D-SLR Maginfication Fallacy

OK. I Know that this is an issue that has been discussed often, however, I feel it has yet to be clarified. So here I am revisiting the issue of the D-SLR “magnification” ratio.

I have read numerous times that the images created on D-SLR sensors, are crops. This process of capturing a smaller image is said to “improve” the quality due to the sensor only “seeing” the center portion of the image. Thus, this is not a true “magnification” of the original image, and just an illusion.

Another detail that gets overlooked way too often is the perspective one has with any given focal length. Everyone knows that a Tele “compacts” the perspective, while a Wide angle “stretches” the view. This is very important when creating an image. Moreover, this is also a misconception with the “magnification” ratio of any given D-SLR (any with a smaller than 35mm sensor). What the perspective in an image will look like with a 100mm lens on a D-SLR is NOT the same as what you will see on a traditional 35mm and 150mm lens. Am I wrong?

So, which is it? Is the image captured by a D-SLR sensor a crop, and thus an illusion of “magnification” is created? Or, is the Focal Plane “re-directed” in order to fill the D-SLR Sensor, and thus a “True” magnification is created?

Here is a diagram I have created to illustrate these principles.



Which is the reality of the Focal Plane when focused onto a D-SLR Sensor?

Focal Plane “A”: This explains the “crop” and thus the given Illusion of a “magnification ratio”

Focal Plane “B”: This shows the Focal Plane “adjusted” to fit the smaller sensor and thus truly creating a Higher Focal Length Lens.

I have come to the assumption that D-SLR manufactures are marketing the “magnification ratio” in order to mislead the consumers. It seems that the photographer is NOT gaining anything, and in all reality “losing” a fair amount of “image”.

Please feel free to add any thoughts or enlighten me on any possible error on my ideas.

Thanks for your time,

johnny

el junior said:

I have read numerous times that the images created on D-SLR sensors, are crops.

Click to expand...

They are.

el junior said:

Another detail that gets overlooked way too often is the perspective one has with any given focal length. Everyone knows that a Tele “compacts” the perspective, while a Wide angle “stretches” the view. This is very important when creating an image. Moreover, this is also a misconception with the “magnification” ratio of any given D-SLR (any with a smaller than 35mm sensor). What the perspective in an image will look like with a 100mm lens on a D-SLR is NOT the same as what you will see on a traditional 35mm and 150mm lens. Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

That sure doesn't get overlooked here, there is much talk about it.

I will note that the image you see in a 100mm lens looks like center you see in a 100mm lens. However once you back up enough to see the same amount of stuff in your crop as a normal 100mm image you have the same amount of 'compactness' as a 160mm on an uncroped imager (assuming a 1.6x ratio). I think you get more DOF then a real 160 though.

el junior said:

I have come to the assumption that D-SLR manufactures are marketing the “magnification ratio” in order to mislead the consumers. It seems that the photographer is NOT gaining anything, and in all reality “losing” a fair amount of “image”.

Click to expand...

Since they tend to advertise lower ratios as better (the $2300 D30 is 1.6, the $5500 1D is 1.3! Oh, and Pentax crows about it's 1.0, they haven't shipped it yet though), I would say they are not misleading anyone.

Of corse some people might like the mag, those would be people that don't like wide angles and want a serious tele. Of corse they don't get the same shallow depth of field...

I have never really understood the TRUE issues associated with the 1.x mag... WHAT I SEE in the viewfinder is more or less (with the D30 MORE since the viewfinder is something like 96% of what the film sees) what the lens sees and so I KNOW when I compose my shots that I'm getting what I want... When I'm shooting I don't care what the MM numbers are, I just compose and shoot...

So, WHY then does everyone spend SO MUCH time worrying about the perspective and MM and crops etc? I just don't understand all the stress about this issue...

Scott...

Hi Johnny, It is your diagram that is at fault. You show the D30 sensor plane in front of the 35mm frame. It isn't. Your diagram would be accurate if you moved the sensor plane back into the 35mm plane so that they were one and the same except the D30 only sees part of the image the 35mm sees.

Roger

johnny said:

OK. I Know that this is an issue that has been discussed often,
however, I feel it has yet to be clarified. So here I am revisiting
the issue of the D-SLR “magnification” ratio.

