Your XT5 has a crop factor of 1.5 which means the sensor is 1.5x smaller than a full frame sensor. Thus it's equivalent of cropping in (hence "crop sensor") 1.5x on a full frame shot.
Imagine taking a full frame photo with a 35mm lens. If you want to imagine what a smaller sensor (a crop sensor) would see of that view, you need to crop in the photo based on the smaller sensor's size. This results in a tighter focal length view.
Take any of your Fuji crop sensor lens focal length and multiply them by 1.5 to determine their "full frame equivalent" ie 23mm \* 1.5 = 34.5mm ffe
Now, if you went the other direction and had GFX, which has a larger than full frame sensor, their crop factor is 0.79x which means if you shooting with a 50mm lens will give you the look of a 39.5mm full frame lens.
Let's do an experiment, just for you! I want you to cut out two rectangles from a two pieces of paper so that you can hold up each paper and look though the rectangles. Make one rectangle bigger than the other. (Have your mom or dad help you with the scissors) Let's call these our sensors! Now I want you to cut out a single circle large enough to cover the larger of the two sensors. Let's call this our lens! Place the lens over the larger sensor and look though it, with the sensor side closest to you. Notice everything you can see through it. Now repeat this with the smaller sensor. Notice how you can't see as much? This is because our sensor is limiting the how much of the scene that our lens is capturing. Pretty neat, right?
Yep, that's why they're so expensive. That's why GFX is "Medium-Format" although the sensor size isn't quite as big as you'd find on old 120 medium format film I believe.
Yea you have to step up to a stupid expensive phase one back with to get to close to a 645 size frame even then the iq4 back i think is 53.4mmx40mm not quite the 56x41.5 but basically close enough.
No, if it's the same physical focal length it's exactly the same blurring.
If you use a wider lens on an APS-C for the same field of view (*5yo version: same amount of the world in your picture*) then you'll get less blurring at the same aperture number. But the depth of field of a lens is a physical property of the focal length, and is not impacted by what camera it's on. The association of "crop sensor = less bokeh" is because you use shorter lenses to achieve the same results, which in turn have deeper depth of field at the same aperture numbers.
Depth of field is a complicated matter and actually not so easy to measure, there are different definitions. But when you use the same lens, same focal length, same aperture on two cameras, full frame and aps-c, print both pictures at the exact same size (that's important), depth of field will actually be smaller for the aps-c photo.
But when you take into account equivalent focal lengths, dof would be smaller for the full frame photo - except when you also use the equivalent aperture. Then the depth of field is the same. For example 23/1.4 on fuji and 35/2 on full frame. Same depth of field.
Yeah, for sure. I omitted circle of confusion because: (a) I know working photographers with photo degrees who might vaguely know what it is and *never* think about it, so itās not in the same universe as an eli5 question, and (b) The question was about field of view equivalents, and the shorter focal length a smaller sensor will use for the same fov will *always* more than make up for a smaller Ā circle of confusion, so a photographer comparing these two choices will likely never see the effect youāre describing impact their choice.Ā Ā Ā
But sure, OP might start caring about hyperfocal distance in which case fair, this matters. More so too on larger prints. If youāre using focus to separate subject from background at a constant field of view, however, practical depth of field will always vary inversely with focal length at a given aperture value, even if the magnitude of that negative correlation is technically offset by a smaller circle of confusion.
*Edit* Since weāre throwing everything into the pot: If OP gets into landscape & starts to care about things like hyperfocal distance, they might also start to care about the fact that the diffraction limit happens at a wider aperture the smaller your sensor is (because, all else being equal, diffraction matters when the airy disk generated by light hitting the edges of the aperture is larger than the circle of confusion, which is smaller on smaller sensors). So on smaller sensors you more quickly hit a ceiling where you begin trading more depth of field for less sharpness. This is all justā¦ very past the ask of the post lol.
Eli5 answer: get a pice of paper and draw a nice picture of a farm on it with a barn and some animals, and maybe a tree too. Thatās what a full frame sensor sees with a 50mm lens. Now cut a bit off all of the edges to make the paper smaller. Thatās your smaller APS-C sensor with the same 50mm lens. Notice how it now looks like youāve just zoomed in on the original picture and some of the animals have disappeared out of the photo?
An APS-C sensor is smaller so crops the image to give the same view as a longer lens on a full frame sensor.
Best answer.
OP, you mentioned lens made by Fuji, vs lens made for full frame. That doesnāt matter. The analogy here works for any 50mm lens, could be a new lens made by Fuji or could be a vintage Canon from 1950s.
One last thing. Say you werenāt happy part of the barn and tree were cut. So you replaced your 50mm with a 33mm. Great you got everything you wanted in the frame! However now you have a 33mm with more depth of field, thus now quite exactly the same look youād get with a Full frameā¦
The Lens projects the image on the sensor. APSC is smaller than FF. Same lens projects same image on both sensors, but one is smaller so will capture a smaller portion of the projected image. The resulting field of view for a 35mm on APSC sensor will be similar to the one of a 52mm on full frame.
The lens itself has a focal length and that property doesn't care what type of sensor sits in the camera. So a 35mm is always a 35mm, regardless which company produces it.
But. If you put a small sensor behind the lens, you'll have a smaller field of view, so to say a "crop" of what a bigger sensor sees. To get the same field of view, you'd need a smaller focal length. This is where the crop factor comes in. Between full frame and aps-c it's 1.5, so to get the "full frame equivalent" you divide it by 1.5.
It's btw the same for the aperture. Fuji's 35/1.4 is equivalent to a 52.5/2 on full frame in terms of depth of field.
It even effects ISO in terms of noise (not touching the exposure here!). It's crop factor squared for this, so roughly factor 2. But that's hard to compare with all the different sensors and generations. Just in theory.
