dyximan

I have six cameras 2 canon 2 Nikon 2 Leica one each full frame, crop sensor. At 10 AM on Wednesday morning January 24, 2018, I set up all six in tandem on tripods 10 m away from a brass dog. I hook them all together on a remote and take one photo simultaneously all cameras set to iso 100 aperture F8 shutter 1/1000. At 10 AM and 45 seconds after changing each lens within its respective body from the full frame to the crop sensor. I take the same shot which is the best photo.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

What really slays me is how many times this come up in the last year the with filters, lens hoods, FX versa dx this sight is being to sound like a broken record ,just had to vent.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Yes i was wrong about pixel pitch affecting depth of field, it doesn't.

If you know your wrong its best to learn from it and move on. I'm sorry if i misled anybody. I'm not perfect by any means.

If i'm wrong about something i want to know :)

dyximan

I once read a response to a gentleman that had posted a picture That he said was the reddest bird he had ever seen. To which someone responded no it's not because on the RGB chart red is .255 and his bird was only .235. And called it maroon or some other color. 1) Whos to say it was not in fact the Redest bird the poster had ever seen. He saw it and knows what he has seen before. 2) Do my eyes see the colors the same as your eyes? And if you read between the lines you will understand what I'm talking about. I find that many of the people here on the hog are very techy and not only do they attempt to split hairs they attempt to split Atoms. And no matter what you say they are right. And although I am a relative newbie I do feel sorry for the newbie newbie's. And I anxiously awaiting the correction of my numbers and or decimal points, and any and all other aspects of my post, if you catch my drift.

blackest Loc: Ireland

It's the nature of the beast, new people join ask the same questions some have answers, some are opinions e.g Nikon v Canon there is no real right or wrong with that one. If you want a new topic about something that interests you, start it.

Just try and avoid the we keep getting the same topics coming up topic. Thats been done to death too :)

Maybe a new photographer of the day, just pick someone whose work you like.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’m not sure who this addressed to or exactly the question, but since you partially quoted me, I’ll respond. The answer is yes - people do admit they’re wrong. Several days ago, an OP asked if it mattered in terms of FPS or file size whether you shoot 12 or 14 bits (if your camera has the choice). I answered from a computer perspective that no, it didn’t matter because you had to write two 8-bit bytes regardless (since memory chips are typically 8 bits wide with possibly a parity bit). I was corrected a bit later in the thread by an actual Nikon user who pointed out that actual empirical data showed that the buffer took longer to fill at 12 bits and that the files were shorter. I had missed the fact that the processor operated on the data from the A/D before writing to the buffer. I admitted my mistake in the thread and learned from it, so yes, it does happen, and it was a useful exercise. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with a spirited debate as long as it’s discussed in a gentlemanly manner and doesn’t devolve into name calling. Does it have any relevance to good photography and actual photos? Again, my opinion, but I think it does. The camera is a tool, and a good craftsman intimately understands his tool and the process,

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

So, getting back to the original post where Ron stated that “DOF is different” is a myth and is false, does Ron concede that he was wrong?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It is not pertinent to this discussion, but that statement needs some clarification. Since it has nothing to do with depth of field, to discuss it here would be to hijack the thread, which I will not do, but it would be an interesting subject for a separate thread.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

No because I am right.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

John, you might want to take a look at Steve Perry's excellent piece on diffraction and camera resolution. In short, even with diffraction, the higher resolution camera captures more "recoverable" detail - by recoverable he suggests, with great examples, that post processing for sharpening along with down sampling, will help recover most sharpness losses due to diffraction. The video is great, as always.

https://backcountrygallery.com/lens-diffraction-in-photography/

blackest Loc: Ireland

That is an excellent video but it avoids one particular case, while blowing up to 100% the higher resolution sensor will show more detail than the lower resolution sensor, this makes sense. You can have lets say 4 high resolution pixels in the area of a single low resolution pixel. These 4 high resolution pixels can be 4 colors while the low resolution pixel can just be one.

How about an extreme case lets take 2 cameras one produces 6000 x 4000 pixel images the other 3000 x 2000 pixel and we put the 2 photos on here at 600 by 400 each pixel in the first case is an average of 10x10 pixels in the other its 5x5 pixels per pixel. Can you see the difference? the first image is 24mpix and the second 6mpix 4 times the detail in the first compared to the second but even the second is over kill since 600x400 is just 240,000 pixels.

“If the average reading distance is 1 foot (12 inches = 305 mm), p @0.4 arc minute is 35.5 microns or about 720 ppi/dpi. p @1 arc minute is 89 microns or about 300 dpi/ppi. This is why magazines are printed at 300 dpi – it’s good enough for most people. Fine art printers aim for 720, and that’s the best it need be. Very few people stick their heads closer than 1 foot away from a painting or photograph.”

A 1080p tv has 1080 pixels across the screen if we round to 1000 we are looking at around 3x3 per pixel of a 3000x 2000 pixel image

if it was a 4 foot wide screen then 1080 / 48 inches = 22.5 pixels per inch put your nose on that and you should see the red green and blue
but back to our 2 images.

If 300dpi is good enough then at 10" by 6.6 inches then the 6mpix image has enough resolution that the extra detail captured by the 24mpix sensor isn't visible.
If you aim for 720 ppi then you will need around 34.5 Mpixels for that size. You are not really going to see that detail normally.

So if you want big prints to be examined closely then you want a high resolution camera, but at normal viewing distances you will not see it.

There is a trade off thats for sure, the bigger you want to print then at some point you need to be looking at a sensor larger than provided by a DSLR at which point film is looking like the most cost effective option.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Well, then I guess I’ll go ahead and delete the DOF calculator aps from my laptop, tablet and IPhone as they’re all obviously providing incorrect information.

dyximan

I think the race is over, and the horse beaten to death with no clear winner or loser

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Your calculator do not take into account if a lens on a camera is DX or FX. It only cares to know if the body is FX or DX. Refer to the post I made illustrating this.

If you use the link to list the 1.x value it gives you a false information on length as the FX lenght on a DX body does not change, only the view angle.

If those thing were correct you should have a choice FX lens length on DX body as well as DX lens length on FX body.

Sorry.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Ron, it is really simple... the image projected onto the sensor by the FX lens is THE SAME regardless of whether the sensor is FX or DX size, so the the degree of blur/fuzziness in absolute terms is THE SAME. The difference is that when you display the DX cropped image at the same size in a print or on a monitor the image appears magnified by the “crop factor” so the blur/fuzziness has also been magnified to the extent that the human eye finds it unacceptable. Thus the acceptable blur range (ie, DOF) is less by the amount of magnification (crop factor).

Just admit that you got it wrong.