Ysarex wrote:
I prefer to understand what I'm doing, what will happen with changes, and why.
Cool, glad you understand what you are doing.
The "REACH" reference from Nikon somewhat reminds me of some of the "HI-FI" Terms of the past. "Brilliance" etc.
The term "Crop Sensor" does tell you EXACTLY what is happening....
My experience is the opposite. A smaller sensor increases the area of the object in the frame and therefore the focusing is better. I have tested the theory by photographing the same object with the same lens at the same distance on three different size sensors, FX, DX and CX (1" sensor). The smaller the sensor, the sharper the image when all three images are cropped to the same size. That's my experience. To quote Einstein, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are not."
When someone says change my mind I move on nothing will change their mind.
Bill_de wrote:
Then 2+2 must = 9
---
2+2=4. I have tested it out to my satisfaction. Have you tested it, or are you just repeating the most popular theories? I guess you would have believed the earth was flat six centuries ago because everyone else did.
pego101 wrote:
When someone says change my mind I move on nothing will change their mind.
Not a chance as their belief is very ingrained.
This is an interesting post.
I do not have access to 3 different sensor size cameras BUT the sharpness spec is an interesting point. In my CCTV days, we had the old "Indian Head" Resolution Slide in a light box that we measured Camera/ Lens Resolution & Linearity with.
Still subjective but a known quantity. In CCTV they were "C" mount lenses.
flip1948 wrote:
But, but, but...the little birdie looks huger.
The actual lens focal length doesn’t change with a crop sensor body. However…if you put the lens on a 20MP crop sensor body and a 24 MP full frame body…then take a picture of a bird out there a bit…there will be more pixels on target…i.e. the bird…with the crop sensor body thereby you get a more deta8led image of the subject. There are other variables like the relative MP sizes of low or high MP bodies, noise differences due to potentially larger pixels among others…but from a strict detail point the same lens on a similar MP crop body will be higher. Whether one argues that is extending reach or not…or simply more pixels on target…is semantics.
If "reach" is just decreasing the field of view, then you don't need a longer lens to increase reach. Just crop the image in post.
What else can reach mean but putting more pixels on target which can be done by increasing sensor density and focal length.
Increasing pixel density becomes ineffective/inefficient at some point but is still a valid way to increase "reach".
BebuLamar wrote:
So what is reach?
A reach is a section of a stream or river along which similar hydrologic conditions exist, such as discharge, depth, area, and slope.
Hey, I got to use something from that class on geographic nomenclature I took way back when. And yes I actually made my students learn words/definitions like that on vocabulary quizzes.
Ysarex wrote:
From that same article where I referenced the definition: "However, reach is not solely about frame size. If it were, simply using a small sensor would be an absolute solution to the need for reach. Other factors also come into play. The first is pixel density. It’s fairly easy to see that the reach advantage of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II is down to its pixel density, not its sensor size." [my bold]
Yes, the 7DII at 20.2MP has a higher pixel density than the 5DS(r) 50.2MP.
robertjerl wrote:
A reach is a section of a stream or river along which similar hydrologic conditions exist, such as discharge, depth, area, and slope.
Hey, I got to use something from that class on geographic nomenclature I took way back when. And yes I actually made my students learn words/definitions like that on vocabulary quizzes.
Thank you and thus camera and lens have nothing to do with reach. And a lens whether FX or DX doesn't have a reach like a river or a stream.
BebuLamar wrote:
Thank you and thus camera and lens have nothing to do with reach. And a lens whether FX or DX doesn't have a reach like a river or a stream.
Or like a point of sailing in which the wind is within a few points of the beam, either forward of the beam (close reach ), directly abeam (beam reach ), or abaft the beam (broad reach ).
As they say, context is everything.
I'll go with the camera context...
Longshadow wrote:
Or like a point of sailing in which the wind is within a few points of the beam, either forward of the beam (close reach ), directly abeam (beam reach ), or abaft the beam (broad reach ).
As they say, context is everything.
I'll go with the camera context...
But the problem is that we can't agree on what reach is so we wouldn't know if the lens would have the reach.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.