Reading mode: Light Dark

reach reached 150

Go to last post
John Sheehy

John Sheehy

Forum Pro
Messages
28,399
Solutions
8
Reaction score
8,815
Location
NY, USA
The previous thread was vandalized by someone who made two content-less posts (149 & 150) except to intentionally end the thread.
Great Bustard said:
John Sheehy said:
Great Bustard said:
Because those sensors have a higher pixel density, they have greater reach for the same focal length. Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
Click to expand...
Well, that would be me.
Click to expand...
You disagree that "reach" is the resolution on the subject from a given position?
Click to expand...
I disagree with the idea of using the term "reach" at all in this context. I don't use it that way, and I recommend that no one else uses it that way. "Reach" is not a Platonic concept sitting next to his chair, which we need to find the true meaning of. It is a poorly-chosen way to refer to resolving a subject, which implies non-existent real and/or apparent changes in distance or perspective.
Member said:
Member said:
I don't think the term/word "reach" should ever be used to refer to a level of magnification.
Click to expand...
Not magnification, but resolution (although increasing magnification does increase resolution on the subject).
Click to expand...
Bigger relative to the full image, bigger at 100% pixel view, and bigger in mm on the sensor are all forms of magnification. All can occur without getting closer to, or "reaching" the subject.
Member said:
Member said:
Reach would be something like sticking your camera on the end of a monopod and reaching over a fence with it.
Click to expand...
That changes the perspective, though.
Click to expand...
That's my point. "Reaching" requires a change of perspective.
 
[No message]
 
I guess a few hundred years ago intelligent men argued about how many angels could dance on a pin, and thought they were accomplishing something, when all they were doing is playing semantics.

So tell me. If those last few "meaningless" posts hadn't closed the last thread out, do you really think it would be settled and done?
 
tko said:
I guess a few hundred years ago intelligent men argued about how many angels could dance on a pin, and thought they were accomplishing something, when all they were doing is playing semantics.

So tell me. If those last few "meaningless" posts hadn't closed the last thread out, do you really think it would be settled and done?\
Click to expand...
Perhaps someone can make 140+ meaningless posts here to close this thread out quickly. LOL

Oh wait, the whole thing, like the topic, is meaningless.
 
John Sheehy said:
The previous thread was vandalized by someone who made two content-less posts (149 & 150) except to intentionally end the thread.
Great Bustard said:
John Sheehy said:
Great Bustard said:
Because those sensors have a higher pixel density, they have greater reach for the same focal length. Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
Click to expand...
Well, that would be me.
Click to expand...
You disagree that "reach" is the resolution on the subject from a given position?
Click to expand...
I disagree with the idea of using the term "reach" at all in this context. I don't use it that way, and I recommend that no one else uses it that way. "Reach" is not a Platonic concept sitting next to his chair, which we need to find the true meaning of. It is a poorly-chosen way to refer to resolving a subject, which implies non-existent real and/or apparent changes in distance or perspective.
John Sheehy said:
John Sheehy said:
I don't think the term/word "reach" should ever be used to refer to a level of magnification.
Click to expand...
Not magnification, but resolution (although increasing magnification does increase resolution on the subject).
Click to expand...
Bigger relative to the full image, bigger at 100% pixel view, and bigger in mm on the sensor are all forms of magnification. All can occur without getting closer to, or "reaching" the subject.
John Sheehy said:
John Sheehy said:
Reach would be something like sticking your camera on the end of a monopod and reaching over a fence with it.
Click to expand...
That changes the perspective, though.
Click to expand...
That's my point. "Reaching" requires a change of perspective.
Click to expand...
I agree. And I take it a bit further by saying that I would rather confine reach to optical phenomena. IE, a longer lens has more reach than a shorter lens.

On which sensor one may ask? No, forget the sensor. When you introduce the sensor, you, you introduce a new variable and that's another matter. It's just optical - as you increase focal length, you decrease angle of view.
 
Pixel Pooper said:
To me reach does not imply getting closer to the subject but the opposite. More reach allows you to be further from the subject, like how a boxer with longer arms has more reach so he can stand further away and still punch you in the face.
Click to expand...
Yea - this is getting more like what I think of by the word reach.
 
In astrophotography we often talk about "image scale" which can be described as the number of arc seconds per pixel. In photography we often talk about "resolving power" which can be described as the minimum angular distance between resolved details.

The slang term "reach" is just a one syllable way of referring to the same concept. Don't make such a big deal over it.
 
stevo23 said:
John Sheehy said:
That's my point. "Reaching" requires a change of perspective.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...
Weird, but okay.
stevo23 said:
And I take it a bit further by saying that I would rather confine reach to optical phenomena. IE, a longer lens has more reach than a shorter lens.
Click to expand...
Changing focal length doesn't change perspective.
stevo23 said:
On which sensor one may ask? No, forget the sensor. When you introduce the sensor, you, you introduce a new variable and that's another matter. It's just optical - as you increase focal length, you decrease angle of view.
Click to expand...
And if you change sensor size on a camera or eye piece focal length on a telescope you change angle of view, but not perspective.
 
stevo23 said:
I agree. And I take it a bit further by saying that I would rather confine reach to optical phenomena. IE, a longer lens has more reach than a shorter lens.