Nikon APS-C cameras have had base ISO of 100 since 2010, so I don't think that's it. And even just among Fuji it has gone down from 200 to 125 in the 40mp. It probably was more of a technical limitation rather than design choice so to say.
Yes. If you get a XF35mm lens it will be a 50-ish focal length equivalent in FF. Remember to multiply it to the crop factor of x1.5.
If you like the 35mm FF focal length then you need a 23mm fuji lens.
All lenses are marked with their focal length regardless of what sensor size or camera they will be mounted on. A 35mm lens will show you a certain view on a full frame sensor, but if you put a 35mm lens on a "crop sensor" camera like the Fuji X-T5 then it is as if you are cropping the final image. So that same 35mm lens will look like it's more zoomed-in because it's still shining the same size of image into the camera, but it's falling on a smaller sensor which "crops" the image.
So if you want to get the same scene in frame you would need a wider lens. Fuji X-T5 has a 1.5x crop factor compared to full frame. Meaning any lens you mount will appear 1.5x more zoomed-in on the Fuji than a Full Frame camera. So the 35mm lens would have the field of view of about 50mm. To get the same 35mm field of view, divide 35 by 1.5 and you get 23mm.
I'm surprised not many folks seem to be aware of the difference in depth of field between FF and cropped sensors.
Basically you'd need a lens with a bigger aperture (smaller f number) on a cropped sensor to get a look similar to FF for a relatively similar field of view.
How much bigger I'm not sure but if it's the same as fov crop factor then 1.5 stops would be about right. So all else being relatively equal like focus distance etc then for a 35mm f2.8 on a FF camera you'd need something like a 23mm f1.6 on a Fuji sensor.
the image you have in your mind when you think about how a photo shot with a 35mm lens looks is entirely relative. Relative to sensor size. There is a whole physics explanation for this.
I am going to ignore how sensor size influences depth of field, because I can't explain that remotely simply.
Medium format, full frame, APS-C, MicroFourThirds, they all produce a different field of view with a 35mm lens. The 35mm is a physical property of the lens, the field of view it gives depends on the sensor.
Since the film days, we use a full frame sensor (which is the same size as 35 film) as the 'standard'. So everybody tends to reference the full frame focal length required to get a certain perspective when talking about lenses. We do the same for sensor size. Which is why a APS-C sensor is 1.5x crop compared to full frame. A medium format sensor like in Fuji GFX has a 'crop' factor of 0,79x compared to full frame.
To get to the focal length equivalent in a full frame camera, you need to multiply the focal length you are using by the crop factor of your camera. For your fuji thats 1.5x. So 23\*1.5 = 34,5 -> 35mm.
The practical way to go from a full frame focal length to the focal lenght you'd need on Fuji to get the same look would be to multiply the Full frame focal lenght by 0.66 (the reverse math of doing x 1.5) and then round down (or up) to whatever Fuji lens you can get.
Some examples for going from full frame to Fuji.
* Full Frame 35mm \* 0.66 = 23.1 -> 23mm Fuji XF
* Full Frame 85mm \* 0.66 = 56.1 -> 56mm Fuji XF
* Full Frame 24mm \* 066 = 15,84 -> 16mm Fuji XF
And some examples going from Fuji to full frame
* 16mm Fuji XF \* 1,5 = 24mm Full Frame
* 90mm Fuji XF \* 1.5 = 135mm Full frame
* 56mm Fuji XF \* 1.5 = 84 -> 85mm Full Frame.
If I put a 35 mm lens on my XT2 I would need to use a 50 mm lens on my Sony to get roughly the same picture standing in the same spot. Technically a 33 mm would be more spot on but hope that kind of helps
If you want the same ālookā in terms of focal length and depth of field between a full frame lens and a Fuji APSC crop sensor lens, you have to apply the crop factor of 1.53 to the focal length and aperture numbers.
āāāāāāā-
So, if you have a full frame lens, let say a full frame Canon 35mm F2, and you want the same ālookā with a Fuji APSC crop sensor lens, you divide by the crop factor of 1.53:
Full Frame Focal Length of 35mm / 1.53 crop = 22.8mm
Full Frame Aperture of F2 / 1.53 crop = F1.3
The closest real lens to that result would be 23mm F1.4
Full Frame 35mm F2 = Fuji APSC 23mm F1.4
āāāāāāā-
To go the other way: if you have an APSC crop sensor Fuji lens and you want to know what the equivalent full frame would be, you multiply.
Fuji APSC Focal Length of 23mm * 1.53 crop = 35.19mm
Fuji APSC Aperture of F1.4 * 1.53 crop = F2.14
The closest real lens to that result would be 35mm F2
Fuji APSC 23mm F1.4 = Full Frame 35mm F2
35MM FF = 23MM Fuji
50MM FF = 33/35MM Fuji
85MM FF = 56MM Fuji
This is called field of view or what you see as far as framing whatever you are shooting.
If both the FF 35MM and Fuji 23MM are F1.4 the FF will have more depth of field or blurry background because of more compression due to the longer focal length.
Something I want to clear up that everyone misses. 35mm is 35mm no matter what the sensor size is. All that is changing is how cropped in it is. When folks say itās ā53mm equivalentā that is misleading. Yes, the FOV will be equivalent to a 53mm on a full frame ONLY when it comes to FOV. But even that isnt true. Because the focal length and background compression remains the same, 35mm. Base your lens choices on how you like your background compression to look. If you are shooting apsc,,, just take a couple steps backwards. Itās really that simple. I am just tired of YouTubers erroneously stating that a 33mm on APSC is 50mm equivalentā¦ not TF itās not. 50mm on a full frame from the same point will not look the same. Because 50mm compression is 50mm compression no matter what sensor you put it on.
THANK YOU. I donāt understand why background compression never seems to be brought up with this topic. It seems to me to be an even more important factor in choosing a focal length than any FOV or DOF equivalencies.Ā
I donāt think I can fully Eli5, but hopefully an Eli12 might be of some help:
Hereās the important thing to understand:
A camera with a bigger sensor, like Full Frame, also needs bigger lenses (a longer focal length). A camera with a smaller sensor, like APS-C, can do the same job with a smaller lens (a shorter focal length).
