Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2017 · Crop. Longer reach?

  
 
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Crop. Longer reach?


It seems a statement of faith around here, that a crop camera allows for more "reach" than a FF camera with the same lens. The phase is "pixels per duck." Perhaps I'm not getting it. I can't see how an image taken at a given distance with a given lens gains anything by using a crop over a FF camera. In fact it should be less image - at least as I understand optics.

So is this myth? Are we talking about different things? Am I not understanding what is being said? Perhaps I arrived on the short bus?

Thoughts please,

Robert



Aug 21, 2017 at 10:15 AM
mitesh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Crop. Longer reach?


Try this article:

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/undrestanding-crop-factor/



Aug 21, 2017 at 10:21 AM
mitesh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Crop. Longer reach?


And a few links:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1323001/0

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1261315/

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1259833/0#11994647

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1259833/0#11994982

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1244405/0#11836172



Aug 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Crop. Longer reach?


OntheRez wrote:
So is this myth? Are we talking about different things? Am I not understanding what is being said? Perhaps I arrived on the short bus?



Not really a myth per se, more of a convenient way of expressing the resulting angle of view with a cropped sensor and relating it to a focal length that people raised on 35mm film cameras can readily understand.

Instead of "more pixels per duck", I like to think of it as chopping your duck up into smaller (and often lesser quality) pixels...



Aug 21, 2017 at 10:43 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Crop. Longer reach?


Reach is based on pixel density, not sensor size. For example, the 5DS and 7DII have the same sensor density, and the same reach. You can crop the FF image to match the APS-C image, or keep it whole; regardless, the reach is the same.

Reach only varies between cameras when they have different sensor densities, with the higher density having the longer 'reach' (i.e. pixels per duck). That being said, not all pixels are created equal, and so if the longer-reach camera has higher noise (for same ISO), then you might not be able to take advantage of the longer reach.



Aug 21, 2017 at 10:52 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Crop. Longer reach?


jcolwell wrote:
Reach is based on pixel density, not sensor size. For example, the 5DS and 7DII have the same sensor density, and the same reach. You can crop the FF image to match the APS-C image, or keep it whole; regardless, the reach is the same.

Reach only varies between cameras when they have different sensor densities, with the higher density having the longer 'reach' (i.e. pixels per duck). That being said, not all pixels are created equal, and so if the longer-reach camera has higher noise (for same ISO), then you might not be able to take advantage of the
...Show more

If the longer reach camera has a bit more noise, you have 3 options to equalize the results: you have to crop out the FF image and resize up, or resize the crop down, or use a 1.4x TC. In any of the 3 cases, whatever noise disadvantages there might be, start to diminish very quickly. So ISO/noise with today's generation of camera just isn't as large an issue as it was before perhaps around 2010 when calling out IQ differences in FF vs APSC.

It has more to do with lens quality and AA filter strengths any more, IMO. Those are the largest contributors to issues I might see personally. I would love to see the 7D3 come out with the new sensor for better DR AND a nullifying AA filter like the 5DSR.






Aug 21, 2017 at 11:51 AM
Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Crop. Longer reach?


OntheRez wrote:
It seems a statement of faith around here, that a crop camera allows for more "reach" than a FF camera with the same lens. The phase is "pixels per duck." Perhaps I'm not getting it. I can't see how an image taken at a given distance with a given lens gains anything by using a crop over a FF camera. In fact it should be less image - at least as I understand optics.

So is this myth? Are we talking about different things? Am I not understanding what is being said? Perhaps I arrived on the short bus?

Thoughts please,

Robert


It is not a myth but the 'advantages' of the crop sensor can be incredibly overblown. As has been mentioned, it is not sensor size but pixel density, and traditionally smaller sensors had a greater pixel density but even that is changing as manufacturers improve their manufacturing capabilities - again as mentioned look at the 7D2 vs 5DS(R).

The sensor performance is largely a combination of pixel density, dynamic range and noise and they are never simple play-offs due to technologies being used, such that the old generalisations fall down badly and are only any real use when talking about cameras within a given range.

I have the 7D2 and the 1Dx2, and have rented the 5DIV. In good light at low ISO (below 2000) the greater pixel density of the 7D2 shows more detail and (by extension) allows greater cropping for small animals like birds. It is not the full 1.6 you would imagine from the crop factor because noise starts to show up, but in practice I would subjectively say about a 1.3 advantage.
Above ISO 2000 especially in lower light the pixel quality of the FF cameras has a greater effect and the lesser noise on the FF models allows more cropping than on the 7D2. The 5DSR is apparently better than the 7D2 (probably the lack of AA filter) but not as good as the larger pixel FF cameras.






Aug 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Crop. Longer reach?


My personal limit for the 7D2 is higher than ISO 2000, but I am not an avid bird shooter.

sample

Edited on Aug 21, 2017 at 03:32 PM · View previous versions



Aug 21, 2017 at 02:17 PM
AJSJones
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Crop. Longer reach?


