| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2007 01:37:52 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A Canon 5D would give you a wider field of view (but also considerably less reach with a telephoto lens). A 400mm lens = 640mm on your Rebel, but only 400mm on a 5D. |
I don't understand that. Couldn't you just crop the full frame to the smaller field of view?
That is, aren't you getting more info, not less, on a full frame camera with the same lens?
Say you shoot a given subject with both. Yes, in terms of % of the frame, the subject will less on the 5D. But can't you just crop it down so it fills the same % of the final crop?
I'm not arguing which is better, mind you, between full frame and not.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2007 02:33:00 AM · #27 |
| Check out this link on FoV and AoV, I found it very helpful in understanding the differences. |
|
|
|
03/24/2007 02:35:08 AM · #28 |
Jeffrey beat me to it. The lens has no more reach on a crop sensor (versus a FF sensor) than digital zoom gives you on a P&S (versus optical zoom). All you need to do on the 5D is crop the picture and voila, you have your 1.6x factor with just as many pixels. (Well, that must be true for the 5D vs. the 300D or 20D, it may be less true for the 30D or 400XTi or other 10 MP sensors. I haven't done the math.)
OTOH, you cannot gain field of view on the crop sensor, but the FF sensor can give you extra field. You get the best of both worlds with the FF. |
|
|
|
03/24/2007 02:44:27 AM · #29 |
I think you picked well Slippy. Here's a comparison in sharpness between the 100-400 at 300mm and the 70-300 at 300mm both at f/5.6 (at least I have the page set that way, i think you may have to enter the focal length and aperture yourself).
Comparison in sharpness |
|
|
|
03/24/2007 04:22:08 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you picked well Slippy. Here's a comparison in sharpness between the 100-400 at 300mm and the 70-300 at 300mm both at f/5.6 (at least I have the page set that way, i think you may have to enter the focal length and aperture yourself).
Comparison in sharpness |
Great site! Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2007 08:10:20 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you picked well Slippy. Here's a comparison in sharpness between the 100-400 at 300mm and the 70-300 at 300mm both at f/5.6 (at least I have the page set that way, i think you may have to enter the focal length and aperture yourself).
Comparison in sharpness |
Dang, that's a neat site!
I feel like I've got a good understanding of full-frame versus 1.6 cropped frame now. Thanks folks!
|
|
|
|
03/24/2007 08:11:54 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
But now, how do I break the news to the wife? Maybe she'll believe me if I say it only cost $100?
|
Well slippy, if she doesn't know anything about lenses, just tell her you got a great deal because it is a very 'sissy' white lens! :-P |
Hehe, good idea. But she already wants payola: a new shed, and the lawns re-sodded. :-D
|
|
|
|
03/24/2007 09:02:08 AM · #33 |
Some test shots I took on my way from work to the train.
640mm, 1/200 sec. Taken through a scungy window. A roofer six floors below me.No crop.
640mm, 1/400 sec. All the way across University Ave. (four lanes) plus two sidewalk-widths. Just cropped a wee bit.
640mm, 1/250 sec. 100% crop.
640mm, 1/400 sec. Cropped about half.
160mm, 1/15 sec. Hand-held!!! LOVE THE IS. :-)
Message edited by author 2007-03-24 18:57:11.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2007 11:33:19 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
LOVE THE IS. :-) |
Yep. That's one of the best things about my camera. When I buy a DSLR, I'm going to buy only IS - not sure yet about whether it'll be in the lens vs. the body, but I'm going to have it somewhere.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 01:48:40 PM EST.
