Effective reach 10 MP 1.3 x versus 8 MP 1.6 x

Started Sep 9, 2007 | Discussions
RajivL Forum Member • Posts: 77
Effective reach 10 MP 1.3 x versus 8 MP 1.6 x

Wonder if the 10 MP 1.3 x MK III can make up the loss of reach with its bigger image size as compared to the 8 MP 1.6 x 30D. I generally photograph birds and wildlife.

regards,

Rajiv

http://www.birding.in

Robphoto Regular Member • Posts: 474
Re: Effective reach 10 MP 1.3 x versus 8 MP 1.6 x

The camera with the greater pixel density will be best when you have to crop the image.

But if you can get the perfect framing and composition with the higher resolution sensor then that would be best.

EG. if the bird takes up the entire 1.3x 10mp frame then you have a winner. but if you need to crop the image down to the 1.6x then you have just lost a lot of pixels.

The pixel density of the chips are roughly 25,000 pixels per square millimeter for the 30D and roughly 20,000 for the 1Dm3

Tinu_ch Contributing Member • Posts: 660
c. 88-89%

I did the calculation a few months ago and I do not find my notes right now. But I remember the result.

Measured against pixel density the 1D Mk III has about 88-89% of "reach" compared to a 30D/20D/xt.
Tinu
--
If the text above reads like real English, it must be a quotation
Some of my pictures: http://www.pbase.com/tinu

 Tinu_ch's gear list:Tinu_ch's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +7 more
KiboOst
KiboOst Senior Member • Posts: 1,187
Re: Effective reach 10 MP 1.3 x versus 8 MP 1.6 x

yes, pixel density is needed only when you are focal lenght limited.

crop factor of 1DIII against 30D is 0.89

check here : http://www.withinlights.com/Labo/Articles/CropFactor/index_us.php#RCF-calculator

But 1DIII has better AF (eh humm well, on paper at least) and better sensor tech, so you should get nearly same print quality.

Nicolas

 KiboOst's gear list:KiboOst's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 +5 more
Dave Peters Senior Member • Posts: 1,520
Re: Effective reach 10 MP 1.3 x versus 8 MP 1.6 x

Wait for the 1DsMkIII and you can have the same reach. You then have the advantage of more pixels in situations where you are not focal length limited.

This ignores the price factor of course !

-- hide signature --

Dave Peters

 Dave Peters's gear list:Dave Peters's gear list
Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x
J A K Forum Pro • Posts: 15,833
Here is crop factor versus MP rating for Canon's line-up.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

chinch Senior Member • Posts: 1,731
Re: Here is crop factor versus MP rating for Canon's line-up.

i've seen yo post this alot but never really payed attention to what it's calculating on the last bold line.

can you explain what you are posting here and how a 21MP 1DSmk3 becomes "8.2 MP rating cropped to 30D".

wouldn't it be closer to 13mp cropped down?

or are you taking the actual 13mp remaining then adjusting it by some other factor?

J A K wrote:

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

 chinch's gear list:chinch's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +4 more
J A K Forum Pro • Posts: 15,833
Re: Here is crop factor versus MP rating for Canon's line-up.

chinch wrote:

i've seen yo post this alot but never really payed attention to what
it's calculating on the last bold line.

can you explain what you are posting here and how a 21MP 1DSmk3
becomes "8.2 MP rating cropped to 30D".

wouldn't it be closer to 13mp cropped down?

or are you taking the actual 13mp remaining then adjusting it by some
other factor?

Hi chinch:

I have no idea where you get "13mp" but anyway, if the 1DsIII is cropped down to the size of a 20D for example, both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the 1DsIII are smaller by a factor of 1.6. Just take the ratio of the areas and calculate the new MP rating.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

chinch Senior Member • Posts: 1,731
Re: Here is crop factor versus MP rating for Canon's line-up.

Hi chinch:

I have no idea where you get "13mp" but anyway, if the 1DsIII is
cropped down to the size of a 20D for example, both the horizontal
and vertical dimensions of the 1DsIII are smaller by a factor of 1.6.
Just take the ratio of the areas and calculate the new MP rating.

Regards,
Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

thanks. i was doing the math wrong

is it accurate to extrapolate from that chart that the 40D crams in 2x the pixels into the equivalent size sensor as the 5D or 1DmkII?

5.0 vs 10.1

 chinch's gear list:chinch's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +4 more
J A K Forum Pro • Posts: 15,833
Re: Here is crop factor versus MP rating for Canon's line-up.

chinch wrote:

Hi chinch:

I have no idea where you get "13mp" but anyway, if the 1DsIII is
cropped down to the size of a 20D for example, both the horizontal
and vertical dimensions of the 1DsIII are smaller by a factor of 1.6.
Just take the ratio of the areas and calculate the new MP rating.

Regards,
Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

thanks. i was doing the math wrong

No sweat!

is it accurate to extrapolate from that chart that the 40D crams in
2x the pixels into the equivalent size sensor as the 5D or 1DmkII?

5.0 vs 10.1

There is no need to extrapolate. All important metrics are in the table, look at the pixel pitch and multiply by the physical size of the sensor; if this is what you are after. I'm not sure exactly what you are after but the pixel pitch all by itself may be the answer the answer you are seeking.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Doug Kerr Forum Pro • Posts: 20,898
Remind me how reach is defined (nt)
n/t
 Doug Kerr's gear list:Doug Kerr's gear list
Leica V-Lux 4
Ophrys Contributing Member • Posts: 775
Re: Here is crop factor versus MP rating for Canon's line-up.

