Reading mode: Light Dark

More megapixels means bigger pictures, not better pictures!!!

Go to last post
rgojr said:
for the love of god...

do not mention pixel density in any way shape or form and answer me
this question:

does a 1.6x sensor increase the reach of your lens?

here's the answer, i'll save you the time":

NO!

It crops the field of view.

Why is this such a hard thing to admit?
Click to expand...
I don't love GOD and don't believe in such cr@p.

As I said if you actually print your images you'll see it does amount to magnifcation. You can ignore pixel density all you like but it is a real issue that plays an important part, whether or not you accept that FACT.

Please answer my original question if you can refute any of it good I'm waiting.

Secondly please give the eaxct defintion of reach you are working under.
 
you just can't do it can you? LOL!

soooo funny....

ok, i'm out of this discussion... it's pointless.

have a good night.
thxy1138 said:
rgojr said:
for the love of god...

do not mention pixel density in any way shape or form and answer me
this question:

does a 1.6x sensor increase the reach of your lens?

here's the answer, i'll save you the time":

NO!

It crops the field of view.

Why is this such a hard thing to admit?
Click to expand...
I don't love GOD and don't believe in such cr@p.

As I said if you actually print your images you'll see it does
amount to magnifcation. You can ignore pixel density all you like
but it is a real issue that plays an important part, whether or not
you accept that FACT.

Please answer my original question if you can refute any of it good
I'm waiting.

Secondly please give the eaxct defintion of reach you are working
under.
Click to expand...
--

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so
 
thx1138 said:
chironNYC said:
More pixels to represent a larger area at a lower sampling rate.
You have more pixels on the 5D but a larger field of view and lower
resolution. I think that you don't understand the issues yet. Try
re-reading my original post on this.
Click to expand...
I clearly understand what you are saying and as I keep saying you
are only correct in the situation where you are FL limited. What is
it that you don't understand about this? This is not conjecture but
a readily verifiable FACT and has been done so by many. You keep
saying that you somehow have to cheat to get the 5D to show more
resolving power.
Click to expand...
By introducing the possiblity of changing the lens, you are attemppting to solve a practical problem, but i am addressing the basic question of resolution. If you change the lens for both cameras, rather than only for the 5D, the 20D continues to havemore resolution for the simple reason that it has more resolution. But even in the practical terms that you are addressingIN practical terms, what is the cost of going from a 200mm 2.8 to a 300mm 2.8? About $5000.
thx1138 said:
thx1138 said:
In film, the size of the film negative is directly proportional to
the number of "sampling points" becasue the film is the same for
both size sensors.
Click to expand...
The film is the same so has the same resolution, yet if I shoot the
eaxct same scene with both cameras the LF shows enormously more
detail, but if I crop a 35mm segment from the LF negative and
examine it and compare it to a 35mm shot of that same scene they'll
have identical resolution. These are both the same issues. However
in this case we can never get a benefit from the 35mm if we are FL
limited, like we do with 20D as the silver halide density is the
same for both films.
thx1138 said:
That is not the case with digital sensors. Look
at the smaple photos earlier in this thread. Same lens, same
distance, same image size, and the 20D is obviously sharper.
Click to expand...
Ok and yet when we show you a shot where the images have equal FOV
and the 5D CLEARLY resolves more detail what are you thought
patterns.
Click to expand...
Your comparison pictures always have to obscure the way in which the 5D actually is different--it has a different field of view. Keep the FOV as native for the comparison, same lens, same distance, same image size hung on your wall or printed in a magazine and then...the 20Dis sharper.
thx1138 said:
Also you should compare a 1D2 and 5D then as they have the same
pixel density and according to you they'll have exactly the same
detail if shot with equal FOV. but this is patently false and the
extra MP of the 5D are of real benefit.
thx1138 said:
None of this means the 5D is not a wonderfuk camera.
--
Click to expand...
I've heard of the wonderfuk but never experienced it :o)

BTW I don'ta 20D or 5D and have no agenda.
Click to expand...
Anyway, I gotta watch the Oscars now. Nice chatting with you. Keep looking for that wonderfuk.