It's a generalization and we all know one should never generalize - especially in photography.
The (crop) D30 had 3 mp in the same area that the (FF) 5Ds now has 20MP.
The (crop) 7D2 has 20 MP in the same area that the (FF) 1Ds had 4.3MP



Aug 21, 2017 at 02:58 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Crop. Longer reach?


7D vs 5D3, shot at ISO 1600 each, showing why the perceived "reach" with crops (pixel density)...

5D3


7D


100% crop of the eyes from each, already it appears we have more reach due to the greater number of pixels covering the same area...


Then resizing the FF results up to the same density...


100% of the eyes after equalizing


Showing DOF differences between the 2



Aug 22, 2017 at 07:27 AM
Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Crop. Longer reach?


A very nice comparison Teamspeed.

Was the DOF comparison taken with the same lens on both cameras?



Aug 22, 2017 at 08:51 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Crop. Longer reach?


Mikehit wrote:
A very nice comparison Teamspeed.

Was the DOF comparison taken with the same lens on both cameras?


Yes, either my 24-70 at the time, or the 70-200, cannot remember which. I don't have the original files any more, space was needed for sports albums.



Aug 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM
tsangc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Crop. Longer reach?




Mikehit wrote:
It is not a myth but the 'advantages' of the crop sensor can be incredibly overblown. As has been mentioned, it is not sensor size but pixel density, and traditionally smaller sensors had a greater pixel density but even that is changing as manufacturers improve their manufacturing capabilities - again as mentioned look at the 7D2 vs 5DS(R).


The one consideration which weighs heavily for me is price. Yes, a 5Ds has the same density as a 7D2 but because of manufacturing yields and market segmentation, the latter is less than half the price. On the used market because 7D2's are found at Best Buy and other big box stores, many more are available and therefore cheaper. That same money saved could be put into better lenses for even more optical reach.

So for those of us poor photographers, those cropped, though noisy, pixels are well worth it! (:



Aug 23, 2017 at 08:45 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Crop. Longer reach?


Many times, a stop or so of noise is easy to manage and mostly free (some time, but not much), versus the cost of any other option of increasing reach, whether digitally or optically.

The smallest amount one will spend to increase whatever reach we are talking about is minimally $150, whether that be a 1.4x TC or a longer lens like a 55-250 that has pretty respectable IQ. It just goes up from there, seemingly exponentially, whether it is a 2x, a longer lens, or a new body, or some combination therein.



Aug 23, 2017 at 09:46 AM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Crop. Longer reach?


TeamSpeed wrote:
7D vs 5D3, shot at ISO 1600 each, showing why the perceived "reach" with crops (pixel density)...



What a remarkably compliant young lady!

The 7D shows up really well, it gets such a bashing here but I really like mine for certain things



Aug 23, 2017 at 09:51 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Crop. Longer reach?


Examined the links. Lots of great information. Also the images are great. As I suspected and others have confirmed 400mm is 400mm. There's no magic way to make it "longer" by providing a smaller surface for the image to form on, but… It's not simple, straight forward, or even that easy to work out.

Sensor density, size, and quality all play into how the image "appears" to be more completely covered or not. I believe it is correct to say - as a general - rule a crop camera uses a smaller photo site in order to get more onto the smaller chip. So smaller sites means more of them in a given area, but…

All photo sites are not created equal and beyond that the smaller they are and the tighter they're packed the greater likelihood of color interference. So it all adds up - well not really - to a tightly interwoven, multivariate nexus that probably has too many factors to be reduced to one equation. Of course, lots of experimentation, tinkering, and theorizing has created some guidelines. Clearly how much the photographer chooses to crop the raw image is key to how much of the acquired image data can be brought to bear on the resulting photo.

I've not used a crop camera in - well probably since the 20D - though I guess technically the 1D series was a crop. Looking at TeamSpeed's nice work, I can see how people could call the difference between the 5D and 7D images "greater reach." I'm glad I understand what the term means - assuming it is used like TeamSpead has suggested.

It's real clear that the quality of the photo site is at least as critical to the outcome as is the density of said sites. Seems to be one of those things where you can't have all of both (reach and large sensor site). Might change as the technology evolves.

I just picked up an 80D to use as a 3rd camera. I'm going to do some playing around comparing it to the 1Dx II. Should be interesting.



Aug 23, 2017 at 05:11 PM
pshyvers
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Crop. Longer reach?


tsangc wrote:
The one consideration which weighs heavily for me is price. Yes, a 5Ds has the same density as a 7D2 but because of manufacturing yields and market segmentation, the latter is less than half the price.


Pretty much where I wound up. Arash carefully explains how a 1DXII with 600 outperform a 7DII with 400. Yes, I believe it. I certainly hope they would! But I can't afford them.



Aug 23, 2017 at 07:49 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.