No crop factor or small crop factor Lens list

[Cody Cha]

I guess I'd never understand why there needs to be a debate about crop factor. Every camera (or manufacturer) has their own crop factor so it's very important to understand the concept when choosing a camera. And no, it's not a rocket science.

 

[Shane Kelly]

I guess I'd never understand why there needs to be a debate about crop factor. Every camera (or manufacturer) has their own crop factor so it's very important to understand the concept when choosing a camera. And no, it's not a rocket science.

The debate arises out of people thinking that lenses magically change their focal length when used on a different camera and that we are using stills terms for motion pictures.

 

[Shane Kelly]

I love your passion, but this is one of my pet peeves. That we use these words so indiscriminately. Cinematographer, Director, artist even. Maybe cuz I'm in New York, and I hear these words sometimes too, it really throws me off. A guy who is learning as they go is not, in my book a cinematographer. Shooter? Yes. Talented? Most likely, he's working, and he/she's passionate, so that's half the battle. But cinematographer? I revere the word (and I'm just a hack producer, and wannabe director who hates even using that latter word, because I haven't really earned it, at least not to my estimation yet). Cinematographer to me is approaching master level. They've learned so much, and even though they are always learning, what's left are the small tiny things that surprise them every day. But not the big things. They've mastered all the big and medium things, made lots of mistakes along the way, and are now cinematographers. But if you are picking up a camera, a DSLR, or even a RED, and are learning as you go, then you are passionate. But that is not the same as being a technical master, someone a crew looks to for guidance, speed and reliability, a master who can paint a picture, with lights, lenses and a camera.

I love the word cinematographer, I aspire to know as much as them, and understand their world. But its a word dripping in Hollywood history, and I think it needs to be treated carefully. It should be earned, not stepped, or fallen into.

Well said, Nick. I love this post.

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

I guess I'd never understand why there needs to be a debate about crop factor. Every camera (or manufacturer) has their own crop factor so it's very important to understand the concept when choosing a camera. And no, it's not a rocket science.

Because no camera has any crop factor unless you are comparing it to another camera, and yet people only concerned with one camera often still use it to just confuse themselves.

I've seen a number of people who had never used a FF35 camera do crop factor focal length calculations for their APS-C/S35 camera for no reason... Or do crop factor calculations for their APS-C/S35 camera for APS-C/S35 lenses but not for FF35 lenses and then get confused... It's not pretty.

 

[Cody Cha]

Because no camera has any crop factor unless you are comparing it to another camera, and yet people only concerned with one camera often still use it to just confuse themselves.

I've seen a number of people who had never used a FF35 camera do crop factor focal length calculations for their APS-C/S35 camera for no reason... Or do crop factor calculations for their APS-C/S35 camera for APS-C/S35 lenses but not for FF35 lenses and then get confused... It's not pretty.

Unfortunately, you don't fully understand what crop factor means. Crop factor is a function of sensor size, which means every camera with smaller sensor than a FF35 has a crop factor. And the fact is the majority of camera has a "crop sensor".

 

[Shane Kelly]

Unfortunately, you don't fully understand what crop factor means. Crop factor is a function of sensor size, which means every camera with smaller sensor than a FF35 has a crop factor. And the fact is the majority of camera has a "crop sensor".

only if you are relating those cameras to full frame stills cameras. Otherwise the term is irrelevant.

 

[Cody Cha]

only if you are relating those cameras to full frame stills cameras. Otherwise the term is irrelevant.

Wrong. The crop factor has nothing to do with comparing cameras. It's an inherent property of "crop sensor" cameras, including the Scarlet and Epic. The crop factor comes with it whether you like it or not.

Once you get the camera and set of lenses, you probably don't have to think about it -- unless you're shooting with two cameras with different sensor size. Regardless the crop factor is there.

 

[Shane Kelly]

Wrong. The crop factor has nothing to do with comparing cameras. It's an inherent property of "crop sensor" cameras, including the Scarlet and Epic. The crop factor comes with it whether you like it or not.

Once you get the camera and set of lenses, you probably don't have to think about it -- unless you're shooting with two cameras with different sensor size. Regardless the crop factor is there.

so where does my medium format camera fit in then? Does it have an uncrop factor? The term "crop factor " has everything to do with comparing cameras or rather sensors, it's based on full frame 35mm stills size dimensions.

