Sensor Question (Page 6): Theoretically, the crop mode image should be exactly the same as the image cropped out of the full frame image... HOWEVER, it depends whether the camera has...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Main Photography Discussion

Sensor Question

Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>

Mar 5, 2017 13:59:44 #

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Would like to ask the "experts" here a q... (show quote)

Theoretically, the crop mode image should be exactly the same as the image cropped out of the full frame image...

HOWEVER, it depends whether the camera has the capability to save the crop mode image as RAW or only the capacity to save it as a JPG. In the latter case the image quality will take a hit and you're better to shoot full frame and crop!

bwa

Mar 5, 2017 14:21:43 #

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

CaptainC wrote:

Whoever told you there would be more noise due to less light is a person you should NEVER again trust for accurate information as they haven idea what they are talking about. The ONLY difference is that you will be using fewer pixels when you shoot in the crop mode. So your angle of view will be narrower. That is it.

Now let's see if we can get ten more pages out of this. :-)

-----

Captain - Clearly you do not know what you're talking about! After your clear and correct answer there have been only 6 pages of responses. Not the ten pages you hoped for.

-----

Mar 5, 2017 14:24:49 #

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Dan De Lion wrote:

-----

Captain - Clearly you do not know what you're talking about! After your clear and correct answer there have been only 6 pages of responses. Not the ten pages you hoped for.

-----

Ah...the week is young.

Mar 5, 2017 15:01:34 #

Trabor

The referenced link has nothing to do with the question

BooIsMyCat wrote:

But.... this link contradicts you...

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise

So, who is right?

Mar 5, 2017 15:45:01 #

photostephen

I have a Nikon FX camera (D750), I put a DX lens on it. I manually changed the settings in the camera to force it to take a FX image. The pixels on outside the "crop" area suffered from significant vignetting. Those pixels were totally unusable for all practical purposes.

With the same camera, using the same DX lens and allowing the camera to automatically switch to DX crop mode, I ended up with just the usable pixels left. Basically the same as the first FX image pre-cropped to only the usable pixels.

Did I end up with a smaller pixel count in my image -- YES. Was the image quality the same in both images when we used the DX pre-cropped image, or I cropped the FX forced image to the same center pixels -- Exactly the same image. No extra noise, no extra degradation. The limitation is with less pixels, the ability to print larger is more limited.

hope this helps (and adds to the ultimate 10 pages of replies)

Mar 5, 2017 15:52:56 #

Bill_de Loc: US

photostephen wrote:

I have a Nikon FX camera (D750), I put a DX lens o... (show quote)

The explanation is right on the money. The only thing that could have made it even better would be seeing the pictures.

1 post closer to ten pages.

Mar 5, 2017 17:33:38 #

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Bump.

.

Mar 5, 2017 18:27:02 #

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

People are being way too sensortive...

Mar 5, 2017 21:31:15 #

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

BebuLamar wrote:

I don't know how to explain to you! Switching to crop mode the camera simply record only the center portion of the image. You get the same thing by leaving the camera on FF mode then crop the image in post processing.
As far as quality the crop image has lower quality because it has fewer pixels.

I cannot make a comparison between a full frame camera using the whole sensor vs using the crop section because I have not tested for that but less pixels does not necessarily mean less resolution unless we are talking here 20x24 enlargements and beyond.
At usual enlargements a very good eye is needed to discern the differences in details between a high megapixels camera and another with less pixels using the same lens on a tripod.
Some of my best enlargements have come using the old D70s with only 6 megapixels. More noise yes but low resolution not necessarily so.

Mar 5, 2017 21:54:01 #

BebuLamar

camerapapi wrote:

I cannot make a comparison between a full frame ca... (show quote)

So you're telling me that when I use my Nikon Df with 16MP and shoot with the 135mm lens I got a good picture but my subject is far away so the subject is small in the frame. I then crop the image close to the subject and I get about a 5MP image. You tell me that I do not lose any quality? In fact I do lose quality because all else being the same because the image was taken with the same sensor and the same lens (even the same photographer) the image with fewer pixels definitely has lesser quality.

Mar 5, 2017 22:06:43 #

Bill_de Loc: US

BebuLamar wrote:

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

I think the point is that if you post the picture on line or make a small print the loss will not be discernable to the casual viewer. How big a file do you need? Not much for posting. 99+% of the images I post here are around 150kb, that's kb not mb. I think my pictures are at least average in quality and better than some that are multiple megabytes and multiple megapixels. Much of what we clamor for is often overkill.

--

Mar 6, 2017 07:52:40 #

machia Loc: NJ

Longshadow wrote:

Semantics and technicalities.
The amount of light falling on the center pixel does not change.
They are talking about the total amount of light per surface area. The total surface area changes, so the total amount of light captured does change, but the amount of light hitting the <smaller> image capture area does not change.

👍 Exactly right . You summed it up .

Mar 6, 2017 08:25:02 #

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

camerapapi wrote:

I cannot make a comparison between a full frame ca... (show quote)

...just put a 10mm prime lens on your FF body and simply start cropping. No need to waste money on other lenses when their is no "discernible" difference.

and...the Canon 5DSR excessive pixels are a waste of money. Go for the a Rebel line.

Mar 6, 2017 08:34:06 #

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Did I mention anything about the quality of a cropped file? If you read my comments I was talking about a crop camera let's say with 17 megapixels against a 24 megapixels full frame and not what happens when you use a full frame in the crop mode when you crop part of the file during editing. It is obvious that when you loose so many pixels you do not have a file that will enlarge well. I was not referring to that.
Now, if your eyes are capable of discerning the differences in details between a 17 megapixels file and a 24 megapixels file that is a different story.
Comprende?

Mar 6, 2017 09:44:51 #

machia Loc: NJ

catchlight.. 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 .

Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>

If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.

Main Photography Discussion

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum