Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 6

8 end

Archive 2011 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

coranda
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #1 · p.7 #1 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Corndog & StarNut,

Forgive me if I'm wrong here but from a cursory reading of your posts it looks as though you are using magnification in 2 different contexts. When a lens quotes a magnification (such as a 1x macro lens) that is referring to size of image on the sensor. In that context, a crop sensor gives no extra magnification. However, if you are talking about taking an image and printing it as a 6"x4" (or whatever) then the crop sensor puts a smaller field of view onto the same area and so is magnified.

In other words, a crop sensor gives no optical magnification but, by default, it prints with a higher magnification.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #2 · p.7 #2 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

corndog wrote:
I can't really discuss this
Gee, you're the one who read "identical pixels" to mean "same number of pixels."

The simple fact is that there is no "crop reach," other than the benefit of the higher density of the pixels in some crop sensors. The mere fact, without more, of a sensor being smaller only results in the image being cropped, not magnified. If the image is projected onto a denser pixel array, the image can be "magnified" more than the same image projected onto a less dense array, but that is a different matter.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:02 PM

RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #3 · p.7 #3 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

StarNut wrote:
If the image is projected onto a denser pixel array, the image can be "magnified" more than the same image projected onto a less dense array, but that is a different matter.

So in other words, more reach.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:11 PM

RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #4 · p.7 #4 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

StarNut wrote:
No, if you have the same number of pixels on two different-sized sensors, you have, by definition, different pixel sizes and densities.

Exactly what I was implying...but I guess you read into it the wrong way. The sensor size DOES effect the density and pixel size when you throw the same number onto two different sensors sizes.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:12 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #5 · p.7 #5 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

coranda wrote:
In other words, a crop sensor gives no optical magnification but, by default, it prints with a higher magnification.

Not so. A sensor produces an image that is made up of an array of pixels. The density of those pixels on the sensor determines the resolution of that the image; the number of pixels determines the "magnification at which it prints."

A FF sensor made up of an array of 6,000 pixels by 4,000 pixels will "print out" at the same size of any other sensor made up of an array of 6,000 pixels 4,000 pixels, but the resolution of that image will be greater on the print from the smaller sensor.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:15 PM

corndog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #6 · p.7 #6 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Wow, thanks for the information! You are such a three dimensional thinker, thank you for understanding my position, that's a sign of a great debater. I really can't stand people who refuse to see how other people think, but I can tell you're not that way at all.

Edited on Jun 15, 2011 at 12:04 AM · View previous versions

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:25 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #7 · p.7 #7 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

corndog wrote:
Should go without saying, but since this is the Canon SLR forum, we're obviously talking about Canon SLRs. And just to be super clear, one last time, you're saying that crop sensors don't give the appearance of magnification when referenced against a full frame sensor?

I have said what needs to be said, many times, clearly. You can continue to pretend that I've said things I haven't, but that doesn't mean I did say it.

In answer to your specific question above, I have a Canon 10D, and a Canon 5D Mark II. I can assure you that, if you were to set up the 10D and the 5d2, side by side, with the same lens, taking a picture of the same scene, the 5d2's photo would have a greater field of view, and would have greater resolution, than the 10d's photo. In fact, because the two sensors have fairly similar resolution (the 5d2 being slightly greater than the 10D), the image from the 10D would be very much like that of the 5d2 (ignoring IQ), cropped to about .6 times the lateral dimension. Hence "crop sensor."

If you were to set up a 10D side by side with a 7D, with the same lens on both, the photo from the 7D would have the same field of view as the 10D photo, but much greater resolution.

There is no such thing as "crop reach." There is such a thing as a crop sensor having greater resolution than a FF sensor. Just as there is such a thing as a crop sensor having lower resolution than a FF sensor.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:34 PM

corndog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #8 · p.7 #8 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Well....those are are a lot more words beyond 'yes' or 'no', but I'll print that out and bring it to my professor so cam bee kinder nuff to splain in laimens terms.

Edited on Jun 15, 2011 at 12:07 AM · View previous versions

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:41 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #9 · p.7 #9 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Nah; "appearance of magnification" is, at best, a meaningless term, which is why I don't use it. As long as you insist on using it, we're not in agreement, because you seem to be ascribing some sort of magic to a crop sensor that simply isn't there.

"Resolution," "pixel size" and "pixel density" have real meanings, which is why I use them.

Lots of people believe that there is a "crop reach." There isn't.

And the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is a fabulous lens.

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:55 PM

corndog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #10 · p.7 #10 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

I always thought 'crop reach' was when you harvested corn...no?

Edited on Jun 15, 2011 at 12:08 AM · View previous versions

Jun 14, 2011 at 11:58 PM

coranda
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #11 · p.7 #11 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

StarNut wrote:
Not so. A sensor produces an image that is made up of an array of pixels. The density of those pixels on the sensor determines the resolution of that the image; the number of pixels determines the "magnification at which it prints."

A FF sensor made up of an array of 6,000 pixels by 4,000 pixels will "print out" at the same size of any other sensor made up of an array of 6,000 pixels 4,000 pixels, but the resolution of that image will be greater on the print from the smaller sensor.

