Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
A DX Body Does Not Increase The "Reach" Of An FX Lens - Change My Mind
Apr 9, 2022 16:22:21 #
BebuLamar wrote:
But the problem is that we can't agree on what reach is so we wouldn't know if the lens would have the reach.
Here's another: "That statement is a reach."...
Apr 9, 2022 16:39:09 #
Longshadow wrote:
Or like a point of sailing in which the wind is within a few points of the beam, either forward of the beam (close reach ), directly abeam (beam reach ), or abaft the beam (broad reach ).
As they say, context is everything.
I'll go with the camera context...
As they say, context is everything.
I'll go with the camera context...
👌
Apr 9, 2022 16:43:12 #
BebuLamar wrote:
But the problem is that we can't agree on what reach is so we wouldn't know if the lens would have the reach.
Maybe a "lense" has reach but a "lens" doesn't? Maybe if we were still using ASA instead of ISO......🤔
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.
Apr 9, 2022 17:31:44 #
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
The Common Fallacy - Putting an FX lens on a DX (Crop) body changes the optical peformance of that lens. ...
Fourteen pages and nobody has mention the resolution of the lens itself. Shame on all of you "experts".
If you the same lens on a DX camera and on an FX camera the question of whether you get more "resolution" is not just a matter of counting the pixels.
The real resolution/sharpness is a combination of the sensor resolution and the lens resolution.
The lens is usually the limiting factor in resolution/sharpness.
A lens can clearly resolve a limited number of line pairs per millimeter. It will resolve 50% more line pairs on a full frame sensor than on a 1.5x crop DX sensor, 60% more line pairs than on a 1.6x crop sensor.
Apr 9, 2022 17:41:07 #
selmslie wrote:
Fourteen pages and nobody has mention the resoluti... (show quote)
Yet another "variable" has been added to the stew.
Apr 9, 2022 17:48:19 #
selmslie wrote:
Fourteen pages and nobody has mention the resoluti... (show quote)
I completely agree that the resolution is a function of both the sensor and the lens. But I would quibble that resolution and sharpness are not the same. I’m also not sure that I’d agree to the statement that lens is usually the limiting factor in resolution - depends on the format/sensor size, but I’m willing to be convinced - show us some data - we can make 20 pages yet
Apr 9, 2022 17:51:39 #
selmslie wrote:
Fourteen pages and nobody has mention the resoluti... (show quote)
Why would we? The thread started with the "Reach" and we can't agree on what the "Reach" is. So why talk about anything else.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Apr 9, 2022 17:55:30 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Why would we? The thread started with the "Reach" and we can't agree on what the "Reach" is. So why talk about anything else.
Because they have to.......
Apr 9, 2022 18:03:02 #
TriX wrote:
I completely agree that the resolution is a function of both the sensor and the lens. But I would quibble that resolution and sharpness are not the same. I’m also not sure that I’d agree to the statement that lens is usually the limiting factor in resolution - depends on the format/sensor size, but I’m willing to be convinced - show us some data - we can make 20 pages yet
Take a look at Photographic System Resolution where I cover the entire subject including digital and film.
Apr 9, 2022 18:11:33 #
selmslie wrote:
Take a look at Photographic System Resolution where I cover the entire subject including digital and film.
Wow! Impressive work Scotty - I will read it in detail although I skimmed the first couple of pages and agree with your formula for calculating the total resolution - exactly like the formula for calculating the rise time of a waveform in electronics based on the measured rise time of the signal and the rise time of the measuring instrument. Kudos!
Apr 9, 2022 18:25:59 #
selmslie wrote:
Fourteen pages and nobody has mention the resolution of the lens itself. Shame on all of you "experts".
...
The lens is usually the limiting factor in resolution/sharpness.
...
The lens is usually the limiting factor in resolution/sharpness.
I did say in my last post that increasing pixel density becomes ineffective at some point. Many weird non-intuitive things happen at the extreme limits of optics. Quantum effects, non-linear effects, diffraction, refraction, diffusion, absorption, signal-to-noise, incoherence...
Just because we can't agree on a definition does not make the conversation meaningless. People can sort it out for themselves what is true. Everybody brings their experience and nobody is above mistake.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Apr 9, 2022 18:35:06 #
Alphabravo2020 wrote:
I did say in my last post that increasing pixel density becomes ineffective at some point. Many weird non-intuitive things happen at the extreme limits of optics. Quantum effects, non-linear effects, diffraction, refraction, diffusion, absorption, signal-to-noise, incoherence...
Just because we can't agree on a definition does not make the conversation meaningless. People can sort it out for themselves what is true. Everybody brings their experience and nobody is above mistake.
Just because we can't agree on a definition does not make the conversation meaningless. People can sort it out for themselves what is true. Everybody brings their experience and nobody is above mistake.
Yes, I saw your post. It was the one closest to getting at the heart of the matter. It reminded me of what I wrote four years ago.
Apr 9, 2022 18:48:46 #
[quote=selmslie]Fourteen pages and nobody has mention the resolution of the lens itself. Shame on all of you "experts".
I/quote]
So, you read all 14 pages and totally missed the topic. It was right in the title!
Shame on you. You should have started a new thread.
---
I/quote]
So, you read all 14 pages and totally missed the topic. It was right in the title!
Shame on you. You should have started a new thread.
---
Apr 9, 2022 19:11:27 #
Bill_de wrote:
So, you read all 14 pages and totally missed the topic. It was right in the title!
Shame on you. You should have started a new thread.
---
Shame on you. You should have started a new thread.
---
No, I scanned 14 pages looking for a clear definition of "reach" which is not a really useful concept.
The conversation evolved into a discussion of resolution which is more meaningful but also misunderstood.
Too bad it was all over your head.
Apr 10, 2022 09:35:32 #
If the apparent resolution for the cropped image is equal to the apparent resolution of the uncropped image for a given enlargement print size as judged by the individual photographer - then the cropped image DOES have more "reach" or apparent magnification ....... Reach by cropping is an empirical individual case determination by the user !
.
.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.