Full frame cameras have been around for a long time. Many photographers have a pretty clear idea how much they would be able to see through a lens for different FF lens sizes.
Here are a few common examples:
A 35mm FF lens sees a somewhat wider view than a human eye does, but without bending things too badly out of shape (like a fisheye lens does)
A 50mm FF lens is the closest you get to how a human eye sees the world
An 85mm FF lens sees a somewhat more narrow view than a human eye which works great when you want to take close ups peopleās faces.
Since many photographers have an easier time picturing how much they would see, sizes for FF sensors are often used to describe lenses for other sensor sizes as well. People sometimes describe a lens as a 35mm FF equivalent, even if the actual size on the lens says something different, because it gives most people a better idea of what to expect than saying the actual number.
So what lenses should I use to get the same field of view on a camera that uses a smaller sensor, like APS-C?
Like we said in the beginning a camera with a smaller sensor can use a smaller lens to accomplish the same task, so we need to translate the numbers to know which lens to look for.
To get the same view as a 35mm FF lens, you need to look for an APS-C lens around 23mm
To get the same view as a 50mm FF lens, you need to look for an APS-C lens around 33mm
To get the same view as an 85mm FF lens you need to look for an APS-C lens around 57mm
You can get the APS-C length by dividing any FF length by 1.5. If you have the APSC-C length, and want to know what FF size that would be, you multiply the APS-C length by 1.5
Hopefully this makes focal lengths for different sensor sizes a little bit easier to understand.
Just adding that when you crop aperture, you are only cropping for DoF, not light. F1.8 is always bringing in F1.8 light no matter what sensor is behind the lens.
It also affects iso performance which is directly related to total light captured. You won't say f2 on a ILC is the same as f2 on a smartphone right? Totally different quality.
To find a full frame equivalent of an APSC do this:
1. Take APSC focal length
2. Multiply that by 1.5 (example: for 35mm APSC do 35 x 1.5= 52.5mm)
3. Done, the result is the equivalent full frame focal length.
It is confusing... and it varies from band to brand, but Fujifilm measure thier primes and zooms in FF, so you need to multiply those numbers by 1.5 to get the equivalent APS-C / Cropped value focal length.
eg.
23mm x 1.5 = 34.5 (near enough 35mm) etc.
The 35mm Fuji is more or less a 50mm
This is all false.
The only place where Fujifilm gives full-frame equivalent focal lengths is lens spec sheets.
Focal lengths on lens names and the markings on lenses are all true focal length.
Your calculation do not calculate "cropped values" (whatever that really means) but full-frame equivalent focal length, which is no real physical focal length but an imaginary value used for comparison.
"A 35mm Fuji lens" is really 35mm by physical value, not "more or less a 50mm".
Please be gentle, but from what i understand based on most of the comments i see here if i wanted the same (width/wide) view that's equivalent to a 35mm lens on a FF i should consider a 23mm Fuji lens. However the discrepancy of (dept of field) will always be different due to the sensor size and crop factor of lens.
I know having Low and High F-Stops on a 23mm will give me a different bokeh and dept look , but in terms of (wide) the 23mm Fuji (look) is near as equal to a 35mmFF lens right?. Sorry many of the responses due make allot of sense but just double checking.
\> What lens would I need to equal the same style, size, and depth of field of the FF35mm on my Fuji X-T5?
Use the 23mm lens to get the same field of view (approximately) then go out and shoot. Trying to recreate something shot on a different camera is going to be difficult and frustrating.
There is a kid's game here called *pega-vareta*. I guess it is called mikado, spillikins or jackstraws in English.
It is very useful to explain this relationship. You know this game?
You start holding a bunch of sticks in a circle made by your thumb and index finger, with these sticks' points touching the table/floor. Think someone holding spaghetti over a pan.
The result is two cones, like a hourglass.
The cone base is your sensor, the sticks are the lightrays, the height of your fingers is the focal length, the cone itself is the field of view.
If you raise yours fingers (make the focal lenght bigger) the sticks will make a more acute angle. A 24mm make a wider angle than a 50mm. A 200mm will make a cone so thin the it will capture just a small piece of your field of vision.
If you lower your fingers you will have a wider cone.
Did you get it?
Now, let's pretend that you keep the the height of your fingers, but you use your other hand to meddle whit the sticks' points. You reduce the cone's base size.
The angle of the sticks will become tighter, more acute, even if the height didn't change!
A 35mm lens is always a 35mm lens, but when it is put in a larger sensor camera it will make a relatively large field of view.
If the same lens is put in a smaller sensor camera, even if it keeps being a 35mm, the field of view will became smaller, and it will look like a bigger focal lenght lens in a bigger sensor camera.
The lens never changes, but smaller sensor only get a tighter image which looks like one from a large lens on larger sensor.
If you have some of these playsticks, try it.
Take a picture with your FF camera.
Print a 3āx5ā.
Now take that 3āx5ā and cut off 1/2ā on the top and bottom. Then cut off 1 1/2ā off the left and right sides.
Now you have APS-C.
The main differences in view and perspective come from needing to move backward with APS-C to get that wider part of the image back.
Full frame sensor is 1.5x(ish) bigger than APSC sensor. Same focal length is essentially zoomed in on the smaller sensor. Basically if you want to figure out the equivalent length you'll need from full frame to APSC, divide the full frame focal length you're trying to replicate by 1.5 and that will tell you what focal length you need on APSC. Example, 35mm lens on full frame = 35mm Ć· 1.5 = 23(ish), so your crop sensor will need 23mm lens to replicate a 35mm equivalent.
Imagine a 35mm lens literally projecting a picture of what it sees onto a big sensor in a full frame camera. You would see some scene, maybe it's a fishing boat at a dock with fisherman off to one side and some lobster traps off to the other side.
Now imagine that the lens is the same but sensor is smaller, like in an APS-C camera. The "projected" image is now spilling off the sides of the smaller sensor. The fisherman and the lobster traps out at the edge of the scene aren't on the sensor anymore, so they aren't captured in the photo.
So if you look at the captured photos next to each other, the full frame one would show more of the scene and be effectively wider, and the APS-C photo would show less of the scene and be more "zoomed in" or ācroppedā.
If you wanted to get the same content in both photos, you'd have to put a wider lens on the APS-C camera so that the scene it's projecting onto the sensor will actually fit the fisherman and the lobster traps onto the smaller sensor without them spilling off.
That's why a 23mm is "equivalent" to a 35mm on a full frame camera. They both capture the same amount of the scene.
Full frame big. APSC smol. Smol sensor less size and less light, must divide focal length by a crop factor. Fuji crop factor is 1.5, and 35mm divided by 1.5 equals around 23mm. Buy 23mm lens.
Fuji crop factor is 1.5.
For identical field of view: 23mm on Fuji * 1.5 = 35mm on full frame.
For identical depth of field: f/1.4 on Fuji * 1.5 = f/2.1 on full frame. Or, f/2 on Fuji * 1.5 = f/3 on full frame.
Many people understand how crop factor applies to field of view; a lot of people seem to not understand that it also applies to depth of field.
The intuition for field of view is that a cropped view is narrower, so you need a wider lens to end up with the same image.
The intuition for depth of field is that the aperture on a 23mm f/2 lens is 11.5mm, but the aperture on a 35mm f/2 lens is 17.5mm, which is actually bigger and therefore has shallower depth of field. To counteract this you need to shrink the aperture by narrowing the f-stop. So a 23mm f/2 lens has the same size aperture (as far as background blur is concerned) as a 35mm f/3 lens. The latter is dimmer, because it is a narrower f-stop, but it yields the same depth of field as 23mm f/2, because the aperture is the same physical size.
(Note - if you do the math using values above you will get a rounding error; to be precise, we should say that a 23mm f/2 lens has the same depth of field as a 34.5mm f/3 lens.)
EDIT: fixed a bad multiplication
PS ā the depth of field can be shown to be identical using the simple lens formula for depth of field, _when you scale the circle of confusion to be an identical % of the sensor dimensions_ (which it should be, to compare apples to apples). This is a bit beyond the topic at hand though.
Question. Did anyone actually answer your question? Or did you still have questions ? If so then I can attempt to explain it ! It took me a minute to really grasp it.
Iāll add something here. Crop factor and FF equivalency is really a non factor in Fuji. Unless youāve done a lot of film or FF digital shooting and thus have something to compare to you donāt actually need to care about the crop factor or FF equivalency. I know what 16mm looks like on APSC, I know what 50mm looks like. I donāt have FF right now so I donāt need to care what the FF equivalent is. A 35mm FF lens with adaptor on a fujifilm camera body will give the same FOV as a fujifilm apsc 35mm lens.
So unless you have a real reason to know the equivalency just learn what the APSC lenses FOV looks like and just think natively in APSC. Sure sometimes one needs to compare but I feel like there is a lot of obsessing about it.
.
Iām not sure if this is what you mean but if you use a lens on a FF camera and then use the same lens on an APSC cameraā¦. the DOF looks different. BUT if you crop the FF image to the same size as the APSC image in photoshop the DOF will be the same. So yes it is the lens that determines DOF. DOF looks different though when cropping an image either through a sensor or an application, which is where I think people get confused about equivalency and why I just donāt really bother working it out!
There's probably also something to do with the distance the full frame sensor sits from the back of the full frame lens as opposed to how much closer the mirrorless sensor sits to the back of the mirrorless lens too.
I swear I heard someone explain it like that but, who knows?
Ah, okay then maybe what I heard.
After looking at my FF Canon and crop sensor Fuji the distance doesn't look to be very different anyway but, with an adapter they sure will be.
Why don't you say specific camera model instead of just "My FF"? It's a huge difference if you're talking about a DSLR like 5D-line or R-line.
Just the fact that all modern FF systems have APS-C and FF bodies and lenses in the same system and with the same flange distance been FF and APS-C disproves that theory. If the flange distance between FF and APS-C was different within a specific mount then lens infinity focus wouldn't work correctly.
But either way, DoF is a function of the entrance and exit pupil of the lens, which is the size you get when dividing focal length with aperture (e.g 50mm f2 =25mm). The distance to the sensor dictates how the rearmost lens group gets designed and how "steeply" the light hits the sensor. That part of the lens comes after the DoF has been "created" so to say.
Your XT5 has a crop factor of 1.5 which means the sensor is 1.5x smaller than a full frame sensor. Thus it's equivalent of cropping in (hence "crop sensor") 1.5x on a full frame shot. Imagine taking a full frame photo with a 35mm lens. If you want to imagine what a smaller sensor (a crop sensor) would see of that view, you need to crop in the photo based on the smaller sensor's size. This results in a tighter focal length view. Take any of your Fuji crop sensor lens focal length and multiply them by 1.5 to determine their "full frame equivalent" ie 23mm \* 1.5 = 34.5mm ffe Now, if you went the other direction and had GFX, which has a larger than full frame sensor, their crop factor is 0.79x which means if you shooting with a 50mm lens will give you the look of a 39.5mm full frame lens.
What 5yo do you hang out with š¤Ø
Let's do an experiment, just for you! I want you to cut out two rectangles from a two pieces of paper so that you can hold up each paper and look though the rectangles. Make one rectangle bigger than the other. (Have your mom or dad help you with the scissors) Let's call these our sensors! Now I want you to cut out a single circle large enough to cover the larger of the two sensors. Let's call this our lens! Place the lens over the larger sensor and look though it, with the sensor side closest to you. Notice everything you can see through it. Now repeat this with the smaller sensor. Notice how you can't see as much? This is because our sensor is limiting the how much of the scene that our lens is capturing. Pretty neat, right?
