tlitody
Well-known
Simple. Cos 4:3 doesn't make a nicely balanced landscape orientation print without cropping further. And I like landscape orientation. On the other hand, if you like portrait orientation prints then 4:3 is about perfect.
crop factor question
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 3K
Simple. Cos 4:3 doesn't make a nicely balanced landscape orientation print without cropping further. And I like landscape orientation. On the other hand, if you like portrait orientation prints then 4:3 is about perfect.
user237428934
User deletion pending
The reason is that all the average photographers (like me) never used a format other than 135. I assume that 99% of all photographers only know the 135 format.
I started with fixed lens cameras with 35mm and 50mm lenses. Later I got my first SLR with a 50mm lens. Then I got the M6 with a 50mm lens and a voigtlander 25mm lens.
With the M8 I had to buy a new "normal" lens because 66mm is too long for my taste. I can't afford an 18mm lens to get something that comes close to the 25mm lens and even if I could afford it, it's just too big. So the crop factor has a large impact on my photographic world.
user237428934
User deletion pending
😕 What has an aspect ration (4:3) to do with crop factor?
All Canon DSLRs have an aspect ration of 3:2 but some chips are just smaller and we talk of the crop factor of 1.3 (APS-H) or 1.6 (APS-C) .
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
If someone wants to give me an M8.2, I promise I won't complain about the crop factor! Seriously, I just don't like the limitation at the wide end. With my D300, I have to carry an 18mm just to get 27mm. And my widest lens right now is 15mm, to get a 22.5mm eq. It's big and heavy! I know, I need to sell it and get a compact wide DX zoom. But a lot of those are cheap and plasticky. I'm getting closer to buying an M8.2 and 15 CV.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Just what the world needed was a whole slew of new formats that appeared when digital did. At the start you had no choice other than to buy cropped even if you did not want it. I don't like having things imposed on me. I was used to 135 format and saw no reason nor did I want to learn a new format. Today you have the opposite with a whole generation of photographers who grew up using only cropped format cameras and might now be upset with FF becoming more common with all the costs to switch to FF from cropped. I always saw cropped format as a stop gap measure till FF became feasible technically at a cost affordable to most. Companies have made a lot of money selling lenses they would not have sold had it not been for cropped formats creating new markets. Other than that I have nothing against the numerous cropped formats.
Bob
Bob
tlitody
Well-known
I always thought some of these cameras used 4:3. Older ones? Olympus? KodaK? P&S cameras? I thought Canon too but I must have been wrong about that. I stand corrected.
jarski
Veteran
without trying to rationalize it any further (iq, fov or otherwise), just want to use lenses as they were designed to be used. bigger the crop factor in camera body, less favorable its for me.
ktran
Established
The 4/3 and Micro 4/3 systems, as well as compact digital ("point and shoot") use the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is based on the CRT monitor/television/video camera aspect ratio.
But 35mm/135 format guys often forget that there's 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, etc. out there as well. "Crop factor" is arbitrary, and is only relative to one format, and in most cases, the format chosen is 35mm film/135 format/the so-called "full-frame" DSLR.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If you've been using Leicas for 40 years, and are used to the focal lengths, and have quite a lot of lenses in the right focal lengths for film, and shoot film alongside digital, this is not a hard question to answer. I already had 15-18-21-28-35-50-90-135 lenses for 24x36. To get a comparable choice with the M8 I'd have needed to add 12 and 24.
If you shoot ONLY smaller formats than 24x36, and have no investment in existing lenses, and don't need/want fast wide-angles, well, there's much less of a problem.
The M9 looked like a bargain to me, as compared with buying a 24 Summilux for my M8. But I do like the 135/2.8 on the M8.
Cheers,
R.
If you shoot ONLY smaller formats than 24x36, and have no investment in existing lenses, and don't need/want fast wide-angles, well, there's much less of a problem.
The M9 looked like a bargain to me, as compared with buying a 24 Summilux for my M8. But I do like the 135/2.8 on the M8.
Cheers,
R.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Saying that you get closer with a cropped body is like saying that a tree is closer because you're looking at it through a smaller window.
Personally, I like my windows to the world to be at least 24x36 mm 😉.
However, much fine photography has been done with cropped bodies, and if people like them, all the power to them.
I will say that it also matters what is not in the frame. So if you want to know what you're missing, I say go full frame.
Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS on Nikon D2H monopod.
Personally, I like my windows to the world to be at least 24x36 mm 😉.
However, much fine photography has been done with cropped bodies, and if people like them, all the power to them.
I will say that it also matters what is not in the frame. So if you want to know what you're missing, I say go full frame.
Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS on Nikon D2H monopod.
Last edited:
n5jrn
Well-known
Nobody shoots landscapes with 6x4.5 medium format cameras because of the aspect ratio?
Similar threads