I blame Phillip Bloom

 

[Cody Cha]

so where does my medium format camera fit in then? Does it have an uncrop factor? The term "crop factor " has everything to do with comparing cameras or rather sensors, it's based on full frame 35mm stills size dimensions.

I blame Phillip Bloom

Crop factor was derived from DSLRs and would only apply to digital camera. You should probably ask the inventor of crop factor about the medium format.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Crop factor was derived from DSLRs and would only apply to digital camera. You should probably ask the inventor of crop factor about the medium format.

Crop factors existed before digital. The inventor of the term "crop factor" died long, long ago... And there's a good chance no one really could ever identify that person as they pre-date most classical and modern mathematical teachings. Pythagorus talked of crop factors and used them to relate similar geometries of different scales. Crop factor is nothing more than a relationship or a factorization of how we can relate one quantifiable area to that of a similar other. Crops and crop factors have existed in the visual arts for centuries... To say that it was "derived from DLSRs and would only apply to digital camera" is a self-defeating statement [nice way to say ignorant]. Crop factors exist in large and medium format photography as well and they exist within smaller camera systems. You do realize that many digital backs for medium format cameras are marketed with crop factors, right? And so are/were alternative film backs for the same bodies, right? So when a P1 645 back is marketed as a 1.2X crop, they assume people are thinking within the confines of 6x4.5 medium format photography -- because that's what these products do. No relationship to 35mm photography at all... Well, other than being photography. Crop factor does not always assume a relationship to 35mm full-frame photography, although that seems to be the trendy relationship of late, mostly because of the massive surge in digital photography and cinematography and the affinity for using cameras that use 35mm sized sensors. And much of the confusion of this can be blamed on the DSLR makers as they make a lot of marketing pushes by relating crop factors as if FF35 is the only format that matters. And since most manufacturers keep consistent imager/sensor dimensions within various families of cameras, they tend to talk about crops as if they are tied to the lenses they sell. Which only further causes disinformation and false conceptions to spread about how crop factors, sensor sizes and focal lengths actually work. Which also leads to another issue... An inconsistency where some lens or camera manufacturers can't even use crop factor terms in a consistent manner. Some lens makers are referring to their lenses as a "crop lens" to identify which maximum area of a 35mm full-frame imager it will cover. Once again, fueling the confusion.

 

[Cody Cha]

Crop factors existed before digital. The inventor of the term "crop factor" died long, long ago... And there's a good chance no one really could ever identify that person as they pre-date most classical and modern mathematical teachings. Pythagorus talked of crop factors and used them to relate similar geometries of different scales. Crop factor is nothing more than a relationship or a factorization of how we can relate one quantifiable area to that of a similar other. Crops and crop factors have existed in the visual arts for centuries... To say that it was "derived from DLSRs and would only apply to digital camera" is a self-defeating statement [nice way to say ignorant]. Crop factors exist in large and medium format photography as well and they exist within smaller camera systems. You do realize that many digital backs for medium format cameras are marketed with crop factors, right? And so are/were alternative film backs for the same bodies, right? So when a P1 645 back is marketed as a 1.2X crop, they assume people are thinking within the confines of 6x4.5 medium format photography -- because that's what these products do. No relationship to 35mm photography at all... Well, other than being photography. Crop factor does not always assume a relationship to 35mm full-frame photography, although that seems to be the trendy relationship of late, mostly because of the massive surge in digital photography and cinematography and the affinity for using cameras that use 35mm sized sensors. And much of the confusion of this can be blamed on the DSLR makers as they make a lot of marketing pushes by relating crop factors as if FF35 is the only format that matters. And since most manufacturers keep consistent imager/sensor dimensions within various families of cameras, they tend to talk about crops as if they are tied to the lenses they sell. Which only further causes disinformation and false conceptions to spread about how crop factors, sensor sizes and focal lengths actually work. Which also leads to another issue... An inconsistency where some lens or camera manufacturers can't even use crop factor terms in a consistent manner. Some lens makers are referring to their lenses as a "crop lens" to identify which maximum area of a 35mm full-frame imager it will cover. Once again, fueling the confusion.