I have read numerous times that the images created on D-SLR
sensors, are crops. This process of capturing a smaller image is
said to “improve” the quality due to the sensor only
“seeing” the center portion of the image. Thus, this is
not a true “magnification” of the original image, and
just an illusion.

Another detail that gets overlooked way too often is the
perspective one has with any given focal length. Everyone knows
that a Tele “compacts” the perspective, while a Wide
angle “stretches” the view. This is very important when
creating an image. Moreover, this is also a misconception with the
“magnification” ratio of any given D-SLR (any with a
smaller than 35mm sensor). What the perspective in an image will
look like with a 100mm lens on a D-SLR is NOT the same as what you
will see on a traditional 35mm and 150mm lens. Am I wrong?

So, which is it? Is the image captured by a D-SLR sensor a crop,
and thus an illusion of “magnification” is created? Or,
is the Focal Plane “re-directed” in order to fill the
D-SLR Sensor, and thus a “True” magnification is
created?

Here is a diagram I have created to illustrate these principles.



Which is the reality of the Focal Plane when focused onto a D-SLR
Sensor?

Focal Plane “A”: This explains the “crop”
and thus the given Illusion of a “magnification ratio”

Focal Plane “B”: This shows the Focal Plane
“adjusted” to fit the smaller sensor and thus truly
creating a Higher Focal Length Lens.

I have come to the assumption that D-SLR manufactures are marketing
the “magnification ratio” in order to mislead the
consumers. It seems that the photographer is NOT gaining anything,
and in all reality “losing” a fair amount of
“image”.

Please feel free to add any thoughts or enlighten me on any
possible error on my ideas.

Thanks for your time,

johnny

Click to expand...

Actually

I know that theoretically there are in about the same place. But then it would have been difficult to distinguise the two. The diagram was only for illustration purposes, as im sure the in lens refracting isnt spot on either. It was a simple diagram, and believe it demostrated the concept.

thanks for the input though,

johnny

The D30 sensor is purely a crop. The sensor sits where the film plane would be relative to the lens. There are no optics in the camera to scale the image onto the sensor

Pretend, if you will, that you shot a 35mm film and then scanned at the pixels PER mm of the D30's sensor of the whole image. Then in your photo editor software you "cropped" to the center 62.5% horizontally and vertically. Conceptually that is what you have with the D30. The viewfinder on the D30 magnifies and crops so you can frame the image.

There is no advantage in throwing the outer pixels away other than the cost that would have been incurred to make a full frame sensor. Heck you can go in and crop a D30's image and "magnify" even more. The magnification actually occurs when you OUTPUT the image.

The 1D pixels are pretty close to the same size as the D30's pixels, so that in effect the 1D is cropping fewer pixels off the full 35mm frame size.

The center cropping of the image plane means that you thow away the outer part of the image from the lens which is usually a bit worse than the center, BUT you make the center focus quality more critical since it will get magnified more for any given output size.

It is a total misnomer (but commonly said) to say that a longer focal length "compresses/compacts" the perspective. Perspective is totally a function of the relative distance of the camera to various objects in the scene. IF you take a wide angle lens and crop to the same area of the image as a telephoto lens, the perspective will be exactly the same.

The reason for the misnomer is that you notice the effects without needing to crop with a telephoto. Using a telephoto, you are typically further back from the subject. Thus if you use a 100mm lens on a D30 and STAND IN THE SAME PLACE you will get exactly the same composition and "perspective" as with a 160mm lens on a Full 35mm frame. IF you say take the same 100mm lens and put it on the 35mm camera you will have to move closer to the subject to get the subject framed the same, BUT in the act of moving, the perspective all other object in the scene will change relative to the subject.

This has come up several times on this forum and there is usually a lot of mis-information by people that remember the perspective "misnomer."

I hope this helps, but usually this question results in a long series of confusing responses,

Karl

johnny said:

OK. I Know that this is an issue that has been discussed often,
however, I feel it has yet to be clarified. So here I am revisiting
the issue of the D-SLR “magnification” ratio.

I have read numerous times that the images created on D-SLR
sensors, are crops. This process of capturing a smaller image is
said to “improve” the quality due to the sensor only
“seeing” the center portion of the image. Thus, this is
not a true “magnification” of the original image, and
just an illusion.

Another detail that gets overlooked way too often is the
perspective one has with any given focal length. Everyone knows
that a Tele “compacts” the perspective, while a Wide
angle “stretches” the view. This is very important when
creating an image. Moreover, this is also a misconception with the
“magnification” ratio of any given D-SLR (any with a
smaller than 35mm sensor). What the perspective in an image will
look like with a 100mm lens on a D-SLR is NOT the same as what you
will see on a traditional 35mm and 150mm lens. Am I wrong?

So, which is it? Is the image captured by a D-SLR sensor a crop,
and thus an illusion of “magnification” is created? Or,
is the Focal Plane “re-directed” in order to fill the
D-SLR Sensor, and thus a “True” magnification is
created?

Here is a diagram I have created to illustrate these principles.

http://image.pbase.com/u/myeyes/upload/389567.mm.jpg

Which is the reality of the Focal Plane when focused onto a D-SLR
Sensor?

Focal Plane “A”: This explains the “crop”
and thus the given Illusion of a “magnification ratio”

Focal Plane “B”: This shows the Focal Plane
“adjusted” to fit the smaller sensor and thus truly
creating a Higher Focal Length Lens.

I have come to the assumption that D-SLR manufactures are marketing
the “magnification ratio” in order to mislead the
consumers. It seems that the photographer is NOT gaining anything,
and in all reality “losing” a fair amount of
“image”.

Please feel free to add any thoughts or enlighten me on any
possible error on my ideas.

Thanks for your time,

johnny

Click to expand...

I think you pretty much said what I have been trying to say. I feel it is very unfortunate the so many people fall victim to the "magnification" hype, without understanding its real effects. Some "PROS" dont seem to clearly grasp whats truly going on.

Take a look
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&page=1&message=1595590

Let me know what you think,

johnny

johnny,

Essentially, the "focal length multiplier" should really be called a "field of view reduction." Perspective should remain the same as long as the camera-subject distance is the same.

The magnification (as Karlg says below) is a function of output, and here's where everything gets tricky. The prime example of how people get confused is when they start talking about 1:1 macro lenses "going beyond 1:1 on a D30." It simply isn't so, but it sure does look like it goes beyond 1:1 when you print it on paper and compare it to film images. Whether it's real or an illusion, the apparent increase in magnification is useful as long as we understand that it's not really true magnification.

Smaller sensors do have their advantages, cost and power consumption aside. Smaller sensors are smaller images that require less storage, buffer, and processing time. Smaller sensors use the center-most "sweet spot" of the lens which should have big benefits for image quality (we'll soon see if this is true when people start comparing 1D and D30 images at the edge). Further, the "illusion" of having a longer lens (although theoretically identical to cropping in PhotoShop) forces one to compose the image differently than if one were composing with the intent to crop later. For these reasons, I've always thought that when larger, higher-res sensors are more common, the option to optionally select an FLM should be available (digital zoom without the interpolation).

Your points are well taken, but this has been beaten like a very very dead horse.

JCDoss

I didnt know that this was as clear to some as it actually is. Although I am still surprised at even how some experienced photographers still have a slight misunderstanding of this whole thing.

The reason I brought it up goes as follows:

Early this evening I called yet another shop looking for a nice portrait lens, preferably the nikon 105 Ai. In discussing with the sales rep he indicated that this lens will "become" a 150mm lens. Further conversation led to antoehr discovery that "I have a D1x", and "with my 600mm lens I really have a 900mm lens". I was shocked at not only how a person with a D1x wouldnt know any better, but that he couldnt tell the difference in his viewfinder. Seriously, at 900mm, do you know how "blown" up something would be? WOW. Anyway, the conversation went sour very, VERY fast.

Anyhow, Im glad im not the only one that "sees" what is really goin on inside a D-SLR. Another big issue for me is sensor size vs. pixel count. But thats another discussion.

Thanks to all, I hope this helps some that were unclear. That, after all was my main objective, to help those who didnt know, and those who thought they did.

till next time,

johnny

John,

What about those that simply don't care? All of this focal plane, perspective, cropping, etc. is extremely interesting from an academic standpoint. But as for me, I could really care less from a practical standpoint. I'm with Scott on this one. It seems as though many people want to marry digital photography to 35mm photography and show how this or that differs from 35mm. I simply do not care. What I care about are image quality and range, regardless of what the focal length numbers say.

