Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

    I posted this in response to NSS's not silly question in that thread too - but on reflection I feel it might help as a separate thread on its own... thus this one.

    How the Oly 4/3 crop factor x2 works.

    A lens's focal length is fixed and doesn't change, regardless of what camera body it is used on. If it's a 70mm lens, then it's a 70mm lens on a Canikon, Oly or Sony; or if it's a 35-100mm, then it's still a 35-100mm on whatever body it is used on.

    All that changes on each body (in essence for purposes of this thread), is the amount in the center of the image that the sensor actually sees.

    Let me see if I can explain this with the aid of a few diagrams, in terms of sensor size and crop factor.

    Let's say this strange image of a piggy on a marble floor is what the lens actually sees. IMPORTANT: Remember, a lens projects a round image - not a square one!!


    This round 'image' is then ultimately projected through the rear of the lens, and physically onto the cameras sensor. This next diagram illustrates two sensors; green being what the FF camera sensor might see, and blue being what the Oly sensor sees. It's simple physics here folks... the 4/3 sensor is smaller and thus less of the image is projected onto it by the lens as compared to the FF sensor.



    And now, just to separate what each sensor 'sees'. Physically, the FF is larger and contains more of the overall picture i.e. a greater field of view whereas the Oly shows less of the overall picture i.e. less field of view.



    However, if we now take a look at what we see through the viewfinders of each camera... we see a bigger pig in the Oly camera compared to the FF camera because of the reduced field of view as explained in the text above. Thus the apparent increase in focal length.



    Which hopefully explains why there's the x2 crop factor in 4/3 equipment. The same lens but different sensor size has yielded less of the overall image being seen by the sensor and an effective increase in focal length. However, if it is 'zoom-in' you want (as opposed to 'zoom-out') - in the case of crop sensors, this can be interpreted as... less is more!!

    Of course, there are many other factors that come into play here; photosite density, noise, capability of the lens to resolve more detail (which in ZD glass - is so) - but for a simple explanation - these diagrams should explain why we as Oly users get in closer to the subject as compared to FF cameras.

    Please shout if there are questions...

    Enjoy the piggie!
    John


  • #2
    Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

    Excellent explanation.

    Good pig too.
    Look, I'm an old man. I shouldn't be expected to put up with this.


    Pete's photoblog Misleading the public since 2010.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

      Nice article John.

      Thanks for posting it.


      I also think the pig is good

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

        Nicely put together article John, but I'm still not sure about this . Is the image circle of a 4/3 100mm lens, as measured at the sensor plane, the same in the 4/3 system as it is for a FF 100mm lens in an FF system? That's what your article implies. I've had a scour of the net for the relationship between focal length, distance to focal plane and the size of the image circle but without success.
        John

        m4/3: E-P2, EM-5, 100-300, 14-42mm 12-50mm, 45mm, panny 14mm. 4/3: 7-14 + Flashes & tripods & stuff

        "Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints".

        Flickr gallery

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

          Originally posted by jdal View Post
          Nicely put together article John, but I'm still not sure about this . Is the image circle of a 4/3 100mm lens, as measured at the sensor plane, the same in the 4/3 system as it is for a FF 100mm lens in an FF system? That's what your article implies. I've had a scour of the net for the relationship between focal length, distance to focal plane and the size of the image circle but without success.
          Hi John

          Yes, it is. The image circle presented by any lens is fixed..
          John

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

            Originally posted by theMusicMan View Post
            Hi John

            Yes, it is. The image circle presented by any lens is fixed..
            Cheers, so just for my thick self the only variable in evaluating the size of the image circle is the lens's focal length? I think that's what I was trying to establish.

            I wish I'd stuck in at physics at Uni, but I don't think we'd have done anything useful like compound lenses.
            John

            m4/3: E-P2, EM-5, 100-300, 14-42mm 12-50mm, 45mm, panny 14mm. 4/3: 7-14 + Flashes & tripods & stuff

            "Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints".

            Flickr gallery

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

              Here`s my stupid question as physics is`nt my strong point either! I understand (and already knew) everything you have said, BUT does it mean that say a 10 megapixel Olympus would have the same image quality as say a 20 megapixel FF Camera ? very

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                Hi Edward

                Good question, to which the answer is... no.

                Taking a FF and a 4/3 camera with say 10MPx sensor... there will be positives and negatives for both.

                There will be less noise on the FF camera image - the individual photo-sites are physically further apart, and are prone to significantly less noise.
                There will be more pig detail captured on the 4/3 camera image because there is more of the pig in the shot. On the FF shot, only roughly 40% of the 10M pixels are of the pig, whereas on the 4/3 shot its about roughly 80%.
                To get the same frame fill on the FF camera as the shot taken with the 4/3 camera, one would have to significantly crop the FF shot - thus using significantly fewer pixels to make up the final image. Of course, this being a FF image, the quality wouldn't be proportionally less, thus if you cropped the image by 50%, the resulting image wouldn't be only half as good quality as the 4/3 image.