Thanks for the stating the obvious but your argument is completely pointless and irrelevant. Of course the concept of "crop factor" existed ever since the camera were invented. The term "crop factor" used today is based on FF35mm. I'll be more specific. Panny AF1000 has 2.0x crop, Canon 7D has 1.6x crop. Sony FS100 has 1.5 crop. RED Scarlet has 1.6 crop. If you believe otherwise, you're going to cause a lot of confusion (i.e. this thread).

And "crop lens" doesn't carry any inconsistencies. It just signifies a physical limitation of the lens. I don't know what manufacturer is inconsistent with their "crop lens" (whatever you mean by that).

You know why crop factor is based on FF35? Large and medium formats are no longer relevant.

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

Crop factors existed before digital. The inventor of the term "crop factor" died long, long ago... And there's a good chance no one really could ever identify that person as they pre-date most classical and modern mathematical teachings. Pythagorus talked of crop factors and used them to relate similar geometries of different scales. Crop factor is nothing more than a relationship or a factorization of how we can relate one quantifiable area to that of a similar other. Crops and crop factors have existed in the visual arts for centuries... To say that it was "derived from DLSRs and would only apply to digital camera" is a self-defeating statement [nice way to say ignorant]. Crop factors exist in large and medium format photography as well and they exist within smaller camera systems. You do realize that many digital backs for medium format cameras are marketed with crop factors, right? And so are/were alternative film backs for the same bodies, right? So when a P1 645 back is marketed as a 1.2X crop, they assume people are thinking within the confines of 6x4.5 medium format photography -- because that's what these products do. No relationship to 35mm photography at all... Well, other than being photography. Crop factor does not always assume a relationship to 35mm full-frame photography, although that seems to be the trendy relationship of late, mostly because of the massive surge in digital photography and cinematography and the affinity for using cameras that use 35mm sized sensors. And much of the confusion of this can be blamed on the DSLR makers as they make a lot of marketing pushes by relating crop factors as if FF35 is the only format that matters. And since most manufacturers keep consistent imager/sensor dimensions within various families of cameras, they tend to talk about crops as if they are tied to the lenses they sell. Which only further causes disinformation and false conceptions to spread about how crop factors, sensor sizes and focal lengths actually work. Which also leads to another issue... An inconsistency where some lens or camera manufacturers can't even use crop factor terms in a consistent manner. Some lens makers are referring to their lenses as a "crop lens" to identify which maximum area of a 35mm full-frame imager it will cover. Once again, fueling the confusion.

Nice post. I was not aware that medium format backs often have crop factors listed (albeit in comparison to 6x4.5 but still).

On one hand I agree with the cine crowd that talking about crop factors in relation to FF35 when we are dealing with a medium where S35 should really be the reference does not seem to make sense.

But then again RED's 5K is bigger than S35, which would make it warrant a bizarre uncrop factor and the FF35 SLRs will not go away. If anything they will continue to be a learning ground for future RED users and hence an important reference for the folks that could benefit the most from helpful terminology.

 

[Cody Cha]

But then again RED's 5K is bigger than S35, which would make it warrant a bizarre uncrop factor and the FF35 SLRs will not go away. If anything they will continue to be a learning ground for future RED users and hence an important reference for the folks that could benefit the most from helpful terminology.

The reason for using the FF35 as the reference is because all lenses for digital cameras are based based on FF35. Medium and large format use their own standards. Theses standards don't propagate down to FF35 or crop format. Hence they're completely irrevant to the conversation. The only reason "crop factor" is even relevant today is because we freely adapt FF35 lenses to crop sensor cameras, and that there so many difference crop sensor sizes (many crop factors) established by different manufactures. We probably have close to 10 different crop factors exist in the market today.

5k on Epic/Scarlet is 1.3x crop.

 

[Jonas Klittmark]

all lenses for digital cameras are based based on FF35

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Shane Kelly]

The reason for using the FF35 as the reference is because all lenses for digital cameras are based based on FF35. .

What? someone better get on the phone to zeiss and angenieux and tell them they've been doing it wrong for all of these years.

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

The reason for using the FF35 as the reference is because all lenses for digital cameras are based based on FF35. Medium and large format use their own standards. Theses standards don't propagate down to FF35 or crop format. Hence they're completely irrevant to the conversation. The only reason "crop factor" is even relevant today is because we freely adapt FF35 lenses to crop sensor cameras, and that there so many difference crop sensor sizes (many crop factors) established by different manufactures. We probably have close to 10 different crop factors exist in the market today.