I appreciate the fact that there are people who are concerned about things like this so that they can provide answers for those that desire to know. But to suggest that professional photographers should "know better" isn't quite fair. A pro is paid for his/her photographic eye and their ability to produce images that meet a clients requirements. In doing that, understanding the issues in this thread is not really necessary.

johnny said:

I didnt know that this was as clear to some as it actually is.
Although I am still surprised at even how some experienced
photographers still have a slight misunderstanding of this whole
thing.

The reason I brought it up goes as follows:

Early this evening I called yet another shop looking for a nice
portrait lens, preferably the nikon 105 Ai. In discussing with the
sales rep he indicated that this lens will "become" a 150mm lens.
Further conversation led to antoehr discovery that "I have a D1x",
and "with my 600mm lens I really have a 900mm lens". I was shocked
at not only how a person with a D1x wouldnt know any better, but
that he couldnt tell the difference in his viewfinder. Seriously,
at 900mm, do you know how "blown" up something would be? WOW.
Anyway, the conversation went sour very, VERY fast.

Anyhow, Im glad im not the only one that "sees" what is really goin
on inside a D-SLR. Another big issue for me is sensor size vs.
pixel count. But thats another discussion.

Thanks to all, I hope this helps some that were unclear. That,
after all was my main objective, to help those who didnt know, and
those who thought they did.

till next time,

johnny

Click to expand...

Scott,

You're right in that what you see is what you get when using an SLR. That is true. The problem arises if you compare what you see from the SAME lens on a D30, and say, a EOS 30 (Elan 7e).

Say you buy yourself a spiffy new 300/2.8-- hook it up to the EOS 30, and it'll give you the field of view of a 300mm lens... No surprises there.

But when you slap it onto a D30 and look through the viewfinder, the you'll see much, much more magnification, FROM THE SAME LENS! It'll be acting like a 480mm would on the EOS 30. That's right, the people in the distance will "be closer" than they were on the film camera.

You might say COOL! a 480/2.8 for the price of a 300/2.8!! (The apeture stays the same)... It's like some kind of magic teleconverter!!

But it's actually not so cool at the other end of things... In the wide end. Nature photographers frequently shoot wide angles, and ultrawides like the 17-35/2.8 become rather ordinary 27-56 when attached to the D30.

So people would like 2 things: the mm they paid for and the coverage they paid for in their lenses.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer, at least.

bradley phillip

After reading further in this thread, I realize that I might be adding to the confusion by being imprecise.

When I said,

bradley phillip said:

It'll be acting like a 480mm would on the EOS 30.

Click to expand...

what I meant more precisely was you'll get the FIELD OF VIEW of a 480mm on the D30. You will not get the higher telephoto compression, or more limited depth of field of a 480mm lens on an EOS 30, just the same field of view as a 480mm on an EOS 30.

It is, in all ways, equivalent to a crop.

The same goes for the rest of my ramblings in my response to you.

bradley phillip

Ok I see Phil's been nice enough to provide a preview button. Maybe I'll learn to use it one day!

Ignore that previous post. Let me try again.

---------

After reading further in this thread, I realize that I might be
adding to the confusion by being imprecise.

When I said,

bradley phillip said:

It'll be acting like a 480mm would on the EOS 30.

Click to expand...

what I meant more precisely was you'll get the FIELD OF VIEW of a

480mm on an EOS 30 by using a 300mm on a D30 . You will not get the higher telephoto compression, or more limited depth of field of a 480mm lens on an EOS 30, just the same field of view as a 480mm on an EOS 30.

Image-wise, it is in all ways, equivalent to a crop.

The same goes for the rest of my ramblings in my response to you.

bradley phillip

Confused yet?

Mike Greer said:

John,

What about those that simply don't care? All of this focal plane,
perspective, cropping, etc. is extremely interesting from an
academic standpoint.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Very well said. I don't understand why people get so het up if you use the word "crop" in place of "magnification", or vice versa. It doesn't matter a jot. For the "cropping is not magnification!" crowd, I would ask why do you inist on pointing out this largely meaningless distinction at every oportunity? What is the D30 a "crop" compared to? It's not like you can fit a bigger sensor in the D30 with the same resolving power, so what on Earth does it matter?

Why not just get used to reclasifying your lenses along the following lines?

28-35mm = standard

Mike Greer said:

35mm = telephoto

Click to expand...

Mike Greer said:

But as for me, I could really care less from a
practical standpoint. I'm with Scott on this one. It seems as
though many people want to marry digital photography to 35mm
photography and show how this or that differs from 35mm. I simply
do not care.