--
Peter
 
specialy in bird photography where in 95% you wish for a bit more reach , so you should be closer to subject with FF camera but you just cant in real life , so 1.6 crop camera IS better for telephoto photography where you need as much detail as possible, and dont have chance to get closer , if you can get closer than why to use telephoto lens ?? ...

all best
kristian
VizBiz said:
For those who inexplicably believe that somehow using a 20D is
better for birding because of the so called "reach", think again.
You would be far more likely to catch that elusive albatros using a
full frame camera because there is a bigger field of view to fit it
in as it flies away. You can then crop that image by 1.6 and
pretend you were so good that you captured the perfect composition
with your 20D. And unless you want to print it 20 x 24, you'll
have plenty of pixels left. And if you do there is always genuine
fractals.

Don't tell me about pixel density or printing scenarios "a" and "b"
of the same size. This isn't about some hypothetical reasoning, it
is about humans viewing a finished image. And as for composing for
the entire viewable frame of your camera, I don't necessarily think
in the same ratio as the sensor. Besides, that concept is a
throwback from film. Film prints start losing detail beyond the
size of a contact print, so any cropping does indeed dramatically
reduce resolution. With digital, on the other hand, unless you are
making the maximum size print for your image pixel size, you are
actually discarding resolution available for printing larger images.

The reality is that the only advantage more pixels will give you is
the ability to print bigger pictures. There is no printer process
that is able to show any more detail than is available to the 20D,
or for that matter a 300D. The human eye is the real limiting
factor. You cannot tell the difference between an 8 x 10 print
made form virtually any high quality digital camera from a 300D to
a Phase One back.

While I'm on a roll, stop using pre processed imagess as examples
of how sharp or accurate your camera is. Digital images are meant
to be processed. The difference is whether you let the camera do
it or you do it yourself. There's a reason they call it "raw" and
not "giant and perfect".

The only real advantage of the 1.6 sensor beyond cost is that since
the lenses are designed to cover the field of a 35mm image, the
weakest part of the lenses, the falloff of detail and distortion at
the edges, is eliminated. Those edges are "cropped out" of the
image.

I think my 20D is fabulous. I'd much rather have a FF sensor to
take complete advantage of my lenses. Don't even try to tell me
that I have more reach. I know I have less area.
Click to expand...
 
rgojr said:
you just can't do it can you? LOL!

soooo funny....

ok, i'm out of this discussion... it's pointless.
Click to expand...
Was it ever a discussion on your part? Just automatic repetition "crop! factor! does not! increase! reach!" without a single argument.
--
Misha
 
Sorry, here just trying to understand your argument...

Do you think the 20D achieves better detail than the 5D for a given object in the frame, using the same lens at the same focal length, at the same distance? Please answer yes or no. After that, look at the pictures and please post a reasonable explanation for why those don't seem to agree with you.
rgojr said:
I've never mentioned pixel density, i don't care about pixel
density, i don't care about a 5D vs. 20D vs 10D, i'm simply saying
what I've said above, yet everyon keeps replying with "but the
pixel density....." LOL! I completely understand pixel density,
so what, leave it out of this, :)
FretNoMore said:
rgojr said:
i'm not talking about anything other than the completely false and
incorrect belief that many on here have that by having a 1.6x
sensor that the reach of their lenses are increased. Regardless of
any which way anyone wishes to spin it, clarify it, re-word it,
tangentalize it, discuss pixel size, discuss pixel density change
the topic or in ANY other way, shape or form attempt to make the
argument, you do NOT get any increased reach from a 1.6x sensor.
Click to expand...
Compared to what? You're changing the topic by omitting "compared
to a 5D cropped to 1.6x frame size", in which case the pixel
density of the 20D does give you more "pixels per duck". Note that
this says nothing about the quality of the image, only how many
pixels you get for resolving detail - what many here call "reach".
Click to expand...
--
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their
apparent disinclination to do so
Click to expand...
 
rgojr wrote:

You mean you can't give a signle technical argument to prove your case. Stop bleating and start producing facts. I've done so and so have many others.
 
He is not interested in the discussion at hand, he wants to continue beating another fact to death. Noone is disputing the fact he is talking about as it's not even being discussed in this thread.
saynomore said:
Do you think the 20D achieves better detail than the 5D for a given
object in the frame, using the same lens at the same focal length,
at the same distance? Please answer yes or no. After that, look at
the pictures and please post a reasonable explanation for why those
don't seem to agree with you.
rgojr said:
it's not out of context, it's a simple statement, a 1.6x sensor
does not increase the reach of your lens, it simply gives you the
fov of the longer lens.

