|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
|
![]()
Bigger... different effect.... collecting fainter light... yeah, I'm SOLD! Its too bad your giving up, I'm quite perplexed by this, uh, emotional description and I'd like to hear the science behind it.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
The bottom line is that you need to take each sensor/lens combination on a case by case basis to see what it's capable of resolving, with the way the image is being processed also coming into the equation.
But, with current technology used in DSLR models, a shorter focal length lens for a given angle of view with an APS-C sensor can resolve just as much detail as a longer focal length lens on a 35mm film size sensor, if the resolution of the sensor (how many photosites it has) is equivalent. Will we reach a point where the sensors are outresolving the lenses? Sure we will, just like we have larger format film when that happens. But, for all practical purposes, a DSLR model using an APS-C sensor with a 100mm lens will resolve just as much detail as a DSLR model with a 35mm film size sensor using a 150mm lens, if the resolution of the sensors is the same (number of photostites in the sensor), with equivalent light gathering ability (aperture, as rated in f/stop), for the amount of light the sensor receives, as long as you're using lenses of equivalent quality (good lenses can outresolve the sensors). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
|
![]()
BillDrew wrote:
Quote:
In case a, we will have a very smooth, very clear, orange dot. With the true magnification we will be seeing the planet Mars. Capiche? I don't want to put down the cropping factor. It is useful, because with digital it allows more pixels on the target. But more pixels on the target does NOT equal the true resolving power of magnification. I tell you this with some actual experience, having shot with a 500mm on a 1.5 croping factor and 850mm on a Canon Mark II 1Ds. Details, details, details... :G Dave |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
DBB wrote:
Quote:
If you're comparing sensors with the same number of photosites, I doubt you'd see any difference at all, if the camera's image processing was equivalent, and the lenses used were of equivalent quality. Now, if you tried to stuff 16 Million Photosites into an APS-C size sensor, you may or may not have a problem with lens limitations (not being able to resolve enough detail for the sensor). But, with current models, that's not the case yet with good quality lenses, if you're comparing models with the same resolution sensor. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
|
![]()
DBB wrote:
Quote:
DBB wrote: Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
|
![]()
I've been reading this thread because I am going to buy a 30D. I've a pretty good understanding of physics of light (in fact it is one of my favorite topics, always been fascinated by the properties of light and the fact that we cannot explain how it both behaves like a wave and particle). But I still do not know if my 30D will give me real magnification or it will appear to give magnification.
Most physicists performed simple experiments to prove something. So can somebody here who has both an FF and a 1.6x crop camera (or whatever you want to call it) perform an experiment and tell us (or show) the results? 1) shoot a stationary object from the same tripod with a) FF camera with a 300mm lens b) 1.6x crop camera with a 300mm lens 2) compare the results, does the picture from 1b show the object larger than the picture 1a? Note: let us ignore the resolution, so if the cameras used have different MP ratings that should be OK. I am interested in the 'magnification' factor. Does it, or does it not magnify? Is this an experiment that would be useful? What do you guys think? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
|
![]()
JimC wrote:
Quote:
Does it not? If you can't SEE tjhe details, no sensor will be able to resolve them. Dave |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
|
![]()
BTW I have seen a few examples like this one:
http://bobatkins.photo.net/photograp...5d_or_20d.html and I thought I understood the issue. But having read this thread, it is all very fuzzy. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 44
|
![]()
Here is another one that explains this in good detail:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/C...op-Factor.aspx |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
|
![]()
DBB wrote:
Quote:
But, if you used the same lens on both cameras, you'd get more apparent magnification with the D2x (but the Canon would have a higher resolution sensor to help make up the difference). Can you reach a point where sensor can resolve more than a lens? Sure. I applaud Canon for keeping the new EOS-30D at 8 Megapixels. That helps to keep noise down, and helps insure that you don't have a problem with the sensor outresolving the lens. But, if you test a model like the D2x, it still outresolves an 8MP model like the EOS-20D on resolution chart tests (so with better quality lenses, we haven't reached that point yet). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|