I fully agree with woodyd regarding misrepresentation. However, “when in Rome do as Romans do”. As a past engineering student with some exposure to optics I always felt that longer focal lengths resulted in greater magnification and greater resolution of the subject. This is only true with images that can not be copied and further manipulated. In photography one can take a image with a given magnification and resolution and “crop” it. This gives an appearance of greater magnification, however the resolution does not change and soon you get pixilation of the image. One reason birders like DX formats is that the image is spread over a greater number of pixels even though it is a more narrow angle of view. This gives rise to another deception put on us. Some of us know it but don’t take issue with it. That is that a FF format does not have the same resolution a DX format has with the same MP. A DX sensor of 20 megapixels has the same resolution of a FF 30 megapixel sensor. One reason birders prefer them. Why is this true ? A FF sensor has a larger angle of view so it needs more pixels to have the same resolution. So much for the 36MP cameras!! Not any better then my D750 24MP when it comes to capturing and image resolution.

Just joined the forum and i'd appreciate some views from members please:

I started taking photographs many years ago with a Nikkormat FT3 35mm camera. After a long absence from photography I entered the digital world with a Nikon D3200 and I'm very happy with it although none of my old Nikor lenses will work on the D3200. I can see the images perfectly but nothing else functions. It took me quite a while to understand the effect that a smaller sensor has on field of view. However, before I fully understood this, I found myself looking at adds for lenses, where a lens of say 50mm on a full frame 35mm would be touted as a 75mm on a smaller sensor, i.e., my D3200. I got all excited and purchased a Tamron 70-300 zoom thinking that the 300mm would give me 450mm on my D3200. Wrong wrong wrong. I started swapping my prime lenses from my Nikkormat days onto my D3200 and found that the images were the same size. Yes, the D3200 maybe doesn't let one see the same field of view as the full frame Nikkormat, but the image remains the same size. The 50mm does not magnify to 75mm equivalent. So I now understand the difference between field of view and image size! I look at adverts for lenses and I see the words" 300mm is equivalent to a 450mm on APS-C." To me this is wrong. When you put a full frame 300mm lens on a smaller sensor, it doesn't magnify the image at all. You just see less of it and seeing less of an image does not bring it any closer!

I'd like to hear what other readers have to say. Am I wrong?

Thanks

Woody

Just joined the forum and i'd appreciate some views from members please:

I started taking photographs many years ago with a Nikkormat FT3 35mm camera. After a long absence from photography I entered the digital world with a Nikon D3200 and I'm very happy with it although none of my old Nikor lenses will work on the D3200. I can see the images perfectly but nothing else functions. It took me quite a while to understand the effect that a smaller sensor has on field of view. However, before I fully understood this, I found myself looking at adds for lenses, where a lens of say 50mm on a full frame 35mm would be touted as a 75mm on a smaller sensor, i.e., my D3200. I got all excited and purchased a Tamron 70-300 zoom thinking that the 300mm would give me 450mm on my D3200. Wrong wrong wrong. I started swapping my prime lenses from my Nikkormat days onto my D3200 and found that the images were the same size. Yes, the D3200 maybe doesn't let one see the same field of view as the full frame Nikkormat, but the image remains the same size. The 50mm does not magnify to 75mm equivalent. So I now understand the difference between field of view and image size! I look at adverts for lenses and I see the words" 300mm is equivalent to a 450mm on APS-C." To me this is wrong. When you put a full frame 300mm lens on a smaller sensor, it doesn't magnify the image at all. You just see less of it and seeing less of an image does not bring it any closer!

I'd like to hear what other readers have to say. Am I wrong?

Thanks

Woody