|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
|
![]()
ennacac wrote:
Quote:
The point argued was that the pictures you posted as examples of different equivalent focal lengths were not accurate representations of the effect, but rather illustrated the kind of differences you'd expect from vastly different perspectives. However, since the pictures appear to have been taken down, or the image links have since died, I suppose it is now a moot point. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
people , you are not getting the point. here's how it is. an image taken with the digital and the 35mm will be exactly the same size on cameras. the only difference is that with the 35mm there will be more of an image above, below and to each side. the crop factor does not magnify. it just shows less of the scene.
lets look at a 1:1 macro. same size in life as it is on the image be it a digital or a 35mm. the only difference is that on the 35mm image it will show more background. the images are still the same size. 1:1 is 1:1. the crop factor does not multiply or magnify. on the digital there is just less area covered. roy |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
|
![]()
This is still parsing language and depends on your definition of "magnify". The crop factor of a digital camera effectively captures a smaller area in higher detail, with the exact same results as placing a 1.5x teleconverter on the film camera. That might not meet your technical definition of magnification, but if the results are the same, I don't see the difference.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
you're wrong..
there is no magnification. it's just that you are getting less of an image than the 35mm will get. a 300mm is still a 300mm. thats optics. tom, i know what you mean.. it's the same image circle with just less of the area presented. a 300mm is a 300mm at no matter what the size that's captured by the film plane or the sensor plane.. it's the same size wheather digital or 35mm. it's the amount of the scene that's represented that is the crop factor. a 50mm still gives the same image on a 35mm as a 1.5 crop factor digital image. the 35mm just shows a larger capture. roy |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
|
![]()
robar wrote:
Quote:
Or are you claiming that that isn't the case because a film camera captures all the detail of the DSLR plus all the image area that was cropped off? Basically, if a 10mp photo from a DSLR makes a sharp 12" x 8", you could achieve an identical image with identical detail by putting that lens on a 35mm SLR, shooting the photo, printing it at 15" x 10.6" and then trimming off the edges. Let's break it down into some numbers: Let's say we're using the Canon XTI. The camera captures a 10mp image, 3888 pixels wide by 2592 pixels high. If you take that lens and put it on a 35mm film camera, you'll capture the exact same image, plus 1/3 more width and 1/3 more height, so 5184 x 4356 pixels, equaling 17.9mp. Now of course I realize detail on film wouldn't technically be measured in pixels, but if you're saying that a film camera captures all the detail the DSLR does plus whatever was cropped off, then this argument is perfectly valid and a film camera should be capable of producing the equivalent of a 17.9mp image. I don't know about you, but I have yet to see anyone argue that anything less than medium format film would capture that kind of detail. In fact, JimC recently posted some links to a couple older articles comparing 3mp and 6mp images to 35mm film. Here they are: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../d60/d60.shtml Here are a couple links to some decent explanations and examples of how the crop factor works: http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...dslr-mag.shtml |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 319
|
![]()
Here's some shots I took recently just for comparison purposes.
Both the shots were taken from the same point with the same lense, a Pentax A 50mm 1.4 @ f8 First is the film shot: ![]() And this is the digital shot: ![]() The above shots are uncropped and when printed were the same physical size, 15cmx10cm This shot is the film shot with the digital shot on top (reduced to 70%) to show the crop effect. ![]() As you can see, they match up perfectly. I'm not sure what this proves with regards to the arguments above, but I think it proves Tom's pictures were taken from a different spot. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|