                Not sure if that explains what you're after Ed...?
                John

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                  Originally posted by EH1 View Post
                  Here`s my stupid question as physics is`nt my strong point either! I understand (and already knew) everything you have said, BUT does it mean that say a 10 megapixel Olympus would have the same image quality as say a 20 megapixel FF Camera ? very
                  Half the length and half the height is 1/4 the area. so 10 megapixels would give you a higher pixel density, but poorer "quality" pixels (allegedly!). But I see what you mean, the Oly 10mpx image should be comparable with a 20 mpx FF crop of the same size. Other factors being the same, of course.
                  John

                  m4/3: E-P2, EM-5, 100-300, 14-42mm 12-50mm, 45mm, panny 14mm. 4/3: 7-14 + Flashes & tripods & stuff

                  "Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints".

                  Flickr gallery

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                    Yes! I`ve totally got it now! Thanks John & jdal. BTW. It is an excellent article John, I hope this becomes a regular thing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                      Originally posted by EH1 View Post
                      Yes! I`ve totally got it now! Thanks John & jdal. BTW. It is an excellent article John, I hope this becomes a regular thing.
                      Glad you found it helpful Edward.
                      John

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                        I've just had another think about this and it's this word 'crop' I have trouble with

                        From four-thirds.org: "The Four Thirds Specification defines the standard diagonal length of the 4/3-type image sensor, suitable image circle of lens and an interface between lens and body. This will make it possible to secure compatibility among camera bodies and lenses regardless of manufacturer or model"

                        i.e. the size of the image circle of a 4/3 lens is defined by the 4/3 standard. It isn't a function of the focal length of the lens, although for any particular lens it's constant and in theory it should be the same for all 4/3 lenses. So 4/3 images are no more cropped than FF images.

                        I'm, being picky on this because on a climbing forum I frequent, the Canikonites have been using "crop factor" as a derogatory term. I've managed to bore most of them into submission by now though...

                        cheers
                        John

                        m4/3: E-P2, EM-5, 100-300, 14-42mm 12-50mm, 45mm, panny 14mm. 4/3: 7-14 + Flashes & tripods & stuff

                        "Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints".

                        Flickr gallery

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                          Hi John

                          I could be wrong of course, but one other thing that could be brought into the mix here is the distance between the rear of the lens and the sensor. The further away this is then less of the projected image is going to be seen by the sensor. I think the 4/3 standard defines what the effective distance should be for the 4/3 sensor.

                          The one thing that is for sure is that the focal length of a lens does not change regardless of what camera body or sensor it is used on. A 200mm lens is always a 200mm lens.

                          As for Canikonites using the term 'crop factor' in a derogatory manner is a little short sighted as most of the Canon and Nikon range are either of a 1.4 or 1.6 crop factor. Only the top of their range are FF cameras.

                          Ask them about their in-camera IS...
                          John

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                            Originally posted by theMusicMan View Post
                            Hi John

                            I could be wrong of course, but one other thing that could be brought into the mix here is the distance between the rear of the lens and the sensor. The further away this is then less of the projected image is going to be seen by the sensor. I think the 4/3 standard defines what the effective distance should be for the 4/3 sensor.
                            Yes, I'm sure the standard does that - the m4/3 standard has a shorter distance. But regardless of that, all of the 4/3 lenses are meant to have the same image circle and the standard defines the image circle at the plane of the sensor.

                            Originally posted by theMusicMan View Post
                            The one thing that is for sure is that the focal length of a lens does not change regardless of what camera body or sensor it is used on. A 200mm lens is always a 200mm lens.
                            Absolutely, and your article illustrates that well. It's a remarkably common misconception.

                            Originally posted by theMusicMan View Post
                            As for Canikonites using the term 'crop factor' in a derogatory manner is a little short sighted as most of the Canon and Nikon range are either of a 1.4 or 1.6 crop factor. Only the top of their range are FF cameras.
                            ...
                            Aye, they're keen on ignoring these little things when it suits!

                            cheers
                            John

                            m4/3: E-P2, EM-5, 100-300, 14-42mm 12-50mm, 45mm, panny 14mm. 4/3: 7-14 + Flashes & tripods & stuff

                            "Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints".

                            Flickr gallery

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Trying to explain Focal Length, Field of View and Crop x2

                              Originally posted by theMusicMan View Post
                              I posted this in response to NSS's not silly question in that thread too - but on reflection I feel it might help as a separate thread on its own... thus this one.
                              Seems my not silly question has stired up some debate.

                              I must however add that the explenation has cleared up my original question.

                              Thanks

                              Kev
                              Today I am ready for yesterday...

                              http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinfairgrieve/

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X