Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Well, it won't make a building with 8 foot ceilings have 12 foot ceilings (look taller), but since it's closer it will look larger.
Put the building same building a quarter mile away and see how tiny it looks. But it really isn't smaller.

I think it has something to do with perspective.

And perception.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No juju, just numbers. "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. The reason it comes up with regularity is because it is real for many photographers who have easier access to high pixel density DX cameras.

I shot it for you. First image below is the photo taken by my DX sensor camera. I used my 100mm lens and set the lens to f/8, camera on a tripod. The camera is a Fuji X-T2 equipped with a 24 mp (6000 x 4000 pixel) sensor.

Without moving the tripod I placed the same lens on my FX camera and put that on the tripod. I set the FX camera to DX mode and took the photo at the same f/stop, also same ISO as the DX camera. Since my FX camera also has a 24 mp (6000 x 4000 pixel) sensor, switching it to DX mode throws away 8 million pixels and the camera now effectually has a 16 mp sensor. (Were I to crop the image in post instead to match the content of the DX photo I'd get the same result).

The second image below compares the two images equally enlarged. The DX sensor camera does a better job retaining fine detail simply because it is putting more pixels on the subject. That's reach plain and simple. 24 mp is a higher pixel density than 16 mp.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Wow, all this time I thought "reach" was how close something could be made to look.

So then there was never any "reach" with film cameras.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's how close something can be made to look while retaining comparable image IQ.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Wow again!
I never associated reach having a direct relationship with image quality, or lack thereof, just how close something could be made to appear,
even with my film cameras,
or binoculars,
or telescope.

When did "retaining image quality" enter into the equation?
1980's; 90's?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

With digital.

We didn't have a condition with film equally analogous to sensors with different pixel densities. We had coarser and finer grain films but they were available equally for all formats.

"Reach" is simple. It's for the wildlife photogs. There will always be a smaller bird farther away even if you do buy that new Nikon 800mm.

So you have the lens that costs more than the car you drive it around in. You put it on your FX camera and that bleep bleepin' bird is too small and too far away up in the tree. You take the photo anyway and in post you see how much cropping you can get away with.

As you crop the image IQ drops. No getting around that. Eventually it drops to a point that for you is unacceptable. You need a longer lens or just maybe you could raise your sensor pixel density so the loss due to cropping isn't as severe. Buy that new Sony 61 mp camera it's cheaper than the new lens. Problem solved. OR..... you could increase pixel density by putting the lens you have on a super cheap DX sensor camera that gives you more pixel density than your cropped FX camera!! Take your wife out to dinner! You win!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'll stick with the old definition of reach, thanks.
I don't care what recording media I use, just how much reach a lens has (how close something appears).

G'night.

srt101fan

So the reach of your lens increases as you move closer to your subject?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2944342

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

I think I'll REACH for this lens.

whfowle Loc: Tampa first, now Albuquerque

Aren't you preaching to the choir?

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

We did if you had your own darkroom at home with a good enlarger.

wham121736 Loc: Long Island, New York

When you argue with a fool there are two fools arguing!

ELNikkor

In speaking on any topic, we often "streamline" speech, as the hearer is intelligent enough to accept the statements without stopping the speaker and demanding more precise language. When we photographers speak of "reach", when speaking of FX lens to DX sensor size, we are inferring the words "apparent reach", but don't need to say it because we are speaking to a usually intelligent and gracious audience. Those who nit-pick the terms are just bored and looking to put on the airs of being a bit higher and more mighty than the rest, but just, in reality, are just a bit less gracious.

george19

The thing is, the argument is based on getting more ‘reach’ from a given lens.

Let’s twist this around a bit and try to get more field of view from your shorter lenses, since that’s where the limitation really is.

I can only put so much image on so many pixels, but when I have a wide view I’ll put the short lens on the FX camera.

dave.m

The original OP asked a question that was either unclear or which is of direct interest. Within the first page it degenerated into insults, and a scan of this thread reveals 4 pages of comments and less than a handful trying to answer the original post.

Over the years I have watched this forum degerate into personal bias, ego trips, cryptic sniping, riteous indignation about full frame vs. cropped, mirrorless vs dslr, evf vs. optical and the list goes on.

- all of which is often self-indulgent bull, often intended not to help, but justify their purchasing and photo decision.

David Bailey, probably the most famous fashion and pop culture photographer of his time in UK, had no such pretensions arguing that he only used a camera to create his pictures because painting took too long. inderectly confirming his view he also did a photo shoot with Bruce Webber in Harlem in 2013 on a mobile phone (sensor prob about 8mp, fixed focus, fixed aperture) https://www.vice.com/en/article/vdpmvj/david-bailey-and-bruce-webbers-great-cell-phone-photography-experiment

So here's what Canon say https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/eospedia/crop-factor.html - which effectivly states (as in an earlier post with images) - a lens charactristincs (FL, aperture, IQ) are not changed on a full or cropped body. The cropped body uses the centre portion of the maximum image circle; in so doing it is using the typically sharpest part of the lens; AND if the pixel count of the cropped sensor is the same as the full frame (eg both are 30Mp say) AND they are viewed at the same physical size (screen or print) the cropped sensor image will look enlarged. Obviously pixel size and low ambient lighting would have potential effect on the IQ but the resulting image appearance will be as if with a longer lens.

So you trolls, feel free to have a go and slag this email as with some sadness and much disappointment at the continuing demise of a once great website, signing off for the last time so won't view your bitching