gdanmitchell wrote:
It depends. If you can “see” the crop without the assistance of the camera, then no. Or if you usualy prefer the “normal” (for the camera) 3:2 aspect ratio and only occasionally crop, or if your approach is to capture a larger area than what you think you’ll end up using, then probably no. (That latter approach is very common among photographers, who prefer to reserve final, thoughtful decisions about cropping for the post-processing stage.)
It seems to me that if you are typically using a wide variety of crops from shot to shot that switching cropping mode every time could end up adding a disruptive step, unless you perhaps always work very slowly.
If you always prefer a non-3:2 aspect ratio it makes sense to set your preferred ratio as our default in many cases. (I do that with one of my cameras, the one I use for landscape photography. My default preference there is a 4:3 aspect ratio. But I also make landscape images with other ratios, such as 16:9… and I don’t bother to change the display aspect ratio when I do since I can easily visualize it.)
Photographers have long managed to adapt a single aspect ratio camera to the possibility of post-processing crops without needing the camera to show the crops at the time of exposure....Show more →
The crop function really isn't about cropping an image to size - that can be done in post. It is about providing three different field of views (i.e. 35/50/70) when using the camera. Instead of carrying three lenses, it is only one. With the Sony RX1RMkIII, you get the smallest possible FF body with a sensor that easily supports 3x cropping (so 35/50/70/105) with still very good output quality.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It depends. If you can “see” the crop without the assistance of the camera, then no. Or if you usualy prefer the “normal” (for the camera) 3:2 aspect ratio and only occasionally crop, or if your approach is to capture a larger area than what you think you’ll end up using, then probably no. (That latter approach is very common among photographers, who prefer to reserve final, thoughtful decisions about cropping for the post-processing stage.)
It seems to me that if you are typically using a wide variety of crops from shot to shot that switching cropping mode every time could end up adding a disruptive step, unless you perhaps always work very slowly.
If you always prefer a non-3:2 aspect ratio it makes sense to set your preferred ratio as our default in many cases. (I do that with one of my cameras, the one I use for landscape photography. My default preference there is a 4:3 aspect ratio. But I also make landscape images with other ratios, such as 16:9… and I don’t bother to change the display aspect ratio when I do since I can easily visualize it.)
Photographers have long managed to adapt a single aspect ratio camera to the possibility of post-processing crops without needing the camera to show the crops at the time of exposure....Show more →
Aspect ratios are different than the cropping function in the latest series of X series cameras - and the crop function is not disruptive - its just a push of a button or rotation of a dial depending on the camera.
AZ Photo wrote:
Aspect ratios are different than the cropping function in the latest series of X series cameras - and the crop function is not disruptive - its just a push of a button or rotation of a dial depending on the camera.
You are referring to the option of simply cropping the image in-camera to simulate the effect of a longer lens by limiting the angle of view, right?
Is there any advantage of this over waiting and cropping in post? Or advantages of waiting and doing it that way?
As I understand it the crop function only works on jpg files and it give you three (?) options — the full frame and two cropped modes that loose pixels in order to give you a narrower angle of view and a lower resolution image.
If you are a jpg-only shooter and you are a) sure that you do not want to do any cropping in post and b) find that one of the crop modes exactly fits your preferred crop then sure, why not?
If you aren’t positive that you want exactly one of those crops it makes more sense to capture the whole image and crop in post — which isn’t a difficult thing to do at all. It might take a few seconds.
Best option in terms of image quality is to shoot raw mode and crop in post.
Nielk Mike wrote:
The crop function really isn't about cropping an image to size - that can be done in post. It is about providing three different field of views (i.e. 35/50/70) when using the camera. Instead of carrying three lenses, it is only one. With the Sony RX1RMkIII, you get the smallest possible FF body with a sensor that easily supports 3x cropping (so 35/50/70/105) with still very good output quality.
That doesn’t make sense, or else I’m misunderstanding your point.
The way that in-camera cropping works is that the camera discards much of the image data, keeping only that from a reduced sensor area (e.g. fewer pixels) corresponding to a narrower angle of view.
It most certianly does not provide the same quality as using the actual longer lens would provide. You end up with an image with greatly reduced MP resolution.
Dan posted: "If you always prefer a non-3:2 aspect ratio it makes sense to set your preferred ratio as our default in many cases. (I do that with one of my cameras, the one I use for landscape photography. My default preference there is a 4:3 aspect ratio. But I also make landscape images with other ratios, such as 16:9… and I don’t bother to change the display aspect ratio when I do since I can easily visualize it.)"
As always, Dan, you give me food for thought. I always have my camera set to a 3.2 aspect ratio as I never thought about using another. However, now I will give the 4.3 and 16.9 ratios a try. Thanks!
gaopa wrote:
Dan posted: "If you always prefer a non-3:2 aspect ratio it makes sense to set your preferred ratio as our default in many cases. (I do that with one of my cameras, the one I use for landscape photography. My default preference there is a 4:3 aspect ratio. But I also make landscape images with other ratios, such as 16:9… and I don’t bother to change the display aspect ratio when I do since I can easily visualize it.)"
As always, Dan, you give me food for thought. I always have my camera set to a 3.2 aspect ratio as I never thought about using another. However, now I will give the 4.3 and 16.9 ratios a try. Thanks!...Show more →
I'd say that if you are mostly a fan of the full 3:2 aspect ratio image, you don't really need to change the aspect ratio — you can just crop those full images as you wish. (The crop modes may help you to visualize what the cropped image will look like.)
When I asked about comparing an image taken with in-camera cropping as opposed to cropping in post processing, I was concerned about the final image quality. I don't think I made that clear so I will rephrase the question. If I use an X-E5 and shoot two JPEG images, one cropped in-camera and one not cropped in-camera but cropped to the same size in post processing, will there be any differences in the end results? My hypothesis is that they should both be the same. Am I correct?
TENOG wrote:
When I asked about comparing an image taken with in-camera cropping as opposed to cropping in post processing, I was concerned about the final image quality. I don't think I made that clear so I will rephrase the question. If I use an X-E5 and shoot two JPEG images, one cropped in-camera and one not cropped in-camera but cropped to the same size in post processing, will there be any differences in the end results? My hypothesis is that they should both be the same. Am I correct?
Yes you are correct in terms of the effect of cropping - but unless you use X Raw Studio you are going to be using a different raw converter and that will affect things (plus you have all sorts of other options that affect the image quality in post processing).
TENOG wrote:
When I asked about comparing an image taken with in-camera cropping as opposed to cropping in post processing, I was concerned about the final image quality. I don't think I made that clear so I will rephrase the question. If I use an X-E5 and shoot two JPEG images, one cropped in-camera and one not cropped in-camera but cropped to the same size in post processing, will there be any differences in the end results? My hypothesis is that they should both be the same. Am I correct?
TENOG wrote:
When I asked about comparing an image taken with in-camera cropping as opposed to cropping in post processing, I was concerned about the final image quality. I don't think I made that clear so I will rephrase the question. If I use an X-E5 and shoot two JPEG images, one cropped in-camera and one not cropped in-camera but cropped to the same size in post processing, will there be any differences in the end results? My hypothesis is that they should both be the same. Am I correct?
Assuming that you would never do any additional post-processing beyond the cropping, they should be the same in IQ terms.
Again, by waiting to crop in post you do reserve the option to second-guess your on-the-scene cropping decision since you’ll have the full image to work with. That’s pretty valuable to me.
