If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:52:43 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , wrote: A lens will project an image that has a field roughly inversly proportional to the FL. On 35mm film, a 16mm lens typically had a vastly bigger field than a 300mm lens. nope. Oh, so the 16mm lens would have the same field as the 300mm lens ? I think not. you're confusing projected image with field of view. No confusion on my part. The projected image ( circle ) has a field and is a limiting factor. a 16mm lens has a wider field of view than a 300mm lens, but its image circle (what it projects) is about the same, possibly a little smaller. If the sensor is smaller than the projected image, then some of the field is lost. that part is true. A smaller sensor with the same number of ( smaller ) pixcels, used with the same lens will record an image as if a longer lens were used. that's why it's called a crop sensor, and the number of pixels (no c) is irrelevant. No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
I forgot. Did you not comprehend what I wrote about FF vs crop sensor? Did you not comprehend what I wrote about FF vs crop sensor? Did you not comprehend what I wrote about FF vs crop sensor? Reread my last post, and stop thinking, it isn’t helping you. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
In article ,
wrote: A lens will project an image that has a field roughly inversly proportional to the FL. On 35mm film, a 16mm lens typically had a vastly bigger field than a 300mm lens. nope. Oh, so the 16mm lens would have the same field as the 300mm lens ? I think not. keep reading. you're confusing projected image with field of view. No confusion on my part. yes there is. The projected image ( circle ) has a field and is a limiting factor. lenses will have an image circle large enough to cover whatever sensor size the lens is designed for, and in some cases, larger. a 16mm lens has a wider field of view than a 300mm lens, but its image circle (what it projects) is about the same, possibly a little smaller. If the sensor is smaller than the projected image, then some of the field is lost. that part is true. A smaller sensor with the same number of ( smaller ) pixcels, used with the same lens will record an image as if a longer lens were used. that's why it's called a crop sensor, and the number of pixels (no c) is irrelevant. No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. it isn't. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On 9/21/2018 6:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 21, 2018, wrote (in ): No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. No, the pixel count is not critical. Consider a 24MP FF sensor and a 24MP APS-C sensor. The pixel count is equal. However, the pixel densities are different, and will contribute to the response characteristics of each sensor, and is certainly a critical factor in sensor specs. Your premise is worthless. Consider, it is merely your premise, and has very little basis in fact. Photonics Online News https://www.photonicsonline.com recently ran several short articles on "Understanding Resolution In Scientific Cameras" that covered a lot the questions in this thread. [ You do need to be a subscriber to access the articles. ] -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On Sep 21, 2018, Ron C wrote
(in ): On 9/21/2018 6:28 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Sep 21, 2018, wrote (in ): No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. No, the pixel count is not critical. Consider a 24MP FF sensor and a 24MP APS-C sensor. The pixel count is equal. However, the pixel densities are different, and will contribute to the response characteristics of each sensor, and is certainly a critical factor in sensor specs. Your premise is worthless. Consider, it is merely your premise, and has very little basis in fact. Photonics Online News https://www.photonicsonline.com recently ran several short articles on "Understanding Resolution In Scientific Cameras" that covered a lot the questions in this thread. [ You do need to be a subscriber to access the articles. ] Then it doesn’t do us non-subscribers much good. Also, judging by the nature of the content of that site, I believe an understanding of resolution in scientific cameras isn’t going to help the users of consumer cameras engaged in fanciful thought exercises in this room, one iota. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On 9/21/2018 8:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 21, 2018, Ron C wrote (in ): On 9/21/2018 6:28 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Sep 21, 2018, wrote (in ): No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. No, the pixel count is not critical. Consider a 24MP FF sensor and a 24MP APS-C sensor. The pixel count is equal. However, the pixel densities are different, and will contribute to the response characteristics of each sensor, and is certainly a critical factor in sensor specs. Your premise is worthless. Consider, it is merely your premise, and has very little basis in fact. Photonics Online News https://www.photonicsonline.com recently ran several short articles on "Understanding Resolution In Scientific Cameras" that covered a lot the questions in this thread. [ You do need to be a subscriber to access the articles. ] Then it doesn’t do us non-subscribers much good. Also, judging by the nature of the content of that site, I believe an understanding of resolution in scientific cameras isn’t going to help the users of consumer cameras engaged in fanciful thought exercises in this room, one iota. I'd tend to describe the articles as optics 101 level, and that a picture/figure tends to be worth 1000 words. I'd also add that the subscription is free .. other than ones value of the requested information .. so, no pay walls. Sorry, I should have continued to sit on my hands. [YMMV] -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
In article , Ron C
wrote: I'd also add that the subscription is free .. other than ones value of the requested information .. so, no pay walls. and that they're data mining you. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. it isn't. Pixel count is all about the resolution of the resulting image. My premise was that this should be equal in both cases. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|