Is crop factor really that important considering the new crop of 20+ megapixel DSLR cameras? I was reading an exchange on a popular photography forum with several points of view on the benefits and detriments of both full frame and crop frame sensors. You would believe that the issues is so polarizing in the photography world that folks were discussing clinton vs Trump.

I have never considered this an issue and have never felt under-sensored with any of my cameras. It certainly isn't doesn't influence my purchasing decisions. So does anyone else see this as a big deal?

I thought about it with wide lenses. My 17-35mm is really 24-52 on the dslr.

I'm not up on it but the sensor size and the pixel count are not always related.

I read a lot about the comparative advantages of one or the other (which many photographers solve by having one of each, end of problem) but there is some consensus that low light photography (not just for light transmittal with fast lenses but also for the use of high ISOs, larger pixel pitch for less noise and smaller depth of field good for portraits) the larger sensor shows some superiority. The advantage of the small sensor is of course the crop factor of approximately 1.5X, meaning you can use a shorter (read cheaper and lighter) zoom for the same angle of view, which is good for sports and animal photography.

So each has its merits, but I think you know all this.

Wink, I find it a little funny how people get caught up in their hobby/work and photography is no exception. Arguing over sensor size is similar to arguing over the .375 vs the .416. Or Lee vs Redding dies. Or black rifles vs bolt rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Wink, I find it a little funny how people get caught up in their hobby/work and photography is no exception. Arguing over sensor size is similar to arguing over the .375 vs the .416. Or Lee vs Redding dies. Or black rifles vs bolt rifles.

As sensor technology improves, the differences become even smaller for most uses. And now of course mirrorless cameras (which can be even smaller than APS-C camera bodies) take away some of the advantages of the larger body size, since they can stick a full size sensor in a very compact body. At the photo show in Paris last month I looked at the new line of Sony series A7 cameras. Very impressive. The Sony A7r II is VERY interesting.

Technology is certainly making huge leaps. Have not seen the new A7r II but looks like Sony is producing some amazing cameras.

If you live near a Sony camera dealer, walk in and play around with a demo model in the store. The in-screen focus assistance is, in my opinion, very useful.

And I just discovered that Sony has an app which acts like a Neutral Density filter for their cameras, allowing results which emulate long exposures, called Smooth Reflections.

So it takes up to 256 pictures and combines them into one shot. Cool if you have time and a static landscape. Or you could just use filters to achieve the same in a lot less time...

Call me lazy (plus I don't own a Sony).

Well sort of. You only have to hit the shutter button once and you get a single RAW file with all the work done. Not quite the trouble you would go through with stacking a lot of individual files in Photoshop, ND filters or not (and you don't need any ND filters with you). And you don't have to use the 256 shot feature, it can be done with 2 shots too. It's only useful in landscape photos of course. We're not talking about shooting ice hockey here.

I trialed "Perfectly Clear" it's avail as a Photoshop plug in or standalone for $50.

Thanks for the Perfectly Clear tip. Definitely useful.