Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The topic of the thread is "reach" as in; "The more distant an object the camera can pull in, the greater its reach." https://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/technology_guides/advanced-technology-guide-reaching-for-your-goals-85682#:~:text=One%20property%20in%20a%20camera
And so if as you say, "this is true" to my observation; a full-resolution view of the subject can be identical between the two cameras, same lens, same image, same size -- then the use of the DX body in that case would provide no increase in "reach."

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

Here is something to confuse everyone: If I take a picture with a 12 MPixel DX sensor and a 105 lens; then take the same picture with the same lens and 12 MPixel FX sensor; which image has the better resolution, if the published image shows the same size bird? In another way to look at this is to ask, what is the maximum recommended size of these two images to print, if they both show the same size bird. That should put things into perspective when considering the 1.5 size difference. I used an example of 12Mp to keep the print size within reason, no mural please.

therwol Loc: USA

As mentioned already, you can crop the full frame image to match the perspective of the DX camera with the same lens, but unless you're using a high megapixel camera such as a Nikon D850, the image quality will suffer. Even with that camera, you'll be comparing 19.4 against 24 megapixels in a typical DX camera. (D500 is closer to 20)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

According to you: "Pixels smixels, it does not matter; the bird will be larger from a DX sensor... " https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-15.html#13065897

So are you changing your tune now? You're saying that you were wrong earlier? Got that.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

They both have the same perspective regardless of cropping.

I pointed that out earlier: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-734935-4.html#13057282

That's the assumption in this case. Please note what I said, "...a full-resolution view of the subject can be identical between the two cameras..."

Nickaroo

17 and counting. Time to let go everyone.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Both images have the same 12MP resolution but the bird will look 1.5x larger in the Dx image.

If you can zoom to about 158mm, both images will be the same size and same 12mp resolution. But the full frame version will probably be superior unless there is something wrong with the lens.

therwol Loc: USA

Yes. Do you thing Tom Brady still has it?

neillaubenthal

Give it a rest. Despite your constant and incessant blathering…cameras with mirrors can make good photos…and DSLRs can as well…and crop sensor bodies. A particular user’s needs, wants, and budget mean that a DX DSLR can be just as good as your beloved Canon hardware. I really can’t figure out if you’re just a know nothing troll…or one who likes to incite controversy.

Nickaroo

Brady has it as long as his O-Line can give Him a Little Time. And he throws the ball within 2 seconds. I went to U of M with Harbaugh and we knew that Brady was very intelligent. But, to answer your question, there is no doubt that Brady still has the skills to win another Super Bowl. Brady is unlike any Pro Football player that we have ever witnessed in our lifetime. Let Brady have Gronk and this will be another SB in his belt. Stafford only won because of the Ram's defense, he won't even come close this year. In fact, remember this statement, Stafford will be on the IR by Game 6.

Fred F

This is exactly right.

The "reductio ad absurdum" that an infinitely small sensor would be best is actually true - IF pixels could be infinitely small and packed together, and only for an infinitely small image.

In real life, I understand that IQ degrades if the pixels are too tightly packed, so there's a limit. But the basic point is that the same # of pixels packed into the smaller area of the DX, when enlarged to that of the FX w/the same # of pixels, gives a higher resolution over the area (albeit smaller) it does cover.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's not how it works out in practice.

If you can tolerate the math, take a look at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-735252-9.html#13076103 and the post right after it.

Then take a look at my first two posts in that thread.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes there are limits. There's a slew of qualifiers that can impact the outcome from resolution of the lens/sensor to diffraction limits which vary over sensor size.

Right. Putting more pixels on the subject stands a good chance of handing you an advantage. Is it possible it won't? Sure, but it's likely it will. Not sure? Don't know your lens's resolution? Easy enough to test visually if you have the cameras.

Here's an example:

Caveat: I'm not a wildlife/bird photographer so I don't have those long lenses. But I do have some very good lenses and although I don't know their tested resolution I'm pretty confident in their ability. So here's a test using two 24 mp camera bodies (Leica SL -- FX and Fuji X-T2 -- DX) and a 75mm lens (Leitz Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm f/2.0 Asph) that I think is up to the task.

Assuming that the 75mm lens is not long enough for the subject, and we don't have a longer lens, and we can't move the camera closer, our two options are 1. to crop the FX image in post or 2. put the same lens on a DX body which, given the same 24 mp sensor resolution of both bodies, will put more pixels on the subject and should provide an advantage over cropping the FX sensor image. Does it work in practice and do we get an advantage using the DX sensor body? Absolutely.

First illustration below are the two uncropped images from each camera (reference).
Second illustration below is our two options: 1. the FX sensor image enlarged in post, and 2. The DX sensor image at full-res. I have a clearer, more detailed, sharper image from the DX camera because I'm putting more pixels on the subject.

Methodolgy: I started with the 75mm lens on the FX camera with the camera on a tripod. I focused very carefully on the spring in the hand pruner. I stopped the lens down to f/5.6 and took the photo (ISO 200). I then transferred the lens to the DX body and placed that on the tripod which I was careful not to move. I focused very carefully on the spring in the hand pruner. I stopped the lens down to f/5.6 and took the photo (ISO 200).

JPEG processing between the two cameras is a factor and so I took the raw files into Capture One and treated them both the same to create TIFF files. I loaded the TIFF file from the FX camera into Photoshop and used Image Size to increase it by 1.5X (bilinear) -- then created the side by side comparison.

(Download)


(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

A convincing demonstration.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Personally, I can't tell the difference, other than the "DX" photos seem – to me, anyway – to have better color saturation. Other than that, they look the same.