Thanks for posting Joe - that's a really useful chart.

Ophrys

joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
I would define it thusly:

"The Reach Factor" is the factor by which the focal length of one system needs to be scaled to match the number of pixels on the scene for the same perspective with another system. For example, 50mm with 20 MP would have the same reach as 100mm with 5 MP on the same format.

To answer the OP's question, then, the reach would be 13.5% greater for 1.6x at 8 MP than 1.3x (actually 1.26x) at 10 MP:

(1.6 / 1.26) * sqrt (8/10) = 1.135.

So, whatever FL you use on the 10 MP 1.6x system, you would use 1.135x that FL on the 8 MP 1.3x system, or, conversely, whatever FL you use on the 8 MP 1.3x system, you would use 0.88x (1/1.135) that FL on the 10 MP 1.6x system.

J A K Forum Pro • Posts: 15,833
You are entirely welcome, glad you find it useful.

I got sick and tired of calculating that cr@p every time the subject came up in the forums and decided to make it available to everybody - to copy and use in their own responses.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original

SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Doug Kerr Forum Pro • Posts: 20,898
Thanks, very clear

Hi, Joe,

joe mama wrote:

"The Reach Factor" is the factor by which the focal length of one
system needs to be scaled to match the number of pixels on the scene
for the same perspective with another system. For example, 50mm with
20 MP would have the same reach as 100mm with 5 MP on the same format.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clear explanation.

Numerically, then, it is [proportional to] the inverse of the angle subtended by one pixel pitch.

I think our colleague Lee Jay had explained that to me a while ago, but I'm an old guy and forget stuff until I have had a chance to really work with it!

Best regards,

Doug

 Doug Kerr's gear list:Doug Kerr's gear list
Leica V-Lux 4
joe mama Forum Pro • Posts: 12,623
Hey!

"The Reach Factor" is the factor by which the focal length of one
system needs to be scaled to match the number of pixels on the scene
for the same perspective with another system. For example, 50mm with
20 MP would have the same reach as 100mm with 5 MP on the same format.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clear explanation.

Only too happy to oblige someone who knows a hundred times what I know about photography!

Numerically, then, it is [proportional to] the inverse of the angle
subtended by one pixel pitch.

That's clever! Didn't think of it that way!

I think our colleague Lee Jay had explained that to me a while ago,
but I'm an old guy and forget stuff until I have had a chance to
really work with it!

Lee Jay has taught me most of what I know in terms of the optics of photography, and he speaks no less highly of you.

Doug Kerr Forum Pro • Posts: 20,898
The numerical unit of reach

Hi, Joe,

joe mama wrote:

Numerically, then, it is [proportional to] the inverse of the angle
subtended by one pixel pitch.

That's clever! Didn't think of it that way!

It was Lee Jay who first articulated that notion to me.

In fact, one way to express a unit for it would be in pixels per radian.

In that case, the expression for reach would be:

R = f/p

where R is the reach (in pixels/radian), f is the focal length in mm, and p is the pixel pitch in mm.

The numbers we would often encounter would make the unit kilopixels per radian (kpx/rad) most useful.

Thus, on a camera with a pixel pitch of 5.7 um (such as the 40D, reckoned with respect to its largest output image), a lens with a focal length of 100 mm would give a reach of 17.5 kpx/rad.

Best regards,

Doug

 Doug Kerr's gear list:Doug Kerr's gear list
Leica V-Lux 4
mattr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,505
Re: The numerical unit of reach

Doug Kerr wrote:

R = f/p

where R is the reach (in pixels/radian), f is the focal length in mm,
and p is the pixel pitch in mm.

The numbers we would often encounter would make the unit kilopixels
per radian (kpx/rad) most useful.

Thus, on a camera with a pixel pitch of 5.7 um (such as the 40D,
reckoned with respect to its largest output image), a lens with a
focal length of 100 mm would give a reach of 17.5 kpx/rad.

Should we now call the unit for "reach" (kpx/rad) one kerr, one mama, or one leejay?

montereyphoto Senior Member • Posts: 1,386
Re: Effective reach 10 MP 1.3 x versus 8 MP 1.6 x

With a 400mm lens the picture angle on a 1.6 will be about that of a 640mm lens while on a Mark III it will be comparable to a 520mm lens, quite a difference. The image magnification will be the same for the 400mm regardless of whether it is mounted on a 40D, Mark III, or 5D.

The Mark III in theory will have faster AF and provide sharper images. In theory.

pertti Senior Member • Posts: 1,043
My subjective opinion..

1DMKIII can indeed make the loss unless you have to constantly crop out huge amounts of picture. If I put 1.4x tele extender onto 500/4, I would have more autofocus performance and still better picture than with my ex. 30D with 500/4 only.

I cannot quite get pulse what is different with picture quality, no way i can prove it scientifically, but 1DMKIII just delivers that extra for pictures. Colors and color gradient are better. A good example is where blue sky is mixing into white cloud. I cannot rule out if this is caused by different sensor, pixel area per optics per mm, Digic III or whatever. Also noise is at least one stop better.

In the situation like the following: 1DMKIII and 500/4 + 1.4TC, I think I couldn't repeat color like that when I used 30D:

-
http://www.jussivakkala.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads