A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So, Why FF ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 21st 18, 11:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old September 21st 18, 11:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old September 21st 18, 11:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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.
  #35  
Old September 22nd 18, 01:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default 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  
Old September 22nd 18, 01:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old September 22nd 18, 01:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default So, Why FF ?

On 9/21/2018 6:15 PM, wrote:
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.

So far, you are the only one in this discussion that thinks your premise
is correct. It's clear that you are confusing the FOV of a lens with the
image circle on the focal plane (e.g. sensor). FL doesn't matter; one
will get two different image contents when using the same lens with FF
and smaller sensors.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #38  
Old September 22nd 18, 02:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 415
Default 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  
Old September 22nd 18, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old September 22nd 18, 12:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.