Posts Tagged ‘lens’

FFS?

Monday, April 12th, 2010

One of the ques­tions you may ask your­self when decid­ing to buy a digital SLR for the first time is ‘Full Frame or cropped sensor?’ Even if it isn’t, it should be. The obvi­ous next ques­tion is: what’s the dif­fer­ence? Well, it’s more com­plic­ated than you might think.

A full frame (‘FF’ here­after) cam­era has a sensor that is the same size as a frame of 35mm film (36mm x 24mm); so-​​called ‘cropped sensor’ (‘CS’) cam­eras have smal­ler sensors, though there is no single stand­ard, for example the sensor in a Canon EOS 550D meas­ures 22.3mm x 14.9mm whereas in a Canon EOS 1D mk IV it’s 27.9mm x 18.6mm. Gen­er­ally, FF cam­eras cost con­sid­er­ably more than CS mod­els, how­ever you might be able to pick up a second hand Canon EOS 5D or Nikon D700 for a reas­on­able price.

Many people talk about the ‘mag­ni­fy­ing effect’ of a CS body. I find this term mis­lead­ing; any mag­ni­fic­a­tion is done by the lens, and a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on any cam­era. The image pro­jec­ted onto the sensor plane is identical, but the smal­ler sensor means only a part of the image is cap­tured com­pared to a FF cam­era. To phys­ic­ally print the image would require more mag­ni­fic­a­tion but this is applied after the pho­to­graph is taken, and so is not tech­nic­ally a func­tion of the sensor.

This also means that to get the equi­val­ent field of view in a CS cam­era to a 50mm lens on a FF model, you would need to user a wider lens, eg 35mm, though the exact focal length would depend on the phys­ical dimen­sions of the sensor. Using a lens with a shorter focal length means you get more depth of field, so this is one of the first things you need to think about when choos­ing sensor size; does your style of pho­to­graphy require nar­rower or wider DoF? Below 35mm though, it must be said, DoF is gen­er­ally so wide that it makes little difference.

Crop­ping the image also means it is easier to fill the frame with a sub­ject, espe­cially use­ful in wild­life pho­to­graphy where small anim­als are shot using tele­photo lenses of 300mm or more. This is where it is bene­fi­cial to use a smal­ler sensor; while it is also pos­sible to crop a FF photo in post pro­cessing to achieve the same effect, you end up wast­ing pixels and los­ing detail as the res­ult­ing res­ol­u­tion is so much lower.

Using a full frame sensor it can be harder to fill the pic­ture with your subject

Using a cropped frame sensor, your sub­ject fills the pic­ture more often

Of course the con­verse applies to wide angle lenses. Much of the drama of a good land­scape comes from using lenses of 20mm or less, and when the extremes of a pho­to­graph are cropped out, this added drama can be lost. Unlike with tele­photo lenses how­ever, you can­not reverse the effect in PP.

With a full frame sensor, the full effect of using a wide angle lens is attained.

Using a cropped sensor, the dra­matic extremes are lost

The one final con­sid­er­a­tion is image qual­ity. Gen­er­ally, except for the most expens­ive lenses, this deteri­or­ates towards the edge of the pic­ture, so by using a cropped frame sensor you are elim­in­at­ing the less well defined areas of your image mean­ing you don’t neces­sar­ily need to spend as much on good qual­ity glass. On the other hand (though this is less true with the latest devel­op­ments in sensor tech­no­logy), the high ISO per­form­ance of CS cam­eras is not as strong as that in FF cam­eras. This is because the pixels are more densely packed in a CS cam­era, and so are smal­ler and more sens­it­ive to non-​​optical factors, such as elec­tronic inter­fer­ence caused by the camera’s own circuits.

It is not my inten­tion to say what is right or wrong, as I don’t believe there is such a dis­tinc­tion. But if you are fully aware of the con­sequences of your choice of sensor size, hope­fully it makes it easier for you to make the decision that works for you.

Nifty fifty

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

It’s been said that you’re only 50mm away from becom­ing a bet­ter pho­to­grapher. Time was when pretty much any (film) SLR cam­era you bought had a 50mm lens strapped to the front, often with a max­imum aper­ture of f/1.8. The thing is, a 50mm lens is at the sweet spot where the image qual­ity to cost ratio is at its highest. How­ever these days, most kit lenses that ship with even the most expens­ive DSLRs are so poor that they are hardly worth both­er­ing with. Most people, though, are unaware of this, and con­tinue to use sub-​​standard glass and won­der why their pic­tures never look like how they remembered them.

I have attached here a selec­tion of my favour­ite shots taken with my trusty Sigma 50mm EX-​​DG Macro — a lens that cost me £200 and is as sharp as lenses that cost five times more.

Low light, low noise

Friday, December 19th, 2008

I’m thor­oughly enjoy­ing get­ting to know the new cam­era, and in con­junc­tion with Sigma’s increas­ingly impress­ive 105mm EX-​​DG Macro I am get­ting some very pleas­ing res­ults. Here is a set of pic­tures taken at lunch time today at London’s fam­ous Bor­ough Mar­ket, a food mar­ket selling fresh, high-​​quality and expens­ive food. Every single pic­ture in this set was taken at ISO 3200, and the col­ours you see are just as the cam­era recor­ded them.

After return­ing from the shoot I had a mes­sage from Jac­obs that my new bat­tery grip had arrived. So, with today’s release of the Cam­era Raw update for OS X, I now have everything in place for a com­plete EOS 5D Mark II work­flow. All I need is to take some more pictures…