blackest Loc: Ireland

If I take the photo with my k1 i get to keep all 36 Mpix , if our framing is the same technically i have more detail than you and need to enlarge less. Which reduces refraction in my photo. So technically my version is better in practice it might take a microscope to appreciate that :)

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

. responded further down.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

But to put all 36Mpix on the subject, to get same framing I did with 300mm lens, you need a 450mm lens.

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

I read your comments and decided to see what Nikon has to say about this subject.
On page 75 of the D810 User's Manual, the various crop modes are described. They mention "Angle of view Equivalents" / they mention how to calculate the approximate focal length of the lens in 35mm format. I would think that Nikon would make some mention that would shed light on the discussion taking place on UHH. Image quality is discussed on page 79 and deals solely with format (JPG,TIFF,RAW. etc.) I then went to page 489 where file size is discussed. I look at two specific columns Image Quality and File size (I figure - MORE pixels = Larger file size). No where was there a mention of DX/FX differences. The differences in file size was determined solely by the format selected - not by the lens selected (FX or DX).
If there is indeed some difference in picture quality between cropping in the camera or cropping in PP, I would think that Nikon might say a few words about the difference - photographers might be interested.
I am not an overly technical person but it does seem to me that if there was truly a quality difference in the final image or a difference in the limit of the blowup size of between a DX and an FX lens, Nikon would have mentioned it in the 500 page Users Manual.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Can't prove a negative. But you should know that. If you think you have posted logic, you are not competent to post any more opinions on the subject. The density of the sensor is not on topic. The size of the sensor is the topic. Neither is the one pixel sensor, or the lens that changes the sensor. It's all just gibberish. You are being rediculous and childish. Posting replies to you is a waste of time. But you know that.
In fact this whole thread was an enormous waste of time. Go post in chit chat. You have nothing relevant to say about photography. No one is changing anyone's mind here.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I wish we had the crop sensor back when I was working on the farm.

Mike

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

THE FINAL ANSWER
Take a FF camera and a Crop camera, both with a 24mpx sensor, fit both with a 50mm prime lens and shoot a picture with each, with the same subject centred in the frame. Then view those pictures in an edit program, the Crop camera picture will show the main subject to be larger than the one in the FF camera picture, However, the FF camera will show more of the surroundings (greater field of view).
When comparing the two pics, it appears that the Crop camera was zoomed in more. If you then crop the FF camera pic down to look exactly the same as the Crop camera pic, and then pixel peep them both, or print them both to, say, A1 size, you will see that the crop camera pic has a better IQ than the FF camera pic. The Crop camera pic now has more pixels than the FF camera pic.
In those circumstances the Crop camera 50mm lens is equivalent to a 75mm FF lens.

blackest Loc: Ireland

If I go for crop mode I have 4800 x 3200 Pixels (at 300dpi that is good for 16x 10.66) more than adequate for an 8 by 12.

you can probably get a 20" by 13.33" photo at 300 dpi my crop mode i would be at 240dpi with our old eyes i don't think we will spot the difference, maybe some youngsters will.

However lets say i'm posting here on a base size of 1200 by 800 then 16 of my pixels are merged for each pixel on screen even at full Hd its around 4. With your higher resolution aps-c sensor say 6000 x 4000 5x5 25 pixels will be merged to get 1200x 800 on screen.

I think its fair to say most of the time number of pixels will not make a visible difference.

Assuming we use the same lens i doubt anyone will be able to figure out which camera was used just by looking at the image on screen. Maybe if it was low light there might be lower noise.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/326093-k1-crop-mode-why-you-should-love.html

One interesting thing is that shooting raw in crop mode took 80 raw shots to fill the buffer.

If i want the same number of pixels as a 24mpix aps-c a 370mm lens would do it, in theory. If i stick with the 300mm and shoot full frame I can be very flexible on how my shot is composed in post and still keep that 450mm look.

Anyway the subject was "Why does everyone think a crop sensor increases focal length" clearly it doesn't its just because an aps-c sensor is physically smaller it gives a narrower angle of view. That can be replicated in post on a full frame. There are several options open to a full frame camera, king of which has to be the ability to recompose in post.

I think we both have pretty good camera's, it's given me better insight into mine.

blackest Loc: Ireland

When did you last print at A1 size? thats a little less than 2 feet by 3 feet. A head shot at that size would be huge and the dpi would be decreasing so you might notice with your nose on the print...

If you want to do a head shot with a full frame why wouldn't you step forward with a full frame the resolution of the print would be higher?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The largest I have ever had printed is 16"x20", but, from reading discussions here in the past, I understand others to print larger. However, my post to which you are replying was to provide logical and factual info as to the probable reasoning behind manufacturers publishing "35mm equivalent" info on crop camera lenses.
I don't think that A1 would be appropriate for most "head shots" but in any case, I don't remember mentioning any particular type of image. I guess I was thinking in terms of landscapes - but does it really matter? I believe the info I expounded to be factually sound, leading to a logical conclusion.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Since you can't deal with the facts all you are left with is insults and name calling. I have not resorted to that and won't. I have provided you with a solid example that I believe proves my point based on the Nikon 850. If you can't get it I can't help you.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Look at the two images of the bluff here. One is full frame, one is a crop sensor, both printed to the same size, taken from the same place: https://www.slrlounge.com/workshop/crop-vs-full-frame-cameras/

Or the building at this site: https://digital-photography-school.com/understand-differences-full-frame-versus-crop-sensor-cameras/

The "perceived" effect is the crop sensor "looks like" it was zoomed in. Ergo, the crop sensor has "more reach".

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Yes, because the density of the crop sensor is greater than the full frame sensor.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Pixel density has nothing to do with the scale if the image between the two formats. What you see in the viewfinder is different between the cameras. No pixels there!