Depending on how you measure it*, the difference between miniMF and full frame is much smaller than that between full frame and the 1.5x and 1.6x cropped factors, perhaps being in a range between about 1.2 and 1.4. (Differences in measurement depend on whether you go simply by diagonal dimensions or try to use the same aspect ratio in both cases, and which aspect ratio you choose in the latter case.)
Dan
Dan,
I am puzzled by why you say the difference in crop factor is much smaller between FF 35mm and 33 X 44, than between APS-C and FF 35mm. In terms of field of view and depth of field the crop factor going up to 33 X 44 from FF 35mm is 1.39 or almost exactly a stop more capability in depth of field (a 1.41 crop--or the square root of 2--would be exactly 1 stop). In terms of field of view and depth of field the crop factor going up to FF 35mm from APS-C is 1.55 or almost exactly a stop and a quarter more capability in depth of field (a 1.58 is a stop and a quarter). If you use a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio I would say that is not much smaller. To say it is much smaller is like saying an f/2.2 lens has a much smaller max aperture than an f/2 lens and to me I would recognize that as smaller, but I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say it is much smaller.
Now, in contrast if you use a 3 X 2 aspect ratio or a skinnier rectangle the crop factor from FF 35mm going up to 33 X 44 is 1.22 or pretty much exactly a half of a stop (a crop factor of 1.22 is equal to half a stop more capability in depth of field), that starts to be quite a bit smaller than the stop and a third difference going up in size of sensor from APS-C to FF 35mm. There it is like saying a lens with a max f/2.4 has a much smaller max aperture than a lens with f/1.8. Some might question if even this difference is a large difference, but to me that is much more defensible.
So, from my perspective you have to take aspect ratio into consideration when comparing 33 X 44 with FF 35mm, and as you do I think you have to be more nuanced than simply saying that the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44 is much smaller than the jump between APS-C to FF 35mm. Yes, the jump is smaller, but not all that much smaller and I think it is fair to say the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44 is almost as big as the jump from APS-C to FF 35mm if you crop your images to a 4 X 3 aspect ratio or something squarer.
Now this is all talk just about the sensor size and doesn't say anything about comparisons between two individual cameras. When comparing individual cameras you should look at the properties of the actual sensors. How much resolution does each have? How much noise? How much dynamic range? How does it render colors? All those things matter when comparing two individual cameras, but when comparing the size of the sensors I think it is too simplistic and misleading to say the jump from APS-C to FF 35mm is much larger than the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44.
Depending on how you measure it*, the difference between miniMF and full frame is much smaller than that between full frame and the 1.5x and 1.6x cropped factors, perhaps being in a range between about 1.2 and 1.4. (Differences in measurement depend on whether you go simply by diagonal dimensions or try to use the same aspect ratio in both cases, and which aspect ratio you choose in the latter case.)
Dan
Dan,
I am puzzled by why you say the difference in crop factor is much smaller between FF 35mm and 33 X 44, than between APS-C and FF 35mm. In terms of field of view and depth of field the crop factor going up to 33 X 44 from FF 35mm is 1.39 or almost exactly a stop more capability in depth of field (a 1.41 crop--or the square root of 2--would be exactly 1 stop). In terms of field of view and depth of field the crop factor going up to FF 35mm from APS-C is 1.55 or almost exactly a stop and a quarter more capability in depth of field (a 1.58 is a stop and a quarter). If you use a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio I would say that is not much smaller. To say it is much smaller is like saying an f/2 lens has a much smaller max aperture than an f/2.2 lens and to me I would recognize that as smaller, but I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say it is much smaller.
Now, in contrast if you use a 3 X 2 aspect ratio or a skinnier rectangle the crop factor from FF 35mm going up to 33 X 44 is 1.22 or pretty much exactly a half of a stop (a crop factor of 1.22 is equal to half a stop more capability in depth of field), that starts to be quite a bit smaller than the stop and a third difference going up in size of sensor from APS-C to FF 35mm. There it is like saying a lens with a max f/2.4 has a much smaller max aperture than a lens with f/1.8. Some might question if even this difference is a large difference, but to me that is much more defensible.
So, from my perspective you have to take aspect ratio into consideration when comparing 33 X 44 with FF 35mm, and as you do I think you have to be more nuanced than simply saying that the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44 is much smaller than the jump between APS-C to FF 35mm. Yes, the jump is smaller, but not all that much smaller and I think it is fair to say the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44 is almost as big as the jump from APS-C to FF 35mm if you crop your images to a 4 X 3 aspect ratio or something squarer.
Now this is all talk just about the sensor size and doesn't say anything about comparisons between two individual cameras. When comparing individual cameras you should look at the properties of the actual sensors. How much resolution does each have? How much noise? How much dynamic range? How does it render colors? All those things matter when comparing two individual cameras, but when comparing the size of the sensors I think it is too simplistic and misleading to say the jump from APS-C to FF 35mm is much larger than the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44.
Depending on how you measure it*, the difference between miniMF and full frame is much smaller than that between full frame and the 1.5x and 1.6x cropped factors, perhaps being in a range between about 1.2 and 1.4. (Differences in measurement depend on whether you go simply by diagonal dimensions or try to use the same aspect ratio in both cases, and which aspect ratio you choose in the latter case.)
Dan
Dan,
I am puzzled by why you say the difference in crop factor is much smaller between FF 35mm and 33 X 44, than between APS-C and FF 35mm. In terms of field of view and depth of field the crop factor going up to 33 X 44 from FF 35mm is 1.39 or almost exactly a stop more capability in depth of field (a 1.41 crop--or the square root of 2--would be exactly 1 stop). In terms of field of view and depth of field the crop factor going up to FF 35mm from APS-C is 1.55 or almost exactly a stop and a third more capability in depth of field (a 1.53 is a stop and a third). If you use a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio I would say that is not much smaller. To say it is much smaller is like saying an f/1.8 lens has a much smaller max aperture than an f/2 lens and to me I would recognize that as smaller, but I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say it is much smaller.
Now, in contrast if you use a 3 X 2 aspect ratio or a skinnier rectangle the crop factor from FF 35mm going up to 33 X 44 is 1.22 or pretty much exactly a half of a stop (a crop factor of 1.22 is equal to half a stop more capability in depth of field), that starts to be quite a bit smaller than the stop and a third difference going up in size of sensor from APS-C to FF 35mm. There it is like saying a lens with a max f/2.4 has a much smaller max aperture than a lens with f/1.8. Some might question if even this difference is a large difference, but to me that is much more defensible.
So, from my perspective you have to take aspect ratio into consideration when comparing 33 X 44 with FF 35mm, and as you do I think you have to be more nuanced than simply saying that the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44 is much smaller than the jump between APS-C to FF 35mm. Yes, the jump is smaller, but not all that much smaller and I think it is fair to say the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44 is almost as big as the jump from APS-C to FF 35mm if you crop your images to a 4 X 3 aspect ratio or something squarer.
Now this is all talk just about the sensor size and doesn't say anything about comparisons between two individual cameras. When comparing individual cameras you should look at the properties of the actual sensors. How much resolution does each have? How much noise? How much dynamic range? How does it render colors? All those things matter when comparing two individual cameras, but when comparing the size of the sensors I think it is too simplistic and misleading to say the jump from APS-C to FF 35mm is much larger than the jump from FF 35mm to 33 X 44.
Nov 13, 2017 at 09:34 AM
Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #14251893 « Fujifilm GFX 50S Images »
