Sensor Question (Page 7): I believe catchlight was attempting sarcasm. FWIW, though, cropping down to a 105mm field of view from a 10mm lens will leave you with a very small file to...

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

machia wrote:

I agree with the fact that the 5DSR is a waste of money . But putting a 10mm on an FF and just cropping to replicate other mm focal areas won't give the same result if you were to use the actual lens . A 10mm lens wide focal area cropped to replicate a 105mm focal area will not look the same as if you used a 105mm prime . Compression and DOF will look vastly different .

I believe catchlight was attempting sarcasm. FWIW, though, cropping down to a 105mm field of view from a 10mm lens will leave you with a very small file to work with.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

machia wrote:

I agree with the fact that the 5DSR is a waste of money . But putting a 10mm on an FF and just cropping to replicate other mm focal areas won't give the same result if you were to use the actual lens . A 10mm lens wide focal area cropped to replicate a 105mm focal area will not look the same as if you used a 105mm prime . Compression and DOF will look vastly different .

If they were shot from the same location with both lenses, and the 10mm image cropped to match the 105, the perspective would be identical...no "compression".
http://www.patricktaylor.com/1988

But it would ridiculous to do it....

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

GoofyNewfie wrote:

If they were shot from the same location with both lenses, and the 10mm image cropped to match the 105, the perspective would be identical...no "compression".
http://www.patricktaylor.com/1988

But it would ridiculous to do it....

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Less than 3 pages to go...

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Less than 3 pages to go...

The megapixel hype has been way overblown by the camera industry! And people are still falling for the myth that MORE megapixles will improve their photos. You don't need many mp for on screen use ex. email and you do need a little more for printing on paper ex. 150pixles or more per inch. I just set my camera for about 5mp - sometimes more but the megapixles on newer cameras today - ridiculous!!

Peekayoh Loc: UK

ballsafire wrote:

The megapixel hype has been way overblown by the camera industry! And people are still falling for the myth that MORE megapixles will improve their photos. You don't need many mp for on screen use ex. email and you do need a little more for printing on paper ex. 150pixles or more per inch. I just set my camera for about 5mp - sometimes more but the megapixles on newer cameras today - ridiculous!!

Well, every Luddite is entitled to his own opinion and I'd defend your right to hold that opinion even if I don't agree with it.

150ppi will NOT give the best print although if it's good enough for you, that's also fine with me. In the same way, 5Mpix may be good enough for a 7x5 print but that's about as far as I'd be prepared to go. And yes, some of us actually print our images and require the best possible result which does mean that more Pixels are welcome.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

machia wrote:

I agree with the fact that the 5DSR is a waste of money . But putting a 10mm on an FF and just cropping to replicate other mm focal areas won't give the same result if you were to use the actual lens . A 10mm lens wide focal area cropped to replicate a 105mm focal area will not look the same as if you used a 105mm prime . Compression and DOF will look vastly different .

I was joking...

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Peekayoh wrote:

Well, every Luddite is entitled to his own opinion and I'd defend your right to hold that opinion even if I don't agree with it.

150ppi will NOT give the best print although if it's good enough for you, that's also fine with me. In the same way, 5Mpix may be good enough for a 7x5 print but that's about as far as I'd be prepared to go. And yes, some of us actually print our images and require the best possible result which does mean that more Pixels are welcome.

Thanks, but I think someone should educate our fellow photographers about what's going on. I didn't mean to stop the factories - just focus on other aspects etc.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

BebuLamar wrote:

So you're telling me that when I use my Nikon Df w... (show quote)

Depends how you wish to define quality? I think you're mixing this up with quantity (of pixels). Cropping an image does NOT impact image quality nor does using a camera in crop mode unless the image format of the captured image changes, i.e.: full frame RAW vs. crop mode JPG. The resolution and all other image parameters in both cases are the same.

bwa

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

bwana wrote:

Depends how you wish to define quality? I think you're mixing this up with quantity (of pixels). Cropping an image does NOT impact image quality nor does using a camera in crop mode unless the image format of the captured image changes, i.e.: full frame RAW vs. crop mode JPG. The resolution and all other image parameters in both cases are the same.

bwa

Sorry, but cropping an image can diminish the quality if the cropped version is then enlarged to be of equal size to the original.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Sorry, but cropping an image can diminish the quality if the cropped version is then enlarged to be of equal size to the original.

That's why working with a larger pixel count image helps reduce the quality degradation.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

Sorry, but cropping an image can diminish the quality if the cropped version is then enlarged to be of equal size to the original.

But if you enlarge the image, we're no longer talking crop mode image quality. You're now talking about loss(es) of image quality from whatever approach you use to enlarge your image!

I don't understand why anyone would do what you're suggesting unless you want to purposely reduce image quality...

bwa

HarryBinNC Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA

mborn wrote:

when you switch to crop mode on an FX camera your image has less Mp Nikon D810 goes from 36 Mp to 24 Mp

Nope - it goes to 15.36 Mp if you put the camera in DX mode.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bwana wrote:

But if you enlarge the image, we're no longer talking crop mode image quality. You're now talking about loss(es) of image quality from whatever approach you use to enlarge your image!

I don't understand why anyone would do what you're suggesting unless you want to purposely reduce image quality...

bwa

It's not purposely reducing image quality, it's an inherent result of the process. If you take a crop and format it to the desired size, say 8x12, the image quality will degrade. The more pixels in the original image, the less noticeable it would be. It's a different scenario that using a in-camera image crop, however, the resultant degradation would be cumulative.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

bwana wrote:

But if you enlarge the image, we're no longer talking crop mode image quality. You're now talking about loss(es) of image quality from whatever approach you use to enlarge your image!

I don't understand why anyone would do what you're suggesting unless you want to purposely reduce image quality...

bwa

They would enlarge the cropped image because otherwise the net result would be a smaller print, assuming they are printing. If not printing, they would be magnifying the image more to fill the screen as much as the original.

As an example, let's say you want to print. Your original gives you a great 11x14. You want to crop down to just the center of your shot. Do you want a 3x5 or 11x14? If you still want the 11x14 you've got to enlarge.

The same applies for your monitor, though the difference is not as dramatic.