I've never mentioned pixel density, i don't care about pixel
density, i don't care about a 5D vs. 20D vs 10D, i'm simply saying
what I've said above, yet everyon keeps replying with "but the
pixel density....." LOL! I completely understand pixel density,
so what, leave it out of this, :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rgojr said:
for the love of god...

do not mention pixel density in any way shape or form and answer me
this question:

does a 1.6x sensor increase the reach of your lens?

here's the answer, i'll save you the time":

NO!

It crops the field of view.

Why is this such a hard thing to admit?
Click to expand...
Everyone understands that the field of view is cropped and the focal length of the lens does not magically change on 1.6x sensor cameras. That is a simple, known and accepted fact.

Now, please explain to all the simple-minded folks like me on this forum how this cropped field of view does not give an apparent increase in focal length, which ia all "reach" is - an "apparent" increase in focal length when a lens is used on a sensor smaller rhan 35mm FF. BTW: That "apparent" increase is a very useful thing on the telephoto end of the lens spectrum and a bit of a problem on the wide-angle end.
 
it's kinda frustrating because some people take this religiously, and these same people are the ones that say and advocate more the "absolutely no advantage for 1.6x crop" phrase, when the people here who follow the facts (and theory) know otherwise. They (the religious ones) are the ones who start preaching and confusing threads like this one. It confuses furthermore people who really are willing to learn. Hopefully they will be able to see the facts from the pictures posted.

So again, and for the last time. It depends on pixel density. To say "don't talk about pixel density to me" is just like a creationist saying "don't talk about bones and carbon 14, or geology, or cosmology to me".

For the purposes of "reach", the detail you can get with a given lens at the same distance is not dependant on sensor size at all, as most people (in both sides of the debate) seem to believe.
FretNoMore said:
saynomore said:
Do you think the 20D achieves better detail than the 5D for a given
object in the frame, using the same lens at the same focal length,
at the same distance? Please answer yes or no. After that, look at
the pictures and please post a reasonable explanation for why those
don't seem to agree with you.
rgojr said:
it's not out of context, it's a simple statement, a 1.6x sensor
does not increase the reach of your lens, it simply gives you the
fov of the longer lens.

I've never mentioned pixel density, i don't care about pixel
density, i don't care about a 5D vs. 20D vs 10D, i'm simply saying
what I've said above, yet everyon keeps replying with "but the
pixel density....." LOL! I completely understand pixel density,
so what, leave it out of this, :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
An obvious beginner makes an authoritative post, and everybody and his/her dog gets aggravated!!!

Of course that at the same focal length it's pixel density that makes the difference!

Of course that you are not focal length limited it's the sensor resolution that makes the difference!

Of course that at the same resolution the larger pixel camera will have an advantage!

If one can do basic math, it's obvious.

Instead, we get: "that's not what I said", "that's not what HE said", "that's not what you meant to say", 12 is bigger than 8, bummer, 8 is bigger than five, focal length is a myth, no, field of view is a myth, a duck has more pixels than an eagle, but my technology is better!

And, to top that, I just added one more useless post! OMG!!!

d/n
 
(which would give you the same pixel density as the 20D
but FF).
 
another beginner might think he's right. It's wrong to have posted such an authoritative post as you say. But it's the responsibility of people who have been helped before by others here to help now that they know better.
devnull said:
An obvious beginner makes an authoritative post, and everybody and
his/her dog gets aggravated!!!

Of course that at the same focal length it's pixel density that
makes the difference!

Of course that you are not focal length limited it's the sensor
resolution that makes the difference!

Of course that at the same resolution the larger pixel camera will
have an advantage!

If one can do basic math, it's obvious.

Instead, we get: "that's not what I said", "that's not what HE
said", "that's not what you meant to say", 12 is bigger than 8,
bummer, 8 is bigger than five, focal length is a myth, no, field of
view is a myth, a duck has more pixels than an eagle, but my
technology is better!

And, to top that, I just added one more useless post! OMG!!!

d/n
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimKasson
Noise, Dynamic Range, Cropping, and Print Size
2
Replies
24
Views
40K
JimKasson
JimKasson
Satyaa
Does print size depend on sensor size, or just pixel count?
2
Replies
23
Views
32K
olyflyer
olyflyer
F786
Is there a case for a 45 MP vs 24 MP beyond ability to crop?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
15K
shuncheung
S
A
Understanding Diffraction: Why It Matters for Photographers
2 3
Replies
54
Views
45K
Detail Man
Detail Man
DavidMillier
Comparison between 44x33mm 50MP Fuji GFX and m4/3 - prints
2
Replies
22
Views
153K
luxborealis
luxborealis

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top