Sorry but I don't agree. Your original comments, and my response, was about magnification. Now you are talking about resolution which is something entirely different from magnification. Pixels are about resolution, they have nothing to do with magnification.

A lens projects an image onto the sensor the magnification of that image on the sensor has nothing to do with the sensor size or resolution. The camera codes that information but until it is rendered somehow the concept of any further magnification is meaningless. A camera can't capture an image that's bigger than its sensor. When the image is printed (or displayed) it then makes sense to talk about magnification. Your argument is that if I capture an image on a 10MP sensor it is at higher magnification than 5MP on the same sensor size. That's just not true. It's higher resolution but resolution is not magnification - the image that was captured is still the same size.

Your argument is like saying that 100 ASA 35mm film stock captures higher magnification images than 1000 ASA film because it has more grains on it.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:00 AM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #12 · p.7 #12 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

coranda wrote:
Sorry but I don't agree. Your original comments, and my response, was about magnification. Now you are talking about resolution which is something entirely different from magnification. Pixels are about resolution, they have nothing to do with magnification.

As previously noted, "magnification" is a meaningless term, unless applied to optical matters. There is no "magnification" from a crop sensor.

A lens projects an image onto the sensor the magnification of that image on the sensor has nothing to do with the sensor size or resolution.

Nonsense! The size of the projected image is entirely a function of the sensor size. The amount you can blow that image up, in a print or on a computer screen, is a function of the resolution. There is not "magnification" from a crop sensor.

The camera codes that information but until it is rendered somehow the concept of any further magnification is meaningless. A camera can't capture an image that's bigger than its sensor. When the image is printed (or displayed) it then makes sense to talk about magnification.

It never makes sense to talk about "magnification" in that context.

Your argument is that if I capture an image on a 10MP sensor it is at higher magnification than 5MP on the same sensor size.

Nonsense, again. I don't use the term "magnification;" you do. If you capture an image on a specific-sized sensor of 10mp, that image will have a higher resolution than the same same sensor with 5mp.

That's just not true. It's higher resolution but resolution is not magnification - the image that was captured is still the same size.

I give up. You are determined to mischaracterize my posts, and use a meaningless term as if I use that meaningless term.

There is no "crop reach." There is not magic sauce from a crop sensor.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:12 AM

corndog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #13 · p.7 #13 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Agreed!! I looked up 'magnification' and the only definition was 'meaningless'. The part that confused me was, even entering the word 'meaningless'.....has meaning.....I'm so cornfused!

Edited on Jun 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM · View previous versions

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:18 AM

coranda
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #14 · p.7 #14 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

StarNut, first let me clarify something because you are in part at least misunderstanding me. If you read my original post I said that crop sensors DO NOT give higher optical magnification so I was actually agreeing with you. I said that, by default, they print at higher magnification. That was based on the stated premise that you were choosing a fixed print size. A crop camera captures a smaller section of the projected image than a FF so when blown up to the same size print the crop sensor print is at higher magnification. If you take 2 identical shots but change nothing but sensor size then any object on the 6x4 print from the crop sensor will be larger than the same object on the 6x4 print from the FF sensor.

Similarly, I wrote:
"A lens projects an image onto the sensor the magnification of that image on the sensor has nothing to do with the sensor size or resolution."

And you replied: "Nonsense! The size of the projected image is entirely a function of the sensor size. The amount you can blow that image up, in a print or on a computer screen, is a function of the resolution. There is not "magnification" from a crop sensor."

You start out by telling me my statement is nonsense and then end it by saying exactly what I said, that sensor size does not effect magnification. You seem to be equating magnification with image size but they are two different things.

If you look through these posts the term magnification is sprinkled liberally. I didn't raise it I just sought to clarify what it means, that it was not being used consistently and is in this argument, as you say irrelevant. You misunderstood the thrust of what i was saying and I apologise if I have (as seems likely) misunderstood some of what you were saying.

Please read my original post. I don't think I said anything that you would really disagree with.

Jun 15, 2011 at 12:40 AM

WebDog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #15 · p.7 #15 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

rd4tile wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember the 20D and 1Ds2 having identical pixel size and density. You could crop a 20D quality image right out of a 1Ds2 image - reach advantage moot!

1.6x1.6x8Mpix=20.48 Mpix roughly equals 5D2... wrt pixel density

Jun 15, 2011 at 03:11 AM

jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #16 · p.7 #16 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Hey, back to the post, about the 70-200 IS II?? Ok..

Jun 15, 2011 at 05:13 AM

jamato8
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #17 · p.7 #17 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

corndog wrote:
Here's a 100% crop (sharpened) from my previous 70-200 non-is, not bad!

http://www.corndography.com/misc/2010-05-22_Hangtown/tn_7P9J3757-1.jpg

The background is soft, bad copy,. . oh wait, ..sorry that is a poor depth of field issue. . . :^)

I have a 70-200 non IS. I have had it for years. Very, Very sharp but I hardly use it.

Now this thread has me thinking of the II. I have the 200L f2 and love it but heavy and I know the II is heavy. Back to my M9 Leica and a few lenses. :^)

Jun 15, 2011 at 05:15 AM

jj_glos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #18 · p.7 #18 · 70-200mkII is Freaking Awesome

Ah the old crop/magnification argument

A crop camera does not increase the optical magnification of a lens, