Crop-factor question

[Durbs]

Something I've always wondered about, wonder if there's a quick answer.

I get that my Canon is a 1.6x crop relative to full frame, so focal lengths are relatively larger.

What I don't understand, is why you have to take this into account when using minimum shutter speeds of 1/focal length to prevent camera shake. i.e. If I shoot at 300mm, why should s/s be 1/420 as opposed to 1/300?

Isn't the 420mm only a notional relative amount with regards to the actual focal length? In terms of leverage (not that right word...) but the actual physical movement of the lens isn't larger on a crop sensor than a FF, so I don't see why camera shake would be increased either. If you zoomed in to a 1.6 crop on a FF live-view, it wouldn't be moving any more would it?

 

[woof woof]

If you use 400mm on FF and then on APS-C your subject will fill more of the frame in the APS-C shot and any shake would therefore be more visible. I suppose you'd see the same shake if you took the FF shot and cropped it to APS-C size.

Anyway, these things are just a guide and people will be able to take hand held shots at different shutter speeds.

 

[Steep]

Focal lengths do not change unless you change your lens and the hand holding rule of thumb - shutter speed more than or equal to focal length does not change either. If someone is telling you it should be different they are mistaken.

 

[Nod]

Focal lengths always remain the same. The angle of view is reduced on crop bodies, with a 300mm on your 1.6x crop Canon having the same AoV as a 480mm on FF, so the theoretical shutter speed for hand holding is 1/500th rather than 1/420th.

The 1/focal length s as a shutter speed is purely a very rough rule of thumb - some can shoot slower, others may struggle at faster speeds than the rule suggests so, to discover what YOU can handhold, experiment! Start at the suggested 1/FL and see if there's noticeable camera shake. If there is, try 1/FL x crop factor and keep increasing in 1/2 stop increments until you get shake free shots (or decrease the speed if there is no visible shake at 1/FL x CF). You may be lucky (and young!) enough to go slower than 1/FL - again, keep slowing the speed until shake is a problem. If you're really systematic, keep a record of the hand holdable speeds for every lens at a series of FLs and repeat the experiment for all your lenses.

I know from bitter experience that I can no longer hand hold what I used to be able to in my yoof, now being closer to the crop factor speeds on FF than the 1/FL or slower that I used to be capable of!

 

[Phil V]

Focal lengths do not change unless you change your lens and the hand holding rule of thumb - shutter speed more than or equal to focal length does not change either. If someone is telling you it should be different they are mistaken.

Nope.
See above - you're effectively magnifying the image and therefore any faults in the image - so where the 'zoomed out' image doesn't show camera shake - zoom in and you see it.

But also as above - it's a rule of thumb - and it varies with the individual and the circumstances.

 

[ernesto]

A good example would be to put a 50mm lens on a camera with a really tiny sensor (effectively making it look like a 400mm lens). Look through the very maginified view and see your camera wobble all over the place.
Put that same 50 lens on a full frame body and see no movement.

 

[HoppyUK]

Focal lengths do not change unless you change your lens and the hand holding rule of thumb - shutter speed more than or equal to focal length does not change either. If someone is telling you it should be different they are mistaken.

Incorrect, as Phil says.

The hand-holding 'rule' for shutter speeds relates to magnification and it's just a happy coincidence that it matches full-frame focal lengths.

For any other format, the rule must be adjusted. For the same reason, if you crop an image, the shutter speed should be adjusted again. If you crop away half the image area, raise by 1.4x; if you crop really hard to use only 1/4 the image (same as doubling focal length) raise shutter speed by 2x.

 

[Steep]

I think that's so much nonsense guys. There's no difference in you cropping and enlarging a part of an image or cropping by use of a smaller sensor in terms of camera shake. Just because shake is more visible in the viewfinder of a 1.6 crop sensor does not mean it's not present in the same quantities in a full frame sensor.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think that's so much nonsense guys. There's no difference in you cropping and enlarging a part of an image or cropping by use of a smaller sensor in terms of camera shake. Just because shake is more visible in the viewfinder of a 1.6 crop sensor does not mean it's not present in the same quantities in a full frame sensor.

You may think that, but you'd be mistaken.

 

[PMN]

Nope.
See above - you're effectively magnifying the image and therefore any faults in the image - so where the 'zoomed out' image doesn't show camera shake - zoom in and you see it.

This is true for when you change focal length but not when you change sensor size.

Imagine for example a 24-105 mounted on a 7D, the APS-C sensor is 'seeing' the centre part of the image the lens is giving the camera. Now imagine a 24-105 mounted on a 5D2, the larger sensor is 'seeing' a wider part of the image the lens is giving the camera but absolutely nothing else has changed. The focal length has remained the same and the way the centre part of the image hits both sensors is absolutely identical. There's no magnification happening on the 7D compared to the 5D2, it's merely seeing less of the image which doesn't give the same effect as changing the physical focal length of the lens. They're very different concepts.

There's possibly an argument for saying you'll maybe notice blur more on an APS-C sensor due to them generally having a higher pixel density than full frame bodies and therefore a slight movement on the lens will shift the image across more pixels but that's about it. You won't notice any more due to the size of the sensor.

 

[HoppyUK]

This is true for when you change focal length but not when you change sensor size.

Imagine for example a 24-105 mounted on a 7D, the APS-C sensor is 'seeing' the centre part of the image the lens is giving the camera. Now imagine a 24-105 mounted on a 5D2, the larger sensor is 'seeing' a wider part of the image the lens is giving the camera but absolutely nothing else has changed. The focal length has remained the same and the way the centre part of the image hits both sensors is absolutely identical. There's no magnification happening on the 7D compared to the 5D2, it's merely seeing less of the image which doesn't give the same effect as changing the physical focal length of the lens. They're very different concepts.

No. If that was true, you could hand-hold a compact (with very short focal length lens for same field of view) at amazingly long shutter speeds, but of course you can't.

There's possibly an argument for saying you'll maybe notice blur more on an APS-C sensor due to them generally having a higher pixel density than full frame bodies and therefore a slight movement on the lens will shift the image across more pixels but that's about it. You won't notice any more due to the size of the sensor.

True. Camera-shake is always present to at least some degree when hand-holding. The higher the resolution potential of the system, the more it is capable of revealing ever smaller amounts of shake/movement.

Nikon makes this point with the D800 and particularly the D800E. Though this is down to total pixels/resolution, not pixel density or sensor size.

 

[Gaz J]

A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens irrespective of the camera it is mounted on. What changes is the FOV (field of view). The FOV is the angle extending from the focal plane through the lens into space. It is dependant on the diagonal of the sensor and the focal length of the lens. The reason you should apply the 1/focal length ( in this case the perceived focal length obtained by multiplying the focal length by the crop factor) is that for a given print size smaller sensors such as APS-C need to be magnified more than a full frame. Any camera shake is therefore magnified to a greater extent.

 

[PMN]

No. If that was true, you could hand-hold a compact (with very short focal length lens for same field of view) at amazingly long shutter speeds, but of course you can't.

But we're not talking about compact cameras, we're talking specifically about the difference between APS-C and full frame which is what my reply refers directly to. Compact cameras have nothing to do with this discussion.

If I set my 100-400L to 100mm on my 5D2 and set my shutter speed to 1/100th then I'm going along with the 1/focal length guideline, correct? If I then take a scalpel and trim the sides off the 5D2's sensor (a horrific thought but just go along with me) so it's 22.5mm wide then what else, apart from how much of the image the camera sees, has changed?

Absolutely nothing has changed. The centre portion of the sensor is seeing the image in exactly the same way and this is precisely the same difference as mounting a lens on an APC-S body compared to a full frame. There's no need to compensate for the 1.6 crop factor because the small sensor is simply discarding the outside of the image rather than magnifying the centre of it.

 

[DizMatt]

I agree that you should take into account the crop factor. those who think that to do so is a mistake...are mistaken
for example., take a laser pointer...at 30 meters when you aim at a wall you will see some shake. a small movement in your hands is amplified....
if you times that distance by 1.6x then the relative movement on the incident wall is magnified. it's the same with a lens and cropping I think
however, good technique, monopod, IS, etc can over come this a little

 

[PMN]

I agree that you should take into account the crop factor. those who think that to do so is a mistake...are mistaken
for example., take a laser pointer...at 30 meters when you aim at a wall you will see some shake. a small movement in your hands is amplified....
if you times that distance by 1.6x then the relative movement on the incident wall is magnified. it's the same with a lens and cropping I think
however, good technique, monopod, IS, etc can over come this a little

You're confusing concepts here.

You're thinking the 1.6x crop factor physically magnifies the image from the lens which simply isn't true, all that's happening is it's ignoring the outside of the image giving the impression you're 1.6 times closer to your subject when in fact you're still precisely the same distance away from it. The focal length remains the same regardless of how the field of view is tricking you into thinking it's 1.6x greater.

 

[HoppyUK]

You're confusing concepts here.

You're thinking the 1.6x crop factor physically magnifies the image from the lens which simply isn't true, all that's happening is it's ignoring the outside of the image giving the impression you're 1.6 times closer to your subject when in fact you're still precisely the same distance away from it. The focal length remains the same regardless of how the field of view is tricking you into thinking it's 1.6x greater.

Forget focal length and sensor sizes and just consider magnification - that's what it's about. And that includes the final output size (print) which is the bit you're missing out and is the flaw in your rationale.

 

[PMN]

Forget focal length and sensor sizes and just consider magnification - that's what it's about. And that includes the final output size (print) which is the bit you're missing out and is the flaw in your rationale.

There isn't any magnification, that's the whole point! You're wrongly assuming the 1.6 crop factor is an actual physical magnification of the image from the lens when in fact it's merely an illusion of magnification. If you took a few square centimetres from the middle of a full frame sensor and then exactly the same area from the middle of an an APS-C sensor of equal pixel density (and with the same focal length lens) the images would be absolutely identical. Size, perspective, distortion, depth of field... Everything. They'd be exactly the same. There's no magnification whatsoever involved on the crop sensor, in the middle it's seeing exactly the same as the full frame. Focal length is absolutely 100% entirely what it's about!

As for printing, you can't gain information beyond what the sensor is natively giving you (interpolating an image up doesn't gain resolution) so the final size of a print is irrelevant. Viewing at 100% on a computer screen tells you everything you need to know about a digital image far more accurately than any print ever will.

 

[JBuk]

There isn't any magnification, that's the whole point! You're wrongly assuming the 1.6 crop factor is an actual physical magnification of the image from the lens when in fact it's merely an illusion of magnification. If you took a few square centimetres from the middle of a full frame sensor and then exactly the same area from the middle of an an APS-C sensor of equal pixel density (and with the same focal length lens) the images would be absolutely identical. Size, perspective, distortion, depth of field... Everything. They'd be exactly the same. There's no magnification whatsoever involved on the crop sensor, in the middle it's seeing exactly the same as the full frame. Focal length is absolutely 100% entirely what it's about!

As for printing, you can't gain information beyond what the sensor is natively giving you (interpolating an image up doesn't gain resolution) so the final size of a print is irrelevant. Viewing at 100% on a computer screen tells you everything you need to know about a digital image far more accurately than any print ever will.

This is correct

Crop cameras do not magnify, the image circle is cropped due to the sensor being smaller compared to full frame 35mm, the multiplier being used is merely to give a comparable focal length against 35mm full frame when of course nothing has physically been magnified , for this reason The same rule of thumb ratio for handholding stands for both ff and crop.

 

[Yv]

Have you ever noticed that when these 'technical arguments' start round here, the girls stay right out of it....

Anyway, its a totally irrelevent argument in some ways, because as has been pointed out, it's only a guide, everyone is different and finding out what is best for you is the better approach.

 

[edwardspw]

Forget focal length and sensor sizes and just consider magnification - that's what it's about. And that includes the final output size (print) which is the bit you're missing out and is the flaw in your rationale.

This is correct, for sure. While it is true the image is not magnified on the crop sensor, to get the same print size(or image on a screen) the image from the crop sensor must be magnified as compared to the full frame image. Because this magnifies any shake, a higher shutter speed is required to get the same final results. I am absolutely sure.

 

[Phil V]

This is true for when you change focal length but not when you change sensor size.

Imagine for example a 24-105 mounted on a 7D, the APS-C sensor is 'seeing' the centre part of the image the lens is giving the camera. Now imagine a 24-105 mounted on a 5D2, the larger sensor is 'seeing' a wider part of the image the lens is giving the camera but absolutely nothing else has changed. The focal length has remained the same and the way the centre part of the image hits both sensors is absolutely identical. There's no magnification happening on the 7D compared to the 5D2, it's merely seeing less of the image which doesn't give the same effect as changing the physical focal length of the lens. They're very different concepts.

There's possibly an argument for saying you'll maybe notice blur more on an APS-C sensor due to them generally having a higher pixel density than full frame bodies and therefore a slight movement on the lens will shift the image across more pixels but that's about it. You won't notice any more due to the size of the sensor.

I've no idea where you're getting the theoretical nonsense from but it's plain wrong.
As Richard says (here's a clue, when the bloke that writes professionally about photography technology disagrees with you - you're probably wrong).

You're clearly guessing, pixel density is irrelevant too. it's simply about camera movement magnified. That's why Richard mentions output image size. I do know the difference between simple magnification and focal length. But if you take a handheld shot at 1/30 with a 50mm lens, the thumnail will be sharp - at 6x4 it'll look OK, at 20" you'll see the movement. That's the principle at play here.

What I don't understand is how you admit the effect when exaggerated (to compact levels), but dismiss the notion at 1.5 (1.6); It's exactly the same thing - just more of it. How does it not work at 1.5x but works at 4x.

Or has your made up theory got some point at which the 'crop-factor' kicks in?

I'm not even a fan of the crop factor lazy 'it'll be an 80mm on your camera' but when it comes to camera shake - it works.

 

[PMN]

But if you take a handheld shot at 1/30 with a 50mm lens, the thumnail will be sharp - at 6x4 it'll look OK, at 20" you'll see the movement.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about screwing a shot up and it looking fine smaller, I was talking about seeing if an image either is or isn't sharp. Obviously the smaller an image the less obvious the flaws will be, hence looking at it at 100% is the best way to clearly see whether it's blurred.

What I don't understand is how you admit the effect when exaggerated (to compact levels), but dismiss the notion at 1.5 (1.6); It's exactly the same thing - just more of it. How does it not work at 1.5x but works at 4x.

No it isn't the same thing. On a compact you're talking about a completely different system with different focal lengths, in the full frame/1.5-1.6 example we're talking about the same lens with the same focal length hitting two different sizes sensors, they're totally different situations.

I've no idea where you're getting the theoretical nonsense from but it's plain wrong.
As Richard says (here's a clue, when the bloke that writes professionally about photography technology disagrees with you - you're probably wrong)

I mentioned pixel density as I was using the words "the images will be identical". I know pixel density is irrelevant but I wanted to make sure when I said identical I meant it.

If it's theoretical nonsense then please point out what's technically wrong with what I said in reply 17. Do you agree that those two images would be identical and do you agree that the centre of both the full frame and APS-C sensors are seeing the same thing?

 

[ernesto]

Have you ever noticed that when these 'technical arguments' start round here, the girls stay right out of it....

is that because girls don't understand technical things?
(not really a misogynist, honestly!)

It is probably because they do understand and just want to sit back and laugh.

 

[Phil V]

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about screwing a shot up and it looking fine smaller, I was talking about seeing if an image either is or isn't sharp. Obviously the smaller an image the more obvious the flaws will be, hence looking at it at 100% is the best way to clearly see whether it's blurred.

No it isn't the same thing. On a compact you're talking about a completely different system with different focal lengths, in the full frame/1.5-1.6 example we're talking about the same lens with the same focal length hitting two different sizes sensors, they're totally different situations.

I mentioned pixel density as I was using the words "the images will be identical". I know pixel density is irrelevant but I wanted to make sure when I said identical I meant it.
....
Incidentally your patronising tone just reminded me why I largely avoid forums. Nice one.

Apologies if I came across as patronising. But perhaps you avoid forums because you have set 'beliefs' that are factually incorrect and you object to being challenged on them.

You can argue this all day - and dissect my answer - but the simple fact is that the 1/focal length was just handy as it was a good rule of thumb for 35mm SLR's, but it wasn't correct for any other size camera long before anyone considered APSC digital sensors, and it's still not useful for them now.

If it's theoretical nonsense then please point out what's technically wrong about anything I said in reply 17. Do you accept or deny that those two images would be identical and do you accept that the centre of both the full france and APS-C sensors are seeing the same thing?

Just to answer your question - you'd be enlarging the image more - see Richards post, so the camera movement gets enlarged too. It's exactly the same as focal lengths on smaller cameras, you're seeing it as different because it's a 'different lens' but focal length is focal length:

50mm on a tiny sensor is a long telephoto, so it needs a long telephoto handheld shutter speed. (1/500)

Likewise, as you increase the sensor size;
at 4/3 it'll be a telephoto (1/100)

APSC it'll be a short tele (1/80)

FF (35mm frame) it'll be a std lens so 1/60 will be good

50mm on a MF back will be a wide angle and you'll get away with 1/30 (depends on exact format)

on a 5x4 plate it'll be an ultra wide angle - but you'll not be handholding that.

