selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

And who is the troll? Look in the mirror.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Of course you're wrong again: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-11.html#13060158
Read the thread troll.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-11.html#13060158
Read the thread troll.

Speak for yourself troll. Above your pay grade -- that makes sense; you won't even read material you try and comment on.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

WHAT?!! When I said the same thing; in fact I said, "Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage." You corrected me and said, "That would be true only if the lens were perfect." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-18.html#13077564 (no lens is really perfect).

So now you're saying you were wrong. Or are you wrong now? In which way are you wrong?
(Probably shouldn't ask you since obviously you're wrong one way or the other!)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Have you read the article I wrote about Photographic System Resolution? Probably not since you have not said anything about it.

You can find 22 more articles on the same page: https://www.scotty-elmslie.com/about.html Seven of them are about film and fifteen apply to digital. You could not have written any of them or come up with an intelligent comment on them.

The reason I mentioned defining your terms was because you have yet to come up with a clear definition of reach or pixel density and you have overlooked pixel pitch. I will clarify each term for you.

• Pixel density is total pixels divided by pixel area. For a D800 that's 36MP/(24x36mm)=41,667 pixels per square mm. For a D7000 it's also 41,667 pixels per square mm.
• Pixel pitch is pixels per mm. For a D800 that's 7360/36mm=204 pixels/mm which is also the square root of 41,667. It's the same for a D7000.
• Reach for a crop sensor relative to full frame is the same as the crop factor. It has nothing to do with pixel density or pixel pitch.

I'm not even going to count how many posts you generated without successfully defining any of those terms.

Comparing a D800 to a D7000 the Dx version has 50% more reach, a crop factor of 1.5. The same is true for a D850 and a D500. These are the two comparisons you were afraid to address because they show that your definition of reach based on pixel density is wrong.

You might think that if you use a Dx crop on the D800 or the D850 you would come up with the same image as you would get from the D7000 or the D500. But like most things in photography, it depends.

If you do the Dx crop in the Fx camera you will have the same difficulty framing the subject as with the Dx camera. Capturing a moving subject will be just as difficult.

But if you crop the Fx image on your computer you can decide which part of the image to select, how to compose it. It's easier to capture a moving subject. You can even use a different crop like 1.3 or 1.7. That gives the advantage to the Fx camera. You can't go below 1.5 in a Dx camera.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I can sure tell when you're spewing your BS.

You haven't answered my question. I'll repeat it for you:



WHAT?!! When I said the same thing; in fact I said, "Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage." You corrected me and said, "That would be true only if the lens were perfect." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-18.html#13077564 (no lens is really perfect).

So now you're saying you were wrong. Or are you wrong now? In which way are you wrong?


That is false. Read the thread troll.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-16.html#13067139
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-17.html#13067665
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-17.html#13067736
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-17.html#13067756

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Finally, definitive proof that you don't understand the relationship between cropping and reach.

We can all agree that the D7000 has 50% more reach due to its 1.5 crop factor. It produces 16MP.

The D800 starts with 36MP and the same pixel density and pixel pitch as the D7000. But if you use a Dx crop in the camera you end up with 16MP, the same 1.5x crop factor as the D7000 and the same 50% added reach.

If you take a full 36MP image with the D800 and then crop away 1/6th of the pixels along each edge you also end up with 16MP, the same 1.5x crop factor as the D7000 and the same 50% added reach.

In other words, reach is tied only to cropping whether in the camera or on the computer. It has nothing to do with the pixel density or pixel pitch in the camera.

Any time you crop an image, no matter where you do it, you end up with a larger subject. You can call that crop factor, additional reach or just magnification.

BlackRipleyDog and I are not the only ones who know that. You have exposed you ignorance.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Complete BS. If you're referring to my observation of your falsehood, what's false is that I was afraid to address those two comparisons. Read the thread troll.

As for my previous comment you copied, in what way does that prove I don't understand the relationship between cropping and your misunderstanding of reach?

delder: "Can we just say that the FX lens on the DX Body provides a 50% "PRE-CROP" to the resulting image?"

Ysarex: "Which can then result in a full-resolution view of the subject being identical between the two cameras -- same lens same image."

And you still haven't answered my question. I'll repeat it for you:


WHAT?!! When I said the same thing; in fact I said, "Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage." You corrected me and said, "That would be true only if the lens were perfect." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-18.html#13077564 (no lens is really perfect).

So now you're saying you were wrong. Or are you wrong now? In which way are you wrong?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The 16MP crop from the 36MP D800, whether it happened in the camera or on the computer, is identical to the D7000 image.

They both have the same reach because they both have the same crop.

If you can't understand that then there is something wrong with you.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Duuuuhhhh. That's what I said: "Which can then result in a full-resolution view of the subject being identical between the two cameras -- same lens same image."

I even used the same word, "identical." You are so confused -- wow!

And you still haven't answered my question. I'll repeat it for you:


WHAT?!! When I said the same thing; in fact I said, "Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage." You corrected me and said, "That would be true only if the lens were perfect." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-18.html#13077564 (no lens is really perfect).

So now you're saying you were wrong. Or are you wrong now? In which way are you wrong?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are still missing the point.

Reach is directly related to crop factor. A crop on any size sensor or uncropped image from any sensor enlarges the subject.

Crop factor and reach are directly related. A 1.5x crop of any image is a 50% increase in reach. A 1.6x crop increases the reach by 60%. A 2x crop increases the reach by 100%. It doesn't matter if the cropping is done in the camera or on the computer.

But crop factor and reach have nothing to do with resolution or sharpness, pixel density or pixel pitch.

The fact that too much cropping might degrade the image is a totally separate issue. So long as at least 8.64MP survive the crop can create an 8x12 image at 300ppi and view it with normal eyesight from a normal viewing distance of 10 inches or 25cm and it will still look sharp.

A 1.5x crop on a 24MP image reduces the image to 10.67MP. That's more than 8.64MP. It's why you have to look at the results from closer than normal viewing distance in order to see any degradation.

And if you double the dimensions the resolution drops to 150ppi, the normal viewing distance becomes 20 inches or 50cm and the image looks exactly the same.

That's what happened with the images you were trying use to prove your point. From normal viewing distance nobody could see the degradation.

We have to wonder why you are the only one who cannot understand this.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You're doing it again -- disagreeing with yourself. So right here you just said, "But crop factor and reach have nothing to do with resolution or sharpness, pixel density or pixel pitch."

But it was only a page ago that you said this: "Reach is simply proportional to crop factor. If you don't include sharpness and different MP values you are not telling the whole story." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-21.html#13081269

You see my problem here trying to respond to you?

So were you wrong before or are you wrong now? Which is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you still haven't answered my question. I'll repeat it for you:


WHAT?!! When I said the same thing; in fact I said, "Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage." You corrected me and said, "That would be true only if the lens were perfect." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-18.html#13077564 (no lens is really perfect).

So now you're saying you were wrong. Or are you wrong now? In which way are you wrong?

srt101fan

Responding to Ysarex, you say: "We have to wonder why you are the only one who cannot understand this."

Your are making a wild assumption here.....

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

On page 4 https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-4.html#13057282 you claimed that

"Reach" is pixel density and pixel density is real. If you have a real difference in pixel density then "DX reach" is real. If not then "DX reach" doesn't exist.

I just showed you why, even without a difference in pixel density, a Dx sensor still has 50% more reach than Fx.

I also showed you that reach and crop factor are directly related without having to know about pixel density or pitch.

You don't believe it because you don't understand the subject. You will never understand it because you are ______ - you fill in the blank.

I give up on you.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

There you go doing it yet again. One page ago you said, "Reach is simply proportional to crop factor. If you don't include sharpness and different MP values you are not telling the whole story." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-21.html#13081269
You are leaving out the whole story as you yourself noted. Read the thread troll and you'll see that I tell the whole story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two questions now that you've refused to answer. Answering the questions may help with your confusion.

You said, "But crop factor and reach have nothing to do with resolution or sharpness, pixel density or pixel pitch." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-22.html#13082762

But it was only a page ago that you said this: "Reach is simply proportional to crop factor. If you don't include sharpness and different MP values you are not telling the whole story." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-21.html#13081269

So were you wrong before or are you wrong now? Which is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And you still haven't answered my question. I'll repeat it for you:


WHAT?!! When I said the same thing; in fact I said, "Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage." You corrected me and said, "That would be true only if the lens were perfect." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-18.html#13077564 (no lens is really perfect).

So now you're saying you were wrong. Or are you wrong now? In which way are you wrong?