JPL wrote:
Photomatix here. I only used one of your 3 pics to do this. There is often no need for more than one pic to make hdr.
IMO, good HDR is when the viewer has no idea that they are looking at HDR.
Your image fits that bill and this is the type of result that I wish all HDR users aimed for.
Once an image strays away from a natural look with broad dynamic range, then it has little to do with what real HDR is all about and should be called something else.
One should never argue with a fool, as they will only drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!
SteveR wrote:
It is interesting to know, though, if you tend to shoot subjects in the center of the lens and items at the edge are superfluous....all being considered....the D7100 has better resolution than the center portion of the D800.
Or you could just recompose the D800 image to be the same and bang 36mp onto the sucker.
But as said earlier, when "focal length limited" there are indeed gains to be had with a crop sensor.
However, final image resolution remains the sum of many factors and not just one on it's own.
SteveR wrote:
Here's one for ya....The D7100 has better resolution than the D800. If the sensor of the D7100 were made into a FF it would be something like 55mp.
That's like saying "A big apple would produce more orange juice than a small orange if it were an orange."
In the end, it is the "full" sensor's resolution that produces the overall image size.
Plus as pixel density increases, there comes a point where the sensor out resolves the lens and no more detail can be rendered. There are many parts to this puzzle, "Airy Disks" and all that....
wlgoode wrote:
The quality difference would come in the size of the pixels. Because the larger sensor has the same number of megapixels, each pixel is larger. A larger pixel responds better to the light giving a better image, all other factors being equal..
Yes but then that image requires greater enlargement to any given print size and any gain is more than lost.
High pixel density sensors perform incredibly well these days and in my personal experience the benefit of the additional "intimacy" (yeah nah... don't like that one either) that they can provide is tangible.
SteveR wrote:
Rusty....I'm not sure what you're saying in your first sentence, but did you look at the circle in the link I provided? Put it this way, a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens and will never be a 300 mm lens. It's like putting your closed hand in front of your eye and thinking you're seeing something up close....you're just changing the field of view.
Yes I understand that a crop sensor camera is simply seeing a smaller section of the image circle and that there is no physical change in Focal Length.
But at the end of the day, you are seeing the same FoV (and the same image composition) that a 1.5-1.6x longer lens is seeing on the full frame camera.
For all intensive purposes the final images look the same.
Where does reach come from?...
In the particular case where a photographer has two camera bodies in his kit, one full frame and one crop (of the same megapixels), the crop body will use all it's megapixels in the narrow FoV that it captures, but the full frame image will have to be cropped to the same FoV.
Cropping the full frame image chucks away megapixels (so it now less than 18mp) and the resulting native image size will be smaller. So in these cases the crop sensor has "effectively" provided the photographer some extra "reach" (I still hate that term) while maintaining the maximum size image that his camera can produce.
SteveR wrote:
Sorry, Bud, but you're not getting 600mm equivalent. You're only getting the field of view of a 600mm. In other words, you're seeing the center of your 400mm lens. The article below will clarify it for you. When you pull it up, scroll down to the illustration with the circle. The circle is the image that your lens projects. The large rectangle is what the full frame sensor sees. The small rectangle is what the crop sensor sees. As you can tell, what the crop sensor sees is not any larger, it is just the field of view of a lens 1.5 (or 1.6) times as long. There is no "longer reach."
http://www.garydatesphotos.com/2010/full-frame-lens-on-cropped-sensor/
Sorry, Bud, but you're not getting 600mm equivalen... (
show quote)
It's about maximising available pixels into that narrower FoV... a 200mm on a 18mp APS-C will produce a larger image, than a 200mm on a 18mp FullFrame that has been cropped to the same FoV.
So yes, using an APS-C is a cheap way of "effectively" gaining (and I hate this term) "reach" if someone wants to look at it that way.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I don't have one, but it gets a lot of positive reviews here and elsewhere.
I had one... sold it. It wasn't that great in the corners and had fairly strong chromatic aberration.
The new owner thinks it's great though, so it depends on what you are looking for in a lens I guess.
If I was to go down the ultra-wide on APS-C route again, I think I would start my look with the Canon 10-20.
rpavich wrote:
Well...not actually. You are seeing a "crop" of what would be the full frame...you are only getting 400mm but cropping the center down in camera is all.
This is absolutely true, but at least all the cameras pixels are being used to create the image.
To achieve the same final image resolution with a full frame, would require a camera with a much higher overall pixel count. Sometimes this is not the best way to go due to cost, or other camera features not being available.
I only had one briefly but it suffered the spot problem badly. It was one of the early releases.
It also suffered a random exposure problem when shot in Manual. Shot to shot, no changes and there could be up to a stop difference. I read a couple reports online about this, so I never bothered with Nikon service for the spots, I simply returned it.
selmslie wrote:
This thread started asking about focus stacking but quickly turned into a discussion about DOF in general. There was never an explicit stipulation regarding focus distance. It's all part of the issue.
Regardless, those of us pro FL effecting DOF did in fact clarify our statements with mention of a constant focus distance.
selmslie wrote:
I knew this was going to generate a lot of reaction from those that missed your point. What a lot of responders are overlooking is keeping magnification the same.
A number of times we have stated that we are talking about keeping the working distance constant. That is what has been overlooked.
Terra Australis wrote:
However if you were to enlarge the section from the wider angle lens to the same as the tele lens you would find the DoF to be the same. Focal length affects image size.
That is what has been done here. A small section from the middle of the wide angle has been enlarged to match the scale of the telephoto image.