On which sensor one may ask? No, forget the sensor. When you introduce the sensor, you, you introduce a new variable and that's another matter. It's just optical - as you increase focal length, you decrease angle of view.
Click to expand...
If it's just an optical phenomenon, then a 24MP FF camera with a 357mm focal length has the same reach as a 16MP Nikon P900, but when you crop the FF to the same field of view as the P900 you are left with only .75MP compared to the P900's 16MP. So would you say these have the same reach when only one of them produces a usable image at 2000mm equivalent focal length?
 
John Sheehy said:
The previous thread was vandalized by someone who made two content-less posts (149 & 150) except to intentionally end the thread.
Great Bustard said:
John Sheehy said:
Great Bustard said:
Because those sensors have a higher pixel density, they have greater reach for the same focal length. Is there anyone arguing otherwise?
Click to expand...
Well, that would be me.
Click to expand...
You disagree that "reach" is the resolution on the subject from a given position?
Click to expand...
I disagree with the idea of using the term "reach" at all in this context. I don't use it that way, and I recommend that no one else uses it that way. "Reach" is not a Platonic concept sitting next to his chair, which we need to find the true meaning of. It is a poorly-chosen way to refer to resolving a subject, which implies non-existent real and/or apparent changes in distance or perspective.
John Sheehy said:
John Sheehy said:
I don't think the term/word "reach" should ever be used to refer to a level of magnification.
Click to expand...
Not magnification, but resolution (although increasing magnification does increase resolution on the subject).
Click to expand...
Bigger relative to the full image, bigger at 100% pixel view, and bigger in mm on the sensor are all forms of magnification. All can occur without getting closer to, or "reaching" the subject.
John Sheehy said:
John Sheehy said:
Reach would be something like sticking your camera on the end of a monopod and reaching over a fence with it.
Click to expand...
That changes the perspective, though.
Click to expand...
That's my point. "Reaching" requires a change of perspective.
Click to expand...
 
Lee Jay said:
stevo23 said:
John Sheehy said:
That's my point. "Reaching" requires a change of perspective.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Click to expand...
Weird, but okay.
Lee Jay said:
And I take it a bit further by saying that I would rather confine reach to optical phenomena. IE, a longer lens has more reach than a shorter lens.
Click to expand...
Changing focal length doesn't change perspective.
Click to expand...
You're right, I was thinking angle of view, not perspective. A case of seeing what I wanted to see.
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
On which sensor one may ask? No, forget the sensor. When you introduce the sensor, you, you introduce a new variable and that's another matter. It's just optical - as you increase focal length, you decrease angle of view.
Click to expand...
And if you change sensor size on a camera or eye piece focal length on a telescope you change angle of view, but not perspective.
Click to expand...
Leave "reach" to mean angle of view and keep it in the optical domain.
 
Pixel Pooper said:
stevo23 said:
I agree. And I take it a bit further by saying that I would rather confine reach to optical phenomena. IE, a longer lens has more reach than a shorter lens.

On which sensor one may ask? No, forget the sensor. When you introduce the sensor, you, you introduce a new variable and that's another matter. It's just optical - as you increase focal length, you decrease angle of view.
Click to expand...
If it's just an optical phenomenon, then a 24MP FF camera with a 357mm focal length has the same reach as a 16MP Nikon P900, but when you crop the FF to the same field of view as the P900 you are left with only .75MP compared to the P900's 16MP. So would you say these have the same reach when only one of them produces a usable image at 2000mm equivalent focal length?
Click to expand...
I don't know those cameras. But now you're talking about resolution. I'd rather use reach when talking about lenses and MP of resolution when talking about sensors. The interaction of the two is yet another thing to discuss.
 
stevo23 said:
Leave "reach" to mean angle of view and keep it in the optical domain.
Click to expand...
If you want to keep it in the optical domain "reach" would have to mean focal length, not angle of view because angle of view depends on both focal length and sensor size, but if it just means focal length then we already have a name for that.
 
Last edited:
stevo23 said:
I don't know those cameras. But now you're talking about resolution. I'd rather use reach when talking about lenses and MP of resolution when talking about sensors. The interaction of the two is yet another thing to discuss.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, what you would rather is rather irrelevant. You can use reach to mean whatever you want, but it already has a meaning to everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimKasson
Choosing gear for high-magnification MF macrophotography
Replies
12
Views
5K
Stan Disbrow
Stan Disbrow
D
EF 70-200 f/4L IS ii vs EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L for 5D IV?
Replies
13
Views
21K
Tannin
T
S
using om1 mkIi af range limiter and digital teleconverter
Replies
3
Views
1K
David5833
D
faunagraphy
OM 150-600mm vs Fuji 150-600mm (all-in-one zoom)
2
Replies
39
Views
10K
HicHic
HicHic
L
Canon R7 + Canon 100-400mm (+ 1.4x) vs Sony A6700 + Sigma 150-600mm
Replies
12
Views
10K
Planterz
Planterz

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