-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Whats you go to lens in the park?
- Thread starter Daniel Johnson
- Start date
That image speaks volumes. So, a cropped sensor is basically a higher millimeter out the box...that makes way more sense than what I had thought! Thank you!Full-frame sensors are the same size as 35mm film (24mmx36mm). So the crop sensors have a "crop-factor," meaning they are basically cutting away the edges that would appear on a full-frame sensor. I assume they are physically smaller, but I am not sure. So if you shot something on a full-frame camera, then shot it again at the same focal length on your 3300, it would be cropped in by 1.5x straight out of the camera.
I hope that makes sense...I'm not good at explaining technical stuff. Pictures say it betterhttp://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/full-frame-crop-factor.jpg
![a>](http://<a href="http://s1296.photobucket.com/user/paniconthenet1/media/Screenshot_2015-06-10-23-30-17_zps1il1xfrw.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag8/paniconthenet1/Screenshot_2015-06-10-23-30-17_zps1il1xfrw.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo Screenshot_2015-06-10-23-30-17_zps1il1xfrw.jpg"/></a>)
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind that Full Frame sensors, being physically bigger, will also allow more light which is why they typically perform better. These days, however, you can get insane performance from even mid level crop sensor cameras. The competition is fierce among the companies and they are always trying to top one another to the benefit of us..the consumer. The up-side to crop sensors is actually lens variety (and cost!), as you can use both crop and full frame lenses interchangeably, where as full frame can seldom use crop lenses with decent results.
afb28
Well-Known Member
Just to reiterate the full frame sensor is generally 35mm where as the canon crop sensor is 22mm (hence 1.6x crop) and nikon crop sensor is 23mm (hence 1.5x crop).
So the 50mm shot on full frame becomes 75mm on Nikon and 80mm on Canon. So while that's great to get extra reach, the smaller sensor means less detail is being captured. This generally means a few things 1) crop cameras have much worse high ISO performance (800 ISO and higher), you also need to multiply your aperture by the crop factor so a f2.8 on full frame becomes f4 on full frame. So you won't get the same bokeh/out of focus look on crop as you do full frame (this is due to being closer to your subject by using a full frame since the lens isn't as zoomed in).
However, with crop you tend to get way less vignetting and much less distortion from wide angles since you are essentially taking the center of the full frame image.
afb28
Well-Known Member
Having said all of that, don't think that because you have a crop sensor camera that results can't be awesome because they can be. I had a 7D before going full frame.
The main reason to have the crop factor knowledge comes in handy when purchasing lenses. Most companies end up making crop equivalents, so if you are look at ultra wide angles Canon has the 16-35 which is in full frame terms, where as if you had a crop and wanted that same focal length you could get the canon 10-22. So you can generally still find those same focal lengths, just have to remember the crop factor.
The main reason to have the crop factor knowledge comes in handy when purchasing lenses. Most companies end up making crop equivalents, so if you are look at ultra wide angles Canon has the 16-35 which is in full frame terms, where as if you had a crop and wanted that same focal length you could get the canon 10-22. So you can generally still find those same focal lengths, just have to remember the crop factor.
sporadic
Well-Known Member
Just got back from our trip and used my 35/1.4 (Fuji X-T1) probably 90% of the time. Other shots were with my 10-24. I'd used the 18-55 and 10-24 last year and my Tokina 11-16 (mostly) on a 7D on previous trips. Shooting with just the 35 though was a joy. Little tight for some shots however. I'll get some posted this weekend hopefully. I see now why people oodle over the X100's. Leaf shutter and a little wider lens? All win in a very portable package. I need one!
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
If you do get an X100 series camera, spend a couple of bucks more and get the T model with the build in WiFi.
Its razor sharp and is almost my everyday camera anymore.
The x100 looks like a decent set up! Is it a dslr? That's the one bit of info I couldn't find.
RonAnnArbor
Well-Known Member
No, its a compact -- but its like no other compact you have ever used. The quality is as good as, if not better than, a DSLR.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
ehhhh...thats a bold statement. Its a GREAT camera, with a limited lens range (only 24-70) as well as some odd sharpening and noise reduction that sometimes makes the images look a bit off. Some reviews are also noting a big loss in detail at higher ISO's compared to other point and shoots (at least on the newest model), and simply seems to fall apart completely at ISO 3200 and higher which most DSLRs these days handle with no problems. Don't get me wrong..its great....for a point and shoot and WELL worth the money, but DSLRs are still going to be better for performance at the further ends of the spectrum.
So, question for you then... What's the best point and shoot?
KeithVH
Well-Known Member
Based on what? Smarmy answer is the best one is the one you have with you at the time. Some will say there is an arbitrary ceiling but there's way too many variables, I think, to say one does everything better than any other. Years ago, the Canon G series was great but they're not waterproof and require very expensive housings to take underwater. Did that disqualify them from being the best? We won't even get into size defining just what a P&S is.
Nowadays, in general, the RX100. For something to fit in your shirt pocket, Canon S120. There are several in between, too.
Even a couple of years ago, this was an easy answer. With all the latest developments, I think there are a lot of par cameras from several companies that fit the bill.
Nowadays, in general, the RX100. For something to fit in your shirt pocket, Canon S120. There are several in between, too.
Even a couple of years ago, this was an easy answer. With all the latest developments, I think there are a lot of par cameras from several companies that fit the bill.
sporadic
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't classify a X100/s/t as a "point and shoot" though. Totally different league of camera than a RX100 or S120.
Just got done going through the shots from our last trip. Pretty sure I used the XF 35 and XF 10-24 on all of them. Majority are with the XF 35, but EXIF info is attached. Album is here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/sporadic/sets/72157654515140332
Just got done going through the shots from our last trip. Pretty sure I used the XF 35 and XF 10-24 on all of them. Majority are with the XF 35, but EXIF info is attached. Album is here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/sporadic/sets/72157654515140332
mousehockey37
Well-Known Member
18-55 for my T3 for go-to... If I'm in EPCOT taking pictures in the WS, I'll break out the 55-250 and use that to get closer shots.
habuma
Well-Known Member
I picked up a 35mm for this very reason (my 50mm was way too tight). Used it on my recent trip to Disneyland and it was *much* better than the 50mm, especially on the dark rides. But even then it still seemed a little too tight. I had a hard time capturing wider shots, such as *all* of the singing busts on HM. I could get 3-4 of them perfectly...but all 5 was tricky and required perfect timing as the doom buggy turned toward them otherwise I was too close.
afb28
Well-Known Member
Not sure of your budget or how serious you want it to be but the sigma 18-35 1.8 is pretty unmatched for crop bodies. It was going to be my next lens before I decided to go full frame.
But in essence it covers 27mm-52 on nikon or 30-56 on canon so that's wide enough for dark rides as you would most likely want a 35mm full frame equivalent for the busts and this will be a bit wider than that. And the fact that it is f1.8 allows for an easier chance on dark rides.
sporadic
Well-Known Member
I experienced the exact same thing on with my 35mm on HM at MK
habuma
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I've had my eye on that and for what it does the price is nice. Budget-wise, I wouldn't mind spending that much on a lens, but I also have other non-photography items in my budget that force me to hold off on that a bit longer.
afb28
Well-Known Member
Yeah that's understandable. Going down the photography rabbit hole becomes quite expensive quite quickly. But remember if you do get it, you can also try to sell the 35mm you currently have so that could go toward it.Yeah, I've had my eye on that and for what it does the price is nice. Budget-wise, I wouldn't mind spending that much on a lens, but I also have other non-photography items in my budget that force me to hold off on that a bit longer.