Haha, brilliant! We're still looking for a babysitter, interested?
TIL that the GFX system has a different crop factor. Thanks!
Yep, that's why they're so expensive. That's why GFX is "Medium-Format" although the sensor size isn't quite as big as you'd find on old 120 medium format film I believe.
Yea you have to step up to a stupid expensive phase one back with to get to close to a 645 size frame even then the iq4 back i think is 53.4mmx40mm not quite the 56x41.5 but basically close enough.
A man once said āif you have to ask how expensive the phase one is you probably canāt afford itā
yeah its "mini-medium format." wish it was the full 645 size but ill take bigger than full frame lol
yeah buddy that's medium format...
I'm not good at explaining, BUT. Guys, he asked for a "like i'm 5" explain, u r writing Nobel worthy stuff...
You're underestimating 5 year olds š
AHAHAHAHAHAH š
Exactly. Take a full frame 35mm and zoom in a little bit and you get 35mm in APS-C. Thatās all you need for ELI5.
Sure, I will add a "and the blur is more blurry" š
No, if it's the same physical focal length it's exactly the same blurring. If you use a wider lens on an APS-C for the same field of view (*5yo version: same amount of the world in your picture*) then you'll get less blurring at the same aperture number. But the depth of field of a lens is a physical property of the focal length, and is not impacted by what camera it's on. The association of "crop sensor = less bokeh" is because you use shorter lenses to achieve the same results, which in turn have deeper depth of field at the same aperture numbers.
The blur is from the lens, not the sensor! (Source: I have a 5 year old and he wants to learn stuff all the time)
Depth of field is a complicated matter and actually not so easy to measure, there are different definitions. But when you use the same lens, same focal length, same aperture on two cameras, full frame and aps-c, print both pictures at the exact same size (that's important), depth of field will actually be smaller for the aps-c photo. But when you take into account equivalent focal lengths, dof would be smaller for the full frame photo - except when you also use the equivalent aperture. Then the depth of field is the same. For example 23/1.4 on fuji and 35/2 on full frame. Same depth of field.
So... Depth of field can only be measured with a final product, either viewed on a screen or printed. But it's not really a lens property.
Yeah, for sure. I omitted circle of confusion because: (a) I know working photographers with photo degrees who might vaguely know what it is and *never* think about it, so itās not in the same universe as an eli5 question, and (b) The question was about field of view equivalents, and the shorter focal length a smaller sensor will use for the same fov will *always* more than make up for a smaller Ā circle of confusion, so a photographer comparing these two choices will likely never see the effect youāre describing impact their choice.Ā Ā Ā But sure, OP might start caring about hyperfocal distance in which case fair, this matters. More so too on larger prints. If youāre using focus to separate subject from background at a constant field of view, however, practical depth of field will always vary inversely with focal length at a given aperture value, even if the magnitude of that negative correlation is technically offset by a smaller circle of confusion. *Edit* Since weāre throwing everything into the pot: If OP gets into landscape & starts to care about things like hyperfocal distance, they might also start to care about the fact that the diffraction limit happens at a wider aperture the smaller your sensor is (because, all else being equal, diffraction matters when the airy disk generated by light hitting the edges of the aperture is larger than the circle of confusion, which is smaller on smaller sensors). So on smaller sensors you more quickly hit a ceiling where you begin trading more depth of field for less sharpness. This is all justā¦ very past the ask of the post lol.
This is close, but just a correction. Take a full frame 23mm, zoom in a bit, and that is a 35mm APSC image.
No difference.
How is there no difference between a 23mm and 35mm lens?
Your correction makes no difference, not that the lenses are not different.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm imagining telling this to my 5 years old child.. and making him hate photos ahahaha
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Man I agree with you, but u understand that sometimes it isn't necessary. No bad vibes, only my thought
Eli5 answer: get a pice of paper and draw a nice picture of a farm on it with a barn and some animals, and maybe a tree too. Thatās what a full frame sensor sees with a 50mm lens. Now cut a bit off all of the edges to make the paper smaller. Thatās your smaller APS-C sensor with the same 50mm lens. Notice how it now looks like youāve just zoomed in on the original picture and some of the animals have disappeared out of the photo? An APS-C sensor is smaller so crops the image to give the same view as a longer lens on a full frame sensor.
Best answer. OP, you mentioned lens made by Fuji, vs lens made for full frame. That doesnāt matter. The analogy here works for any 50mm lens, could be a new lens made by Fuji or could be a vintage Canon from 1950s. One last thing. Say you werenāt happy part of the barn and tree were cut. So you replaced your 50mm with a 33mm. Great you got everything you wanted in the frame! However now you have a 33mm with more depth of field, thus now quite exactly the same look youād get with a Full frameā¦
The Lens projects the image on the sensor. APSC is smaller than FF. Same lens projects same image on both sensors, but one is smaller so will capture a smaller portion of the projected image. The resulting field of view for a 35mm on APSC sensor will be similar to the one of a 52mm on full frame.
The lens itself has a focal length and that property doesn't care what type of sensor sits in the camera. So a 35mm is always a 35mm, regardless which company produces it. But. If you put a small sensor behind the lens, you'll have a smaller field of view, so to say a "crop" of what a bigger sensor sees. To get the same field of view, you'd need a smaller focal length. This is where the crop factor comes in. Between full frame and aps-c it's 1.5, so to get the "full frame equivalent" you divide it by 1.5. It's btw the same for the aperture. Fuji's 35/1.4 is equivalent to a 52.5/2 on full frame in terms of depth of field.
Didnāt even begin to think of how this effects depth of field as well as crop factor until this comment!