Click to expand...

Precisely. The D30 is not a 35mm camera. It doesn't use 35mm film and all those who keep wittering on about D30 pictures being "crops" of 35mm pictures are engaging in a completely pointless argument - they are simply what they are - 3 megapixel images taken on a camera which uses Canon EF lenses.

bradley phillip said:

When I said,

bradley phillip said:

It'll be acting like a 480mm would on the EOS 30.

Click to expand...

what I meant more precisely was you'll get the FIELD OF VIEW of a
480mm on the D30. You will not get the higher telephoto
compression,

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "telephoto compression". The effect you are thinking about is a function of where you stand, nothing more. The only way you're going to be able to affect perspective without moving is to somehow persuade the light to take a different path from the subject to the front of the lens. Good luck.

Rob S.28601 said:

When I'm shooting I don't care what the MM numbers are, I just compose and shoot...

Click to expand...

SLRs are nice that way. When you look through the lens you see what it sees. The problem comes up when you are looking at the lens not thorugh it. Worse yet when you are looking at a picture of the lens.

In other words it is a big issue when you are looking at a catalouge, or in a camera store...or sometimes even through your camera bag.

Once it is on your camera everything is fine.

That is if they make the lens you want. If you want a 17mm lens it is going to be hard to find one!

Chris,

Well put!

BC

Chris Brown said:

bradley phillip said:

When I said,

Member said:

It'll be acting like a 480mm would on the EOS 30.

Click to expand...

what I meant more precisely was you'll get the FIELD OF VIEW of a
480mm on the D30. You will not get the higher telephoto
compression,

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "telephoto compression". The effect you
are thinking about is a function of where you stand, nothing more.
The only way you're going to be able to affect perspective without
moving is to somehow persuade the light to take a different path
from the subject to the front of the lens. Good luck.

Click to expand...

This thread follows a pattern that many do, and which I find interesting, ... re. the participants.

Someone, presumably having interest-in, and wishing to comment/question on a subject, posts their thoughts, often requesting responses.

Others,wishing to respond out of interest-or-willingness-to-help, do-so, ...and discussion ensues.

And inevitably, a third group appears, stating something to-the-effect that those involved in the discussion are being foolish to even discuss the topic, which is really "pointless" (and presumably, a waste of everyone's time).

No matter what words the criticism is put-in, It always sounds (to me) like "I AM SATISFIED WITH MY understanding of this subject, so why don't all the rest of you stop discussing it,...are ALL of you so much less intelligent/perceptive than I am?"

If there were really any-such-thing as a "know-it-all", I would like to be one, ...it would probably be very useful. But If I WERE one, I assume that one of the things I would "know", is that not everyone-else knows-it-all, and I would not be offended by their attempting to learn some-of-it.

I always wonder if the mouse-fingers of such "shut-up!" posters are broken, so that they can't just "keep-on-clickin'", and spare themselves any involvement in the (pointless/repetitious/really stupid/obvious-to-a-child/etc.) discussion that so-antagonizes them.

I would think any "just-don't care" feelings on a particular topic could be more-perfectly expressed by lack-of-participation and indifference.

My thoughts of course, not necessarily anyone else's, ...but something just seems "wrong-with-this-picture" to me.

Larry

the Chris Brown said:

Mike Greer said:

John,

What about those that simply don't care? All of this focal plane,
perspective, cropping, etc. is extremely interesting from an
academic standpoint.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Very well said. I don't understand why people get so het up if you
use the word "crop" in place of "magnification", or vice versa. It
doesn't matter a jot. For the "cropping is not magnification!"
crowd, I would ask why do you inist on pointing out this largely
meaningless distinction at every oportunity? What is the D30 a
"crop" compared to? It's not like you can fit a bigger sensor in
the D30 with the same resolving power, so what on Earth does it
matter?

Why not just get used to reclasifying your lenses along the
following lines?

28-35mm = standard

Member said:

35mm = telephoto

Click to expand...

Member said:

But as for me, I could really care less from a
practical standpoint. I'm with Scott on this one. It seems as
though many people want to marry digital photography to 35mm
photography and show how this or that differs from 35mm. I simply
do not care.

Click to expand...