What do you mean "all lenses for digital cameras are based on FF35"? What about lenses designed for 1/3", 1/2", 2/3", 16mm, m4/3, APS-C/S35, medium format, etc. cameras? And why does digital matter? What other standards are you talking about? Crop factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor) is a much more broad concept than you give it credit for, and it can be used to compare pretty much any spherical image capture format.

It is true that if not otherwise specified, these days crop factor often refers to a comparison to FF35, but that is not because it can only mean that. That usage became popular for FF35-centric still photographers when APS-C cameras and lenses became available many years ago and FF35 was the most available and common format for still photography, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to use it in that way, especially now and especially in cinematography where FF35 was never a particularly common format.

You are going to confuse and misinform people with your narrow definition. Today crop factor can and still is used for comparing a variety of formats, even if the most common usage is for still photographers comparing to FF35. By your definition, the concept of crop factor is nearly obsolete for everyone except for those who are still primarily using or comfortable with the FF35 format, which is increasingly fewer and fewer as other sensor formats become more common. Your statements about the concept of crop factor are exactly the problem many people seem to have. So you believe the term "crop factor" cannot be applied when comparing FOV/DOF to any format other than FF35? What do you suggest we call it? A comparison to FF35 is pretty useless for most people on this forum who are more used to using formats other than FF35.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well said, Nick. I love this post.

Thanks Shane! Coffee had a lot to do with it. And I meant the hack producer part. haha.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Thanks for the stating the obvious but your argument is completely pointless and irrelevant. Of course the concept of "crop factor" existed ever since the camera were invented. The term "crop factor" used today is based on FF35mm. I'll be more specific. Panny AF1000 has 2.0x crop, Canon 7D has 1.6x crop. Sony FS100 has 1.5 crop. RED Scarlet has 1.6 crop. If you believe otherwise, you're going to cause a lot of confusion (i.e. this thread).

Sure, and it makes me wonder if you actually read my post. This is a current trend and many people within one specific demographic do consider "crop factor" as being relevant to FF35 format. Take a step away from consumer/prosumer DSLR land and it's a whole different world. You may want to expand your horizons here a bit... Just a suggestion.

And "crop lens" doesn't carry any inconsistencies. It just signifies a physical limitation of the lens. I don't know what manufacturer is inconsistent with their "crop lens" (whatever you mean by that).

Really? You don't see the inconsistencies? You know how Canon, Nikon and Sony first started making DSLRs with smaller sensors because the technology wasn't good enough to make the full FF35 frame size. This caught on, so they moved to making lenses that were a bit more compact and offered smaller coverage circles in some instances. They market these lenses off and on as "crop lenses". Thankfully it's a term they have now moved away from in the past year or two -- so, inconsistency #1. Next, they still referred to several lens offerings as being "crop lenses" based on which family they were in, regardless of what their actual coverage was. Most all APS-C/DX format lenses at 50mm focal length and longer will cover FF35 just fine. Why call it a "crop lens"?

You know why crop factor is based on FF35? Large and medium formats are no longer relevant.

Large and medium formats are no longer relevant? According to who? You?? LMFAO, dude...

 

[D Fuller]

This discussion continues to prove my point. The strongest advocates for the term exhibit the most confusion about the subject it refers to.

Of course it can be a useful term, but only if you understand that it doesn't relate to lenses at all. It is a comparison of camera bodies - sensors or film formats if you will. (Regardless of any company's marketing, there is no such thing as a "crop lens.")

The business of insisting that we compare everything to FF35 as if that were some kind of reference standard like a foot or a meter is just silly. It can only come of very limited experience with different camera formats, and it's exactly this kind of narrow definition of things that makes me grumpy. If I spent 20 years shooting 16mm, how is comparing lenses based on a FF35 still camera's format possibly going to be helpful? Or if I come from a still tabletop world, where I've shot most everything on 6x6 film and sensors, how is it going to be useful?

As I said before, Id like to see the term die a quick and merciful death.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This discussion continues to prove my point. The strongest advocates for the term exhibit the most confusion about the subject it refers to.

Oh, so true...