, click it in one frame or several and then the surrounding space - you get a picture in medium or large format.

      • Rodion

        Only then you need a lens with the same edges and center. Then it's easier to remove with a shift to SF-optics)

        • Alexander

          This is usually done with something long to make the blur stronger, 100-135 is fine. The same Jupiter-37a has excellent sharpness across the entire field already with an open one.

          • Alexey

            I shot it with the Brenizer method))

        • Trueash

          The point is not in the optics, but in the final image size and in the transmission of perspective, which begins to resemble SF - simply put, “a wide angle, but at the same time blurring the background, like a telephoto lens”. Detail, of course, also increases, because the frames overlap by about a third. And 9 frames is not much. I had 24, although my weak computer barely chewed them.

      • Alexey

        somehow I was shooting a couple in the forest at 135mm, took 9 frames (3x3), then glued them together.
        the picture came out along the corner as (almost) wide, and with depth of field like a telephoto :)

        • Rodion

          Reinvented BF ...

    • Vlad

      If we move away, then we get a different perspective. Therefore, for the same cropping, the DF is 1.5 times less. We get a large depth of field, to reduce the depth of field you need a large aperture

  • ELF_sh

    And why in all the comments the depth of field and the noise of the crop matrices in one thought conclude. Flies separately, cutlets separately)
    The tendency of many modern cameras is that more matrix means more pixels. (There are exceptions, but sensivity is specially emphasized there, etc.)

    Crop 16-24MP and FF 36-45. In models of the same time. And the difference in pixel size is not that big to speak of different noise levels.

    • Alexander

      "And the difference in pixel size is not that big to speak of different noise levels." - also thought about it. In theory, this is the case, but in practice the difference in noise is quite noticeable.

    • Ivan Shikhalev

      In models of the same time? Exactly? Something I do not remember _modern_ small-pixel crops. For example, Canon has: 850D and 90D crops are 24 and 32 Mpx, and FF - 1DXmkIII, 5DmkIV and 6DmkII are 21, 32 and 26 Mpx, respectively. No, of course, there is a 5DS (r), but this was originally a niche camera, which no one was going to shoot in bad light.

      Even if we take 24 at the crop and 32 at the FF, the difference in pixel area will be almost twice (i.e. per stop).

      • ELF_sh

        "In models of one time" is not equal to modern ones) And the market does not live alone by Canon)
        The cameras of the last year have really reduced the pixels in the FF.

        • Ivan Shikhalev

          Reduced, I agree. So in fact, they began to shove into the 32Mpx crop. Moreover, FF is available for all tastes - and with a small pixel, who needs detailing in good light, and with a bold one, who needs a report. And as much as it fits into the crop, they shove as much.

          It makes no sense to consider old models in the framework of a conversation about noise - all other things being equal, they make much more noise.

          • Michael

            This is if you shoot in JPEG. I specifically compared it - I thought to buy a 70D for my wife, in the end there was a 50D. The noise in RAW is the same, color degradation is also not far away.

  • Gennady

    That is, if half a tozen is on FF, then it is half, right? If he is on the windowsill, he is half a toss, of course? If you put it in your pocket, it's still half a drink, right? And if you put it on a crop, it suddenly turns into seventy-five? Why's that? After all, this is the same half a tos. EGF is just confusing. The viewing angle is much clearer and still corresponds to reality.

    • Roman

      Nuuuu. Will you remember viewing angles as easily as focal angles? It's easier for me to remember what focal angle gives and then just recalculate for the crop that it is “about like fifty dollars in a full frame”, “this is very wide, but this is moderate”.

    • Alexey

      of course it's easier to operate with angles. but historically it turned out that they operate in milliliters, ugh, millimeters.

  • Daniel

    Arcadia! I have a question for you, what will be equal to a large format: A Nikon Apo-Nikkor 1780 mm f / 14 lens on a Nikon DX / APS-C Kf = 1.5X system? And Apo-Nikkor 1800 mm f / 14 large format lens on 4/3 (Four / Thirds) system? And for all the participants, what is the pHD resolution (not to be confused with nHD qHD UHD FHD QHD)?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      1780 * Kf
      1800 * Kf
      There are no exceptions to the rules above.

  • Alexander

    Take a piece of A4 paper and put it on the table. You tear the other in half and put it next to it. You take 2 CF cards and put them one by one on sheets of paper. Visually, a card on a smaller sheet seems larger to a person. So it is with the image of a bird in full frame and crop. With one FR. the images will be the same. But many photographers believe that crop is better for photography, since it has 1,5 times more FR (Nikon). In all seriousness, they believe that 300 mm on a crop turn into 450 !!!

    • Victor

      Your calculations are valid for the same pixel density on crop and FF.

      For example, 10 and 24mp.

      If we put 24mp on crop and FF 24, with the same lens, the final image scale on the image viewing device will be expectedly larger.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2020/09/krop-about/

Version en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2020/09/krop-about/