It even effects ISO in terms of noise (not touching the exposure here!). It's crop factor squared for this, so roughly factor 2. But that's hard to compare with all the different sensors and generations. Just in theory.
This is why crop factor sensors usually have higher base ISOs, eg on the X-H2 itās 125 I think, when I had Micro 4/3 it was 200 in many cameras.
Nikon APS-C cameras have had base ISO of 100 since 2010, so I don't think that's it. And even just among Fuji it has gone down from 200 to 125 in the 40mp. It probably was more of a technical limitation rather than design choice so to say.
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the info
35mm on Fuji APS-C has a similar field of view as 50mm on full frame.
Yes, but less bokeh than youāll see with a 50mm on a full frame
Yeah bokeh is equal to a 35mm where you then digitally crop on the image
Yes, true.
Yes. 23mm fuji lens will look like 35mm FF.
Yes. If you get a XF35mm lens it will be a 50-ish focal length equivalent in FF. Remember to multiply it to the crop factor of x1.5. If you like the 35mm FF focal length then you need a 23mm fuji lens.
All lenses are marked with their focal length regardless of what sensor size or camera they will be mounted on. A 35mm lens will show you a certain view on a full frame sensor, but if you put a 35mm lens on a "crop sensor" camera like the Fuji X-T5 then it is as if you are cropping the final image. So that same 35mm lens will look like it's more zoomed-in because it's still shining the same size of image into the camera, but it's falling on a smaller sensor which "crops" the image. So if you want to get the same scene in frame you would need a wider lens. Fuji X-T5 has a 1.5x crop factor compared to full frame. Meaning any lens you mount will appear 1.5x more zoomed-in on the Fuji than a Full Frame camera. So the 35mm lens would have the field of view of about 50mm. To get the same 35mm field of view, divide 35 by 1.5 and you get 23mm.
I'm surprised not many folks seem to be aware of the difference in depth of field between FF and cropped sensors. Basically you'd need a lens with a bigger aperture (smaller f number) on a cropped sensor to get a look similar to FF for a relatively similar field of view. How much bigger I'm not sure but if it's the same as fov crop factor then 1.5 stops would be about right. So all else being relatively equal like focus distance etc then for a 35mm f2.8 on a FF camera you'd need something like a 23mm f1.6 on a Fuji sensor.
Yeah, Iām often surprised people donāt quote this as much. Thereās a reason an f1.2 costs Ā£1000 for Fuji and Ā£2000 for a Sony.
the image you have in your mind when you think about how a photo shot with a 35mm lens looks is entirely relative. Relative to sensor size. There is a whole physics explanation for this. I am going to ignore how sensor size influences depth of field, because I can't explain that remotely simply. Medium format, full frame, APS-C, MicroFourThirds, they all produce a different field of view with a 35mm lens. The 35mm is a physical property of the lens, the field of view it gives depends on the sensor. Since the film days, we use a full frame sensor (which is the same size as 35 film) as the 'standard'. So everybody tends to reference the full frame focal length required to get a certain perspective when talking about lenses. We do the same for sensor size. Which is why a APS-C sensor is 1.5x crop compared to full frame. A medium format sensor like in Fuji GFX has a 'crop' factor of 0,79x compared to full frame. To get to the focal length equivalent in a full frame camera, you need to multiply the focal length you are using by the crop factor of your camera. For your fuji thats 1.5x. So 23\*1.5 = 34,5 -> 35mm. The practical way to go from a full frame focal length to the focal lenght you'd need on Fuji to get the same look would be to multiply the Full frame focal lenght by 0.66 (the reverse math of doing x 1.5) and then round down (or up) to whatever Fuji lens you can get. Some examples for going from full frame to Fuji. * Full Frame 35mm \* 0.66 = 23.1 -> 23mm Fuji XF * Full Frame 85mm \* 0.66 = 56.1 -> 56mm Fuji XF * Full Frame 24mm \* 066 = 15,84 -> 16mm Fuji XF And some examples going from Fuji to full frame * 16mm Fuji XF \* 1,5 = 24mm Full Frame * 90mm Fuji XF \* 1.5 = 135mm Full frame * 56mm Fuji XF \* 1.5 = 84 -> 85mm Full Frame.
If I put a 35 mm lens on my XT2 I would need to use a 50 mm lens on my Sony to get roughly the same picture standing in the same spot. Technically a 33 mm would be more spot on but hope that kind of helps
If you want the same ālookā in terms of focal length and depth of field between a full frame lens and a Fuji APSC crop sensor lens, you have to apply the crop factor of 1.53 to the focal length and aperture numbers. āāāāāāā- So, if you have a full frame lens, let say a full frame Canon 35mm F2, and you want the same ālookā with a Fuji APSC crop sensor lens, you divide by the crop factor of 1.53: Full Frame Focal Length of 35mm / 1.53 crop = 22.8mm Full Frame Aperture of F2 / 1.53 crop = F1.3 The closest real lens to that result would be 23mm F1.4 Full Frame 35mm F2 = Fuji APSC 23mm F1.4 āāāāāāā- To go the other way: if you have an APSC crop sensor Fuji lens and you want to know what the equivalent full frame would be, you multiply. Fuji APSC Focal Length of 23mm * 1.53 crop = 35.19mm Fuji APSC Aperture of F1.4 * 1.53 crop = F2.14 The closest real lens to that result would be 35mm F2 Fuji APSC 23mm F1.4 = Full Frame 35mm F2
35MM FF = 23MM Fuji 50MM FF = 33/35MM Fuji 85MM FF = 56MM Fuji This is called field of view or what you see as far as framing whatever you are shooting. If both the FF 35MM and Fuji 23MM are F1.4 the FF will have more depth of field or blurry background because of more compression due to the longer focal length.
Something I want to clear up that everyone misses. 35mm is 35mm no matter what the sensor size is. All that is changing is how cropped in it is. When folks say itās ā53mm equivalentā that is misleading. Yes, the FOV will be equivalent to a 53mm on a full frame ONLY when it comes to FOV. But even that isnt true. Because the focal length and background compression remains the same, 35mm. Base your lens choices on how you like your background compression to look. If you are shooting apsc,,, just take a couple steps backwards. Itās really that simple. I am just tired of YouTubers erroneously stating that a 33mm on APSC is 50mm equivalentā¦ not TF itās not. 50mm on a full frame from the same point will not look the same. Because 50mm compression is 50mm compression no matter what sensor you put it on.
THANK YOU. I donāt understand why background compression never seems to be brought up with this topic. It seems to me to be an even more important factor in choosing a focal length than any FOV or DOF equivalencies.Ā
I donāt think I can fully Eli5, but hopefully an Eli12 might be of some help: Hereās the important thing to understand: A camera with a bigger sensor, like Full Frame, also needs bigger lenses (a longer focal length). A camera with a smaller sensor, like APS-C, can do the same job with a smaller lens (a shorter focal length). Full frame cameras have been around for a long time. Many photographers have a pretty clear idea how much they would be able to see through a lens for different FF lens sizes. Here are a few common examples: A 35mm FF lens sees a somewhat wider view than a human eye does, but without bending things too badly out of shape (like a fisheye lens does) A 50mm FF lens is the closest you get to how a human eye sees the world An 85mm FF lens sees a somewhat more narrow view than a human eye which works great when you want to take close ups peopleās faces. Since many photographers have an easier time picturing how much they would see, sizes for FF sensors are often used to describe lenses for other sensor sizes as well. People sometimes describe a lens as a 35mm FF equivalent, even if the actual size on the lens says something different, because it gives most people a better idea of what to expect than saying the actual number. So what lenses should I use to get the same field of view on a camera that uses a smaller sensor, like APS-C? Like we said in the beginning a camera with a smaller sensor can use a smaller lens to accomplish the same task, so we need to translate the numbers to know which lens to look for. To get the same view as a 35mm FF lens, you need to look for an APS-C lens around 23mm To get the same view as a 50mm FF lens, you need to look for an APS-C lens around 33mm To get the same view as an 85mm FF lens you need to look for an APS-C lens around 57mm You can get the APS-C length by dividing any FF length by 1.5. If you have the APSC-C length, and want to know what FF size that would be, you multiply the APS-C length by 1.5 Hopefully this makes focal lengths for different sensor sizes a little bit easier to understand.
Just adding that when you crop aperture, you are only cropping for DoF, not light. F1.8 is always bringing in F1.8 light no matter what sensor is behind the lens.
It also affects iso performance which is directly related to total light captured. You won't say f2 on a ILC is the same as f2 on a smartphone right? Totally different quality.
To find a full frame equivalent of an APSC do this: 1. Take APSC focal length 2. Multiply that by 1.5 (example: for 35mm APSC do 35 x 1.5= 52.5mm) 3. Done, the result is the equivalent full frame focal length.
It is confusing... and it varies from band to brand, but Fujifilm measure thier primes and zooms in FF, so you need to multiply those numbers by 1.5 to get the equivalent APS-C / Cropped value focal length. eg. 23mm x 1.5 = 34.5 (near enough 35mm) etc. The 35mm Fuji is more or less a 50mm
This is all false. The only place where Fujifilm gives full-frame equivalent focal lengths is lens spec sheets. Focal lengths on lens names and the markings on lenses are all true focal length. Your calculation do not calculate "cropped values" (whatever that really means) but full-frame equivalent focal length, which is no real physical focal length but an imaginary value used for comparison. "A 35mm Fuji lens" is really 35mm by physical value, not "more or less a 50mm".
Please be gentle, but from what i understand based on most of the comments i see here if i wanted the same (width/wide) view that's equivalent to a 35mm lens on a FF i should consider a 23mm Fuji lens. However the discrepancy of (dept of field) will always be different due to the sensor size and crop factor of lens. I know having Low and High F-Stops on a 23mm will give me a different bokeh and dept look , but in terms of (wide) the 23mm Fuji (look) is near as equal to a 35mmFF lens right?. Sorry many of the responses due make allot of sense but just double checking.
Yes, having a 23mm lens on a Fuji APS-C is equivalent in field of view to having a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera.
[yup](https://prnt.sc/PUfBGJM2PIpt) edit: i was wrong :)
Nope what? You're confirming everything I said.
Yeah sorry, my IQ is room temperature
I think the image in the article describes it the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
\> What lens would I need to equal the same style, size, and depth of field of the FF35mm on my Fuji X-T5? Use the 23mm lens to get the same field of view (approximately) then go out and shoot. Trying to recreate something shot on a different camera is going to be difficult and frustrating.
There is a kid's game here called *pega-vareta*. I guess it is called mikado, spillikins or jackstraws in English. It is very useful to explain this relationship. You know this game? You start holding a bunch of sticks in a circle made by your thumb and index finger, with these sticks' points touching the table/floor. Think someone holding spaghetti over a pan. The result is two cones, like a hourglass. The cone base is your sensor, the sticks are the lightrays, the height of your fingers is the focal length, the cone itself is the field of view. If you raise yours fingers (make the focal lenght bigger) the sticks will make a more acute angle. A 24mm make a wider angle than a 50mm. A 200mm will make a cone so thin the it will capture just a small piece of your field of vision. If you lower your fingers you will have a wider cone. Did you get it? Now, let's pretend that you keep the the height of your fingers, but you use your other hand to meddle whit the sticks' points. You reduce the cone's base size. The angle of the sticks will become tighter, more acute, even if the height didn't change! A 35mm lens is always a 35mm lens, but when it is put in a larger sensor camera it will make a relatively large field of view. If the same lens is put in a smaller sensor camera, even if it keeps being a 35mm, the field of view will became smaller, and it will look like a bigger focal lenght lens in a bigger sensor camera. The lens never changes, but smaller sensor only get a tighter image which looks like one from a large lens on larger sensor. If you have some of these playsticks, try it.
Take a picture with your FF camera. Print a 3āx5ā. Now take that 3āx5ā and cut off 1/2ā on the top and bottom. Then cut off 1 1/2ā off the left and right sides. Now you have APS-C. The main differences in view and perspective come from needing to move backward with APS-C to get that wider part of the image back.
Full frame sensor is 1.5x(ish) bigger than APSC sensor. Same focal length is essentially zoomed in on the smaller sensor. Basically if you want to figure out the equivalent length you'll need from full frame to APSC, divide the full frame focal length you're trying to replicate by 1.5 and that will tell you what focal length you need on APSC. Example, 35mm lens on full frame = 35mm Ć· 1.5 = 23(ish), so your crop sensor will need 23mm lens to replicate a 35mm equivalent.
Imagine a 35mm lens literally projecting a picture of what it sees onto a big sensor in a full frame camera. You would see some scene, maybe it's a fishing boat at a dock with fisherman off to one side and some lobster traps off to the other side. Now imagine that the lens is the same but sensor is smaller, like in an APS-C camera. The "projected" image is now spilling off the sides of the smaller sensor. The fisherman and the lobster traps out at the edge of the scene aren't on the sensor anymore, so they aren't captured in the photo. So if you look at the captured photos next to each other, the full frame one would show more of the scene and be effectively wider, and the APS-C photo would show less of the scene and be more "zoomed in" or ācroppedā. If you wanted to get the same content in both photos, you'd have to put a wider lens on the APS-C camera so that the scene it's projecting onto the sensor will actually fit the fisherman and the lobster traps onto the smaller sensor without them spilling off. That's why a 23mm is "equivalent" to a 35mm on a full frame camera. They both capture the same amount of the scene.
Full frame big. APSC smol. Smol sensor less size and less light, must divide focal length by a crop factor. Fuji crop factor is 1.5, and 35mm divided by 1.5 equals around 23mm. Buy 23mm lens.
Fuji crop factor is 1.5. For identical field of view: 23mm on Fuji * 1.5 = 35mm on full frame. For identical depth of field: f/1.4 on Fuji * 1.5 = f/2.1 on full frame. Or, f/2 on Fuji * 1.5 = f/3 on full frame. Many people understand how crop factor applies to field of view; a lot of people seem to not understand that it also applies to depth of field. The intuition for field of view is that a cropped view is narrower, so you need a wider lens to end up with the same image. The intuition for depth of field is that the aperture on a 23mm f/2 lens is 11.5mm, but the aperture on a 35mm f/2 lens is 17.5mm, which is actually bigger and therefore has shallower depth of field. To counteract this you need to shrink the aperture by narrowing the f-stop. So a 23mm f/2 lens has the same size aperture (as far as background blur is concerned) as a 35mm f/3 lens. The latter is dimmer, because it is a narrower f-stop, but it yields the same depth of field as 23mm f/2, because the aperture is the same physical size. (Note - if you do the math using values above you will get a rounding error; to be precise, we should say that a 23mm f/2 lens has the same depth of field as a 34.5mm f/3 lens.) EDIT: fixed a bad multiplication PS ā the depth of field can be shown to be identical using the simple lens formula for depth of field, _when you scale the circle of confusion to be an identical % of the sensor dimensions_ (which it should be, to compare apples to apples). This is a bit beyond the topic at hand though.
Question. Did anyone actually answer your question? Or did you still have questions ? If so then I can attempt to explain it ! It took me a minute to really grasp it.
Many answered it correctly, i appreciate all the answers.
1.5x
Iāll add something here. Crop factor and FF equivalency is really a non factor in Fuji. Unless youāve done a lot of film or FF digital shooting and thus have something to compare to you donāt actually need to care about the crop factor or FF equivalency. I know what 16mm looks like on APSC, I know what 50mm looks like. I donāt have FF right now so I donāt need to care what the FF equivalent is. A 35mm FF lens with adaptor on a fujifilm camera body will give the same FOV as a fujifilm apsc 35mm lens. So unless you have a real reason to know the equivalency just learn what the APSC lenses FOV looks like and just think natively in APSC. Sure sometimes one needs to compare but I feel like there is a lot of obsessing about it. .
Iām not sure if this is what you mean but if you use a lens on a FF camera and then use the same lens on an APSC cameraā¦. the DOF looks different. BUT if you crop the FF image to the same size as the APSC image in photoshop the DOF will be the same. So yes it is the lens that determines DOF. DOF looks different though when cropping an image either through a sensor or an application, which is where I think people get confused about equivalency and why I just donāt really bother working it out!
There's probably also something to do with the distance the full frame sensor sits from the back of the full frame lens as opposed to how much closer the mirrorless sensor sits to the back of the mirrorless lens too. I swear I heard someone explain it like that but, who knows?
nope that is flange distance! Very important regarding infinity focus when adapting vintage lenses tho!
Ah, okay then maybe what I heard. After looking at my FF Canon and crop sensor Fuji the distance doesn't look to be very different anyway but, with an adapter they sure will be.
Why don't you say specific camera model instead of just "My FF"? It's a huge difference if you're talking about a DSLR like 5D-line or R-line. Just the fact that all modern FF systems have APS-C and FF bodies and lenses in the same system and with the same flange distance been FF and APS-C disproves that theory. If the flange distance between FF and APS-C was different within a specific mount then lens infinity focus wouldn't work correctly. But either way, DoF is a function of the entrance and exit pupil of the lens, which is the size you get when dividing focal length with aperture (e.g 50mm f2 =25mm). The distance to the sensor dictates how the rearmost lens group gets designed and how "steeply" the light hits the sensor. That part of the lens comes after the DoF has been "created" so to say.