CHG_CANON wrote:
We spend so much time talking about better cameras rather than creating better images.
One thing ALL photographers seem to be able to do ... is talk.
Marturo
Loc: Western North Carolina
When I'm down & confused, I just grab one of my Nikkon FEs & shoot a roll. :)
I have a D7100 cropper & just love the shots & ease in developing my pictures.
My hope for an upgrade would be the Nikkon D6 body with 4 PRO lenses. Bucket list :)
The D6 is a Camera no one would not say is better than a D7100, however look at the price difference.
Peterff
Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
BebuLamar wrote:
Crop surely confuses a lot of people.
That’s why there are crop circles. 🙃
Marturo wrote:
When I'm down & confused, I just grab one of my Nikkon FEs & shoot a roll. :)
I have a D7100 cropper & just love the shots & ease in developing my pictures.
My hope for an upgrade would be the Nikkon D6 body with 4 PRO lenses. Bucket list :)
The D6 is a Camera no one would not say is better than a D7100, however look at the price difference.
I personally cannot justify the price of the D6 for hobby only. Just my opinion.
Marturo
Loc: Western North Carolina
[quote=DaveyDitzer]
Had to ask that, didn't you Davey?
I read the article from the link (thank you) and ask in more detail: I have crop bodies with 24 mp and FF with 16mp. The bucket analogy didn't answer the question of having larger buckets, but fewer of them. Now what are the implications of image quality comparing these using the same lens. I cannot personally see the image differences within "reasonable" ISO ranges. If I use geometry to solve the surface area of the bucket opening, will the analogy hold up for photon gathering ability? Using the area of a circle, A=pi x rsq. and calculating the surface opening of the "buckets" and comparing the openings on a percentage basis then multiplying by the pixel count, I still get the larger (24mp) crop sensor gathering slightly more than half the photons of the FF (16mp) sensor;if we can assume photons fill a bucket like rainwater fills a literal bucket.
A=pi x r sq
r1=100 and r2=60
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I read the article from the link (thank you) and ask in more detail: I have crop bodies with 24 mp and FF with 16mp. The bucket analogy didn't answer the question of having larger buckets, but fewer of them. Now what are the implications of image quality comparing these using the same lens. I cannot personally see the image differences within "reasonable" ISO ranges. If I use geometry to solve the surface area of the bucket opening, will the analogy hold up for photon gathering ability? Using the area of a circle, A=pi x rsq. and calculating the surface opening of the "buckets" and comparing the openings on a percentage basis then multiplying by the pixel count, I still get the larger (24mp) crop sensor gathering slightly more than half the photons of the FF (16mp) sensor;if we can assume photons fill a bucket like rainwater fills a literal bucket.
A=pi x r sq
r1=100 and r2=60
I read the article from the link (thank you) and a... (
show quote)
Makin' my head hurt, Davey.
Not a good read. That article is a constant stream of misinformation. The bucket analogy is flawed and the author really doesn't understand DOF and lens focal length.
Joe
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I read the article from the link (thank you) and ask in more detail: I have crop bodies with 24 mp and FF with 16mp. The bucket analogy didn't answer the question of having larger buckets, but fewer of them. Now what are the implications of image quality comparing these using the same lens. I cannot personally see the image differences within "reasonable" ISO ranges. If I use geometry to solve the surface area of the bucket opening, will the analogy hold up for photon gathering ability? Using the area of a circle, A=pi x rsq. and calculating the surface opening of the "buckets" and comparing the openings on a percentage basis then multiplying by the pixel count, I still get the larger (24mp) crop sensor gathering slightly more than half the photons of the FF (16mp) sensor;if we can assume photons fill a bucket like rainwater fills a literal bucket.
A=pi x r sq
r1=100 and r2=60
I read the article from the link (thank you) and a... (
show quote)
The analogy doesn't hold up from the get-go. The bucket nonsense from that nonsense article is just nonsense. It's unfortunate that junk is out there and confusing people.
There is an advantage from larger sensels on a sensor but it's not what that article suggests nor is it the primary reason for the difference FF versus crop sensor. Here's a reference:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2Joe
Marturo
Loc: Western North Carolina
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I read the article from the link (thank you) and ask in more detail: I have crop bodies with 24 mp and FF with 16mp. The bucket analogy didn't answer the question of having larger buckets, but fewer of them. Now what are the implications of image quality comparing these using the same lens. I cannot personally see the image differences within "reasonable" ISO ranges. If I use geometry to solve the surface area of the bucket opening, will the analogy hold up for photon gathering ability? Using the area of a circle, A=pi x rsq. and calculating the surface opening of the "buckets" and comparing the openings on a percentage basis then multiplying by the pixel count, I still get the larger (24mp) crop sensor gathering slightly more than half the photons of the FF (16mp) sensor;if we can assume photons fill a bucket like rainwater fills a literal bucket.
A=pi x r sq
r1=100 and r2=60
I read the article from the link (thank you) and a... (
show quote)
You know I just got into using a digital body, however I did & will continue to strive for the best
picture I can take. While the exact size seems to matter to some, it's the person who makes the photo all while we use Wet film, or a Photo sensor. Any thing change lately on that front?
What changed the reason we use the camera, & how will a D-850 make you a better photographer
that a D-610? I have seen real photographers take a P&S 110 & make outstanding photos.
Just as how we use a garden hose to demonstrate how electricity works & flows the idea that a larger
sensor will capture more Water er, I mean photographic info. Not a real heard concept if you use
your imagination.
Right now I have no time to chase equipment to improve my Photography, I only have time to
use my equipment & take the Photographs I can be proud of.
Imagine Ansel Adams showing up at a modern camera shoot today with his wooden box how the people
would howl with laughter. He did the best he could with his equipment, as do many other photographers
everyday around the world.
Practice makes perfect.
My brother howls with laughter when I take out my DSLR. Seems to think a smart phone camera is the only way to shoot.
Ysarex wrote:
Not a good read. That article is a constant stream of misinformation. The bucket analogy is flawed and the author really doesn't understand DOF and lens focal length.
Joe
The author was NOT addressing DOF and field of view
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.