Crop frame cameras – why your field of view may not equal your focal length

Confused by the title? I thought you might be. Today I’m going to introduce you to the idea of digital sensor sizes and “crop” vs. “full frame” digital cameras. It may seem a bit complicated at first but there are really only a few things you need to know and take away from today’s lesson and I’ll be sure to point them out as we go along and give you a recap at the end as well.

Digital SLR cameras for the most part replace consumer 35mm film SLR cameras. They work in a very similar manner, but instead of a strip of film capturing the light, a little digital sensor does the job. You can even use many of the very same lenses you had for your old film SLR on your digital SLR. Where it gets tricky is that the sensors used are not all necessarily the same size as a 35mm film plane. So what you say? Well, what that means to you as the photographer is that your sensor is not capturing the entire image that your lens is seeing. In essence your smaller sensor is “cropping” your photo for you before it’s even taken. And to make it even more complicated, the “crop factor” depends on the particular camera you’re shooting, with most consumer Canon cameras having a factor of 1.6 and most Nikon cameras using 1.5. Nikon also refers to their full frame cameras as “fx” sensors and crops as “dx”… just to throw a little extra terminology into the mix.

Still confused? Let’s try another angle (get the pun?) You just bought your very first Canon Rebel on the recommendation of all of your fellow photography enthusiasts. Those very same friends of yours encourage you to ditch the kit lens and go for the “thrify 50” – the 50mm 1.8 lens. It’s a great choice. Way to go. You slap that puppy onto your camera, look through the viewfinder, and WOAH… everything is super zoomed in, right? You can hardly shoot a picture of the person sitting across the dinner table from you without stepping a few feet backwards. You scratch your head, confused. “But I thought you said in your post on focal length that a 50mm lens replicated the angle of view of the human eye, this doesn’t seem right”. Well good for you for remembering that little nugget of information. And you’re right. So why do things seem so close through the viewfinder of your camera? Blame it on the field of view crop factor. Your camera’s sensor only captures around 62% of the image that the very same lens would capture on a full frame camera. This idea is usually shown by a set of concentric rectangles, the outermost one representing the “full frame” shot and the inner ones representing the crop. Let’s take a look, shall we?

The full image is what would have been captured with either a 35mm film camera or a full frame digital camera, in this case a 5d. The image was shot with a 50mm lens. The grayed out portion of the image is 62.5% of the image – or in other words approximately what would be captured with a crop frame camera. Big difference right? Now let’s see if this really pans out. Let’s take a look at the same shot (or as close to it as I could get to show you). I didn’t move myself or my lovely assistant (Mr. Potato) and only swapped the lens to another body, this time a crop frame sensor. Here’s the result.

Looks about the same as what’s in the box on the other image right? The framing is a little off, but this is just a demonstration and hey, I’m not perfect. You get the idea. So where does the 62% come from and what’s with the 1.5 or 1.6 crop? What do those numbers mean? Well someone out there came up with the idea of calling the sensor by the “field of view crop factor”, that is the value by which your “field of view” is multiplied when you use one of these sensors (I know, I know we’re getting complicated again).

Let me try to break it down. For the purpose of this explanation we’re going to pretend that “field of view” is the same thing as focal length… it’s not really but let’s just say it is. So you have your 50mm lens – that number, 50 is your focal length or field of view. And on a 1.6 crop sensor you need to multiply that number (50) by 1.6 to get the “effective” field of view (or focal length) of your lens. That is, what the focal length will appear to be. So your 50mm lens, times 1.6 crop, will have an effective focal length (or field of view more accurately) of 80mm. So basically, in essence, that 50mm lens you thought you bought is acting on your camera more like an 80mm lens, which is decidedly a telephoto length.

To explain it more in pictures here are a few more direct comparisons between the full and crop frame cameras. Here is a 28mm lens on a full frame

and on a crop frame. Note here that a 28mm on a 1.6 crop camera will give an effective field of view of 44.8, which is much closer to that 50 you were looking for in the first place. You can see that it is indeed a similar shot to the one taken with the 50mm on the full frame.

and just in case you need to see it one more time, here it is with an 85mm lens. Full frame first.

and the crop frame

So what does this all mean to you, the crop frame camera owner? Well it means you need to think carefully before you purchase your lenses. Realize that lenses designated as “wide angle” for a full frame camera might actually be more middle of the road, and lenses like the 50 will be telephoto. This is good news if you are a lover of telephoto photography and background compression. Not so great news if you are a lover of wide angle, because as I’m sure you’ve realized, you’d have to go REALLY wide to get a lens that is wide on your camera. The good news is that there are a few lenses out there (one of my favorites is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, which is available for a variety of camera bodies) that are made specifically for crop frame cameras and that will allow you get the wide angle you crave. The downfall of these lenses is that if you ever decide to upgrade to full frame, the lens will not be able to be used on your new body. A small price to pay for the ability to shoot wide angle on your Rebel, wouldn’t you say?

Advertisements

Quick Tip of the Day: see the world from a new point of view

One of the easiest ways to improve your photos is to change the angle you’re taking them from. Most peoples’ first reaction to seeing something they want to take a picture of is to just snap away from right where they were whenever they noticed the photo op. It will do you good to take a few seconds (assuming you have a few seconds to spare… if it’s a split second once in a lifetime photo op go ahead and shoot from where you are) and look around to see if there’s a better angle you could be shooting from.

I see a lot of photos of babies shot from about parent height a few feet away from the kids and just pointed down… does this look familiar?

Photobucket

The picture’s not bad. The focus is fine and the exposure is fine as well. It’s just not that great. The angle has caused the baseboard to run straight through the baby’s head. Not good. And it’s kind of boring.

My two favorite options for changing up angles are to either get really high or really low. When you’re shooting adults getting up above them usually means standing on something. Kids on the other hand are easy. All you have to do is get closer and angle your camera down more. This one is from higher up… but it’s still not close enough. The baseboard is still going right through his head.

Photobucket

But if we get EVEN closer and up higher…

Photobucket

Ahh… much better. Way more fun and interesting.

Getting down low is just as good. This shot is pretty much exactly the same as the first but from kid-level. In my experience it’s not enough just to sit on the ground, the real magic happens when you get down on your belly and really exaggerate the angle. I never wear a skirt if I’m out shooting because I know I’m guaranteed to be lying on the ground at some point 🙂

Photobucket

One more shot with the low angle… in this one I shifted the camera down as low as possible to get the bright colors in the foreground. Still in the same location, so much more interesting!

Photobucket

See what a little shift in your point of view can do? 🙂

Sunshine 101 – the basics of shooting outdoors

I get asked a lot what the secrets are to shooting nice portraits outdoors. I’m not going to lie, great outdoor lighting is a little harder to master than great indoor lighting. The sun is a tricky light source and a powerful one at that, so it can be a little overwhelming trying to figure it out. There are a lot of ways to tackle outdoor lighting including reflectors, diffusers and fill flash, but for now let’s just stick with the basics. You, your subject, your camera, and a patch of shade.

If all you’ve got are the items listed above, there are going to be three basic options for shooting. You can either face your subject into the sun, face your subject away from the sun, or put them in the shade. Most people’s gut reaction is to face their subject into the sun. Light is good right? Well not so fast. Remember how I said that the sun was a tricky light source? That’s because it’s extremely bright and it’s coming from overhead, meaning that it casts harsh shadows and on people those shadows tend to fall below the nose and eyes, giving a lovely raccoon look. I tend to find that one of the major culprits of outdoor photos looking amateur and “snapshotty” are the strong shadows below the eyes and nose. Check out this example. Shot at ISO 100, f2.8 and shutter speed 1/2500.

Photobucket

Definitely not my favorite. Now turn the subject around in the EXACT same spot so that the sun is behind and I find this to be a much more appealing shot. Taken at ISO 100, f2.8 shutter speed 1/1000

Photobucket

You’ll notice there are a few of what we call “hotspots” in this photo, areas that are somewhat overexposed when compared to the rest of the image. There are parts of her leg and blanket that are very very bright. But I’ll take those little hotspots over the first image any day. Remember if we had more equipment (diffuser, reflector, etc) we could take care of these problems but we’re just sticking to basics here. You should also know that if the sky had been visible in this shot it would have been “blown out” to white. It gives a sort of high key look that some people hate… I just happen to love it 🙂

The third option when the sun just isn’t doing it for you is the shade. This is by far the safest option and a good fallback. This one was shot in the shade at the same location, ISO 100, f2.8 and shutter speed 1/320

Photobucket

One part of shade shooting that most new photographers overlook is the quality of the shade. You want your subject to be out of the sun, but you also want for there to be natural light still hitting their faces. The best way to do this is to put the subject right at the edge of the shade, as close as possible to the sunlight without actually being in it. The difference in these next two is kind of subtle but to me it makes a big difference. The first is right at the edge of the shade, facing the direction of the sun. Notice they still have a bit of the sunkissed look even while being in the shade. ISO 100, f2.8, shutter speed 1/320

Photobucket

Even moving back a just a few feet will cause you to lose that “glow”. Same spot, just moved further into the shade. This time the shutter speed is 1/200

Photobucket

So there you go. Three different options for shooting in the sun, which you choose is up to you! One final warning note about shade shooting. While a park may seem like a great location for shooting portraits (lots of trees equals lots of shade right?) it’s actually hardly ever ideal. In my experience the shade from trees is almost always splotchy. Those little dots of light peeking through lead to what we call *dappled light* – great if you’re going to be painting a monet. Not so great if you’re shooting portraits. You’ll end up with those aforementioned “hotspots” right on your subject’s faces and nobody wants that.