Will digital ever be replaced?

[Genessee]

And the 1Ds2 has 1x FOV Crop! Full Frame!

That must have been the camera I was thinking of.

[Genessee]

While doing the grocery shopping, I thouight of something else....Is there a difference between F/stops on digital VS. film? Like the crop factor type thing, or is it the same for both?

[Showtime100]

No difference. F2.8 is F2.8, etc. etc. That is a function of the lens, not the body.

[E-Diddy!]

Well, No. Actually you don't. Only the field of view is increased. It is just a cropped sensor (smaller then a 35mm frame) getting only part of what the lens is "seeing". A simple concept, yet misunderstood by many.

For example:

Open the curtains to your front window all the way. That represents a full frame of 35mm film. Standing 10 feet from the window you look out and see all of your neighbor's house.

Now, close the blinds about one quarter of the way or so. This will represent an approx. 1.6 crop of the fully opened curtains. Standing the same 10 feet back from the window, you no longer can see the entire house. Have you increased the magnification any? No, only the field of view.

Hope that helps.

Duke

I think this is a matter of interpretation that can't easily be defined. Here's my take on it (after pondering for some time):

Don't think about digital being a cropped version of film, think of film being a widened, expanded (zoomed out) version of digital. Or, you could assume that we are using 2 digital cameras, one a full-frame sensor at 16 megapixels (the 1dsmkII), and one another yet-to-be-made camera with an APS-C sized sensor, also 16mp. The fact that there isn't one in existance is irrelevant as I'm sure one day there will be one. All the light that is captured in the lens is the same, exactly the same, BUT a cropped sensor will magnify more because the area that every single detail is covering is larger compared to the sensor size as a whole.

The same quarter, placed ten feet away then shot with a 400mm full frame AND 400mm APS-C will be magnified on the APS-C sensor because the quarter, and every minute detail on it, is covering 1.6x more of the emulsion than it would at full frame. The only limitation to magnification and amount of detail is the lens quality itself.

[Showtime100]

I think this is a matter of interpretation that can't easily be defined.

Actually, it is a FACT that there is NO additional magnification by a digital sensor. It is a CROP, and subsequent enlargement of that crop. Nothing more.

But, if it makes you happy to think there is additional magnification taking place, enjoy yourself.

[E-Diddy!]

Why the need to be so hostile?

[Showtime100]

Hostile? I am typing for crying out loud..... why would you interpret my response as hostile?

Why so hard headed?

[E-Diddy!]

Hostile? I am typing for crying out loud..... why would you interpret my response as hostile?

This is why I'd interpret that as hostile:

But, if it makes you happy to think there is additional magnification taking place, enjoy yourself.

And yes, a smaller sensor does magnify, reason being: Any light projected onto an APS-C sensor will cover 1.6x the amount of area it would cover on a full frame sensor. More sensor coverage = magnification.

[Showtime100]

More sensor coverage = magnification.

That is too funny. Why not take some physics in high school...your teacher can explain it to you. Like I said before. If it makes you happy....

Click your heels Dorthy, maybe you'll wish yourself back to Kansas...

[E-Diddy!]

Sorry scooter I've taken college physics. If you're so goddamn smart why haven't you yet come up with an explanation of why more sensor coverage = no magnification?

[FlyingPhotog]

Sorry scooter I've taken college physics. If you're so goddamn smart why haven't you yet come up with an explanation of why more sensor coverage = no magnification?

It's not MORE sensor coverage, it's less. Digital cameras have sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm film.

[Showtime100]

Sorry scooter I've taken college physics.

Well, I guess you wasted your Mom and Dad's money on that one huh?

[exmanx]

Why oh why does every discussion on these threads turn into a slanging match? Usually about someone's schooling/brainpower/hat size!!!!!

I was enjoying this thread right up to the stupidity.

Andy

[E-Diddy!]

It's not MORE sensor coverage, it's less. Digital cameras have sensors that are SMALLER than 35mm film.

No, it isn't. Any light source on a smaller sensor is going to cover more area of that sensor then the same light source would on a larger sensor.

[Showtime100]

O.K. then,


If a light source covers 100% of a full frame sensor, or 35mm film frame, and if that same light source covers 100% of a smaller sensor...
How, is that magnification? You obviously admit you cannot cover more then 100% of anything right?

The difference is the smaller sensor misses out on a certain percentage around the edges that the full frame sensor or film receives. It receives a cropped version, or 'center cut' of the full frame.

Take an 8"x10" print...cut it out to a size of 7"x9".... You have not maginified anything, yet you have changed the field of view of the original frame.

If your theory was correct, then all you would have to do is shoot with a 50mm lens and crop the hell out of it and say you have a 300mm lens, because that is all that happpens to a 1.6x sensor, a crop of the full frame.