Precisely. The D30 is not a 35mm camera. It doesn't use 35mm film
and all those who keep wittering on about D30 pictures being
"crops" of 35mm pictures are engaging in a completely pointless
argument - they are simply what they are - 3 megapixel images taken
on a camera which uses Canon EF lenses.

Click to expand...

Very well said!

After all, sint this a "FORUM"?

If someone has a thought or question should they not feel free to ask?

And if by chance you are not interested in that particular post, just pass it by. Why waist your time and that of others to read a post that had nothing to do with the thread.

Im sure we all see dozends of post every day that are of no interest to us. But do we reply to each one just to say we had no interest in it?

Seems quite assinine, doesnt it?

So, if you dont care for a particular thread, go find one that you do, and reply to those.

Or better yet, go into a coffee shop, and tell them how much you dont like coffee! :0)

johnny

For people trying to understand what is going on with a D30 and how things like FoV, Perspective, and Depth of Field relate to a D30, what the D30 does relative to 35mm is important. There are a lot of books and information on 35mm but not much on Digital SLRs.

Saying that the D30 is a crop of the 35mm film plane is a statement of fact that can be useful to trying to determine many other factors. It is not a put down. It is also not magnification, once again not a put down but a statement of fact.

This topic started with a question on the how the D30 and 1D's behave with the 1.3 and 1.6 factors. If someone does not want to understand this, then they should skip over the subject rather than put down people asking the question and those trying to help. This gets discussed from time to time because it can be important to understand what is going on. There is also a lot of mis-information that is given because the subject can be confusing (and because of the Telephoto "Compression" misnomer).

The "numbers" can tell people that understand them what they want to control perspective and depth of field and what they may need in the way of lenses. For those just wanting to use the D30 as an expensive point and shoot camera, then they should skip over it.

Karl

lhsmith said:

Someone, presumably having interest-in, and wishing to
comment/question on a subject, posts their thoughts, often
requesting responses.

Others,wishing to respond out of interest-or-willingness-to-help,
do-so, ...and discussion ensues.

And inevitably, a third group appears, stating something
to-the-effect that those involved in the discussion are being
foolish to even discuss the topic, which is really "pointless" (and
presumably, a waste of everyone's time).

No matter what words the criticism is put-in, It always sounds (to
me) like "I AM SATISFIED WITH MY understanding of this subject, so
why don't all the rest of you stop discussing it,...are ALL of you
so much less intelligent/perceptive than I am?"

If there were really any-such-thing as a "know-it-all", I would
like to be one, ...it would probably be very useful. But If I WERE
one, I assume that one of the things I would "know", is that not
everyone-else knows-it-all, and I would not be offended by their
attempting to learn some-of-it.

I always wonder if the mouse-fingers of such "shut-up!" posters are
broken, so that they can't just "keep-on-clickin'", and spare
themselves any involvement in the (pointless/repetitious/really
stupid/obvious-to-a-child/etc.) discussion that so-antagonizes them.

I would think any "just-don't care" feelings on a particular topic
could be more-perfectly expressed by lack-of-participation and
indifference.

My thoughts of course, not necessarily anyone else's, ...but
something just seems "wrong-with-this-picture" to me.

Larry

the Chris Brown said:

Mike Greer said:

John,

What about those that simply don't care? All of this focal plane,
perspective, cropping, etc. is extremely interesting from an
academic standpoint.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Very well said. I don't understand why people get so het up if you
use the word "crop" in place of "magnification", or vice versa. It
doesn't matter a jot. For the "cropping is not magnification!"
crowd, I would ask why do you inist on pointing out this largely
meaningless distinction at every oportunity? What is the D30 a
"crop" compared to? It's not like you can fit a bigger sensor in
the D30 with the same resolving power, so what on Earth does it
matter?

Why not just get used to reclasifying your lenses along the
following lines?

28-35mm = standard

Larry H. Smith said:

35mm = telephoto

Click to expand...

Larry H. Smith said:

But as for me, I could really care less from a
practical standpoint. I'm with Scott on this one. It seems as
though many people want to marry digital photography to 35mm
photography and show how this or that differs from 35mm. I simply
do not care.

Click to expand...

Precisely. The D30 is not a 35mm camera. It doesn't use 35mm film
and all those who keep wittering on about D30 pictures being
"crops" of 35mm pictures are engaging in a completely pointless
argument - they are simply what they are - 3 megapixel images taken
on a camera which uses Canon EF lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...