For 3 of those formats it can be exactly the same lens mounted, but that's irrelevant - it's about the focal length not the lens.

Your supposition is based around a very narrow situation and you're choosing to ignore evidence from larger or smaller because it's 'different', open yourself up to the whole picture and you can see how it's obvious.

 

[Steep]

You may think that, but you'd be mistaken.

Well reasoned argument, thanks for taking the time.

Apologies if I came across as patronising. But perhaps you avoid forums because you have set 'beliefs' that are factually incorrect and you object to being challenged on them

Way to go Phill, apologise for patronising the man and go right on doing it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Anyway, its a totally irrelevent argument in some ways, because as has been pointed out, it's only a guide, everyone is different and finding out what is best for you is the better approach.

While the speed you can shoot hand held may be different for different people, I think it's all relative, and therefore relevant. If the lowest speed I could hand hold a 400mm lens on a full frame camera was 250th of a second, then the most I could get away with at 300mm on a crop sensor camera would also be 250th, as the magnification is the same.

It's still important to know this, no matter how steadily you can hold a camera. As you can see in this thread, there can be a great deal of confusion, and many people think it's a product of absolute focal length only and assume that if they can shoot at 250th with a 400mm lens on a D800, then it will be 250th with a 400mm lens on a D7000 too.. and it won't.

I'd say it's far from irrelevant, and something everyone should know. Not the exact speeds, as that changes, as you point out, but the fact that it's NOT focal length that matters, but magnification.

 

[Steep]

I'd say it's far from irrelevant, and something everyone should know. Not the exact speeds, as that changes, as you point out, but the fact that it's NOT focal length that matters, but magnification.

You mean enlargement don't you? the magnification on a 50mm lens is no different on a 1.6 sensor compared to a full frame.

 

[Pookeyhead]

You mean enlargement don't you? the magnification on a 50mm lens is no different on a 1.6 sensor compared to a full frame.

If you're being pedantic, I mean the apparent magnification, but they're essentially the same thing, yes. The magnification of the lens is identical, yes, but teh resulting image has the apparent magnification of a 85mm lens approx, due to cropping in and therefore enlarging the image.

 

[PMN]

Apologies if I came across as patronising. But perhaps you avoid forums because you have set 'beliefs' that are factually incorrect and you object to being challenged on them..

You couldn't be further from the truth. I love learning and if I'm corrected on something then I know more than I did previously which is great. I just don't have time anymore for people who think their points will be more valid if they insult people while expressing them.

 

[Phil V]

Well reasoned argument, thanks for taking the time.



Way to go Phill, apologise for patronising the man and go right on doing it.

That's not patronising, but then neither was my first response; - it's perhaps insulting. But :shrug:

I never started 'playing the man, not the ball' did I?

And there's just one L in Phil - thanks

And what Richard said - it's not a 'reasoned argument', it's the fact.</patronising>.

 

[Steep]

If you're being pedantic, I mean the apparent magnification, but they're essentially the same thing, yes. The magnification of the lens is identical, yes, but teh resulting image has the apparent magnification of a 85mm lens approx, due to cropping in and therefore enlarging the image.

It not pedantism it's important. The use of words like effective and apparent are used by manufacturers and retailers to make people think they are getting something they are not. If we are discussing realities we should not use terms that cloud the picture.

 

[Steep]

That's not patronising, but then neither was my first response; - it's perhaps insulting. But :shrug:

I never started 'playing the man, not the ball' did I?

And there's just one L in Phil - thanks

And what Richard said - it's not a 'reasoned argument', it's the fact.</patronising>.

Well if you're aware that the response was insulting the you should surely realise it wasn't acceptable?

My apologies for spelling your name wrongly, it was a slip of the finger.

What Richard said was fact - in your opinion, not in mine. I don't expect you accept that, we simply have a different perspective on the subject.

 

[Pookeyhead]

It not pedantism it's important. The use of words like effective and apparent are used by manufacturers and retailers to make people think they are getting something they are not. If we are discussing realities we should not use terms that cloud the picture.

In relation to the OP's question, it's not strictly important though is it. He wants to know that if he can hand hold lens X at 100th on a FF camera, can he also do so with lens X on his APS-C camera. The answer is no, he can't, simply because the tolerances are less. "Apparent" is not a term used by manufacturers at all.. Depth of field for example is the area of ACCEPTABLY sharp focus behind and in front of the actual focus point.. TECHNICALLY, there is still only one absolute point of true focus as determined by the circle of confusion but we still regard the area measured hyperfocally as sharp if it APPEARS to be so.

I think you're splitting hairs for the sake of it here.

Anything else is semantics. I'm aware of the physics: The absolute recorded movement of the focused image from a 50mm lens is identical on a FF sensor and a APS-C sensor, but movement that may be below the resolution threshold to record effectively on the FF camera may well be recorded on a APS-C sensor if the resolution is the same on both (D3X vs. D7000 for instance).

Technically, you're right, but in reality, it is a purely academic argument so far as the OP is concerned. Whether you regard it as a product of field of view, magnification, apparent magnification, or enlargement... the end result (what you're likely to see in your prints) IS a product on sensor size/focal length, and therefore you will record more APPARENT movement on most APS-C sensor equipped cameras.

Arguing over terms such as apparent magnification, and enlargement - which essentially amount to the same thing given that the focal lengths remain the same in both scenarios, is pretty pointless.

 

[Phil V]

You couldn't be further from the truth. I love learning and if I'm corrected on something then I know more than I did previously which is great. I just don't have time anymore for people who think their points will be more valid if they insult people while expressing them.

There was no insult in my original post, you started on the personal

And whilst you claim to be 'happy to learn', why is your first post a straight contradiction of my original post, and wrong to boot. That doesn't strike me as happy to learn - more 'I've made up my mind and I won't be swayed' despite the fact that there's some fairly expert opinion here telling you it's wrong.

What I dislike about forum's is that they democratise opinions. So when someone asks a question, and they get the correct answer - it can become impossible to find amongst the noise created by people who don't have the right answer but insist on having their two pennorth anyway. There are subjects that are open to opinion, and there are questions that require a factual response. This question required facts, and the poor OP is just left looking at an argument between you and I, which then becomes more about 'picking sides' than the answer to their question.

A bit like how we have to compare the power of fairydust to surgery as a cure for cancer in order to give a 'balanced' view.

Feel free to be offended, but please read what I wrote about focal lengths and different sized sensors and when the penny's dropped you can then let the OP know that you agree with me. After all, that's the point of the forum.

 

[Phil V]

Well if you're aware that the response was insulting the you should surely realise it wasn't acceptable?

My apologies for spelling your name wrongly, it was a slip of the finger.

What Richard said was fact - in your opinion, not in mine. I don't expect you accept that, we simply have a different perspective on the subject.

You see. Now you have a professional photographic technical writer and a University photography lecturer telling you that you're wrong. But they're just 'opinions' and no more valid than yours

I admire your self belief, it will serve you well.

 

[PMN]

Phil, you don't deserve a proper response so I won't give one beyond again saying I have absolutely no time for people with smug patronising attitudes like yours. I'm sure it makes you feel very big and important, long may you enjoy it.

 

[Phil V]

Phil, you don't deserve a proper response so I won't give one beyond again saying I have absolutely no time for people with smug attitudes like yours.

I'm not smug, I'm right! There's a subtle difference

You might not like that, but just like my first response which you contradicted - it's just a fact

You owe me nothing, but you could at least let the OP know that you've realised you were wrong. Otherwise they'll be left confused.

 

[Steep]

You see. Now you have a professional photographic technical writer and a University photography lecturer telling you that you're wrong. But they're just 'opinions' and no more valid than yours

I admire your self belief, it will serve you well.

You may well be a lecturer or a technical writer in your other life, you haven't said which you are but here you're just another member who when you haven't been insulting or patronising (and you do continue to do both in post after post) has stated your opinion. You say it's fact, I disagree.

 

[Steep]

In relation to the OP's question, it's not strictly important though is it.

snip

I think you're splitting hairs for the sake of it here.

snip

Anything else is semantics.

We'll have to differ in our opinions here, I believe it's always important to get the language right especially in written form and in a medium where words are misappropriated (by advertisers) too often with the intention of misleading the buying public.

 

[Pookeyhead]

OP wants to know if he the lowest shutter speed he can shoot at a given focal length is the same on a FF camera as a APS-C camera.

Answer: No.

/thread