[Leica] Re:Digital "crop factor"

[fmaturana at euskalnet.net (Félix López de Maturana)]

>Excellent point, Frank. I think all this crop factor talk comes from the
>fact that the 35 mm format has been so ubiquitous that it is the only
>format most people know - and therefore those marketing digital cameras
>feel they have to provide a comparison of their formats to 35.
>
>The interesting thing is that I find, shooting the so called 4/3 format
>Olympus is pushing, is that I don't think about the format - all I think
>about is what I see within my frame. Period. I do think format when I
>shoot 2 1/4, because I am very aware of the square, and what I can do
>with it in terms of composition. But otherwise, format is really
>irrelevant for me, other than to think 'vertical, or horizontal.'
>
>B. D.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
>[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
>Frank Filippone
>Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:23 PM
>To: Leica-Users-Group
>Subject: [Leica] Digital "crop factor"
>
>
>There is no such thing as a crop factor nor is there a "smaller" or
>"full size" sensor.
>
>In the past, there was 8x10, 5x7, 4x5, 6x6, 35mm, 126 ( and God knows
>how many other roll film format) and Minox.  No one ever said that the
>other size had a different "crop factor".  It was a different sized
>format.  An 8x10 camera and a Minox could be compared, ut I do not
>remember ever hearing the words "crop factor" nor anything else
>derogatory.  Even half frame got more respect then the digital cameras
>get these days.
>
>Think of these digital cameras as having a different format "negative
>size" than 35mm.
>
>Frank Filippone
>red735i@earthlink.net


This has been discussed "ad nauseam" in Canon and Nikon lists as the former 
has a full format digital and the later hasn't. B.D.is right as the Olympus 
E was designed from scratch and their E lenses, besides being telecentric 
and thus avoiding some of the wide angle fringing, were built "only" for the 
E system and if their huge and expensive 7-14mm  zoom is said to be a 35mm 
14-28mm this only means that the viewing angle on the E cameras correspond 
to 14-28 mm angle in 35mm- roughly 120? - 90? if my memory helps me- . In 
any new designed system the crop factor does not matter but help to figure 
which kind of lens is. I know that my Minolta A2 has a zoom who start at 6mm 
and this is explained as to be a 28mm in 135 film equivalent cameras.Both 
have same angle of vision


But Frank -excuse me my friend- is not right as almost every lens in Nikon 
stable -excepting the new DX ones- has been designed for 35mm cameras and 
thus only a part of their coverage is effectively used. When they say I have 
a 300mm f2.8 who "is" a 450mm f2.8 with Nikon D2X it's not true, really it's 
a 300mm with his DOF in which only a part is used. You can do the same with 
film just "cropping" the image you get with a Nikon F6 and the 300mm f2.8 
and "say" you used a 400mm f2.8 and it'll never be true.

With bigger sensor -look the new Mamiya DSLR with 36x48mm sensor -again I 
quote "par coeur"- you have bigger pixels if the sensor has let's say five 
million of them. If you get bigger pixels you get less noise and a cleaner 
image. So being everything else the same, the bigger is the sensor the best 
is the image. But, and a huge but, the cost considerations are very 
important. All that said I think that in the future we may have more full 
format sensors, that's 24x36mm sensors, when technique and cost efficiency 
allow it at reasonable price. And, therefore, I sadly believe that Leica R 
digital, and more M digital, may be late too late.

Regards

Felix