Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'crop factor'.
Found 2 results
I just watched this video by Tony Northrup about full frame vs smaller lenses. He makes some good points about the larger lenses collecting more light due to 'basic physics' But this also has me wondering about M series lenses which traditionally have very good quality ratings despite their small size - where is the trade off? I feel like I am missing something in the way that lens size applies to a rangefinder?
When putting an S lens on an SL (through the yet to be released adapter), how does that 'affect' (equivalent) focal length and maximum aperture? When putting an 'APS-C lens' (e.g. T lens) on a full frame camera, one adds a crop factor of 1.5 and aperture remains unchanged. I would have expected with an S lens on the SL the reverse to happen (crop factor about 0.7 and aperture unchanged)? However, I saw a video of a Leica technical expert who claimed that if you put a 100mm 2.0 S lens on the SL, in effect you have a 100m/1.2 lens. That sounds a bit strange. Anyone having any thoughts on this?