 Kathy Zavatson |
Full Frame Photography What is meant by Full Frame Photography (5D)? Also, I have the Canon xTI and when I develop some of the prints to abigger size it gets cropped. Is it the way I took the picture and how do I prevent or limit that from happening?
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
Kathy, below are a couple of links that should answer your questions. Print cropping Digital sensors Hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Leisa Allen |
Hi Kathy, I have the XTi also and when I use companies like Shutterfly to make prints, it tells you to look at the different sizes because it does crop the picture. Nice thing about Shutterfly is that you can move the crop field around so that you can make the best decision on how the picture turns out instead of the company (who doesn't usually care). It's kind of like having widescreen or regular on the television. Widescreen gives you the full picture and the other gives you most of the picture. Hope this helps! Leisa
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
In the context of your question and mention of 5D, you're concerned about what is called the lens factor. Almost all digital SLRs have sensors that are smaller than the size of a film negative or size. Because of this there is an optical correction needed as one uses various lenses. With most manufacturers' lenses, the focal length of a lens must be multiplied by the factor to determine the effective focal length [comparison with film cameras.] Most Canons have a 1.6 factor; Nikon's a 1.5 factor. I'm not sure what the factor is for Sony, Pentax, etc. I have a Canon 30D and one of my lenses is the Canon 17-85 mm IS zoom. Multiplying 1.6 times the zoom range gives the equivalent of a 28-125 mm zoom. The only exception I'm aware of is the Canon 5D, which sports a sensor size equivalent to a 35 mm negative. Thus, there is no lens factor and you can use all the lenses you have from your Canon film SLR, without correction or concern. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether the full frame is significant. That's because I can't understand why, if there were something valuable about full frame, Canon released it's new top-o-the-line pro 1D Mark III, featuring a 1.3 lens factor. Why not go to full frame? Regardless, the file you create with your small sensor is in the aspect ratio of 2:3, the same as the 35 mm negative [24:36 mm.] To produce an 8X10 print you'll need to crop your image - not a problem as that's what we've been doing for years and years. Just a lot of hullabullooo out there.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
I think “Full Frame” is an ambiguous term; in this case, it is an attempt to compare the size of your camera’s imaging chip to the size of a film frame created by a 35mm camera. Allow me to explain: Thus the 35mm negative or slide size became so popular that today we keep making comparisons, holding up this format as if it were the standard. Actually comparisons are made because most teachers and book authors grew up exclusively using this format. Now your camera spots a picture taking sensor that measures 14.8mm x 22.2mm. Thus is 66% smaller or stated another way, the 35mm frame is 1.5 times bigger. Also the image length divided by image height equals 1.5 which is the format ratio. How can you use this data? 1. When you read about which lens to use for things like portraiture and landscape or wildlife photography, no doubt the data will be in terms of a 35mm camera. Now you know you can convert this data so it is useful to you. As an example, people tell us to use a 105mm focal length for portraiture (35mm applicable data). For your camera, 105 divide by 1.5 = 70mm. Thus your camera is best for portraiture when set to about 70mm. Hope this helps as sometimes my longwinded explanations cause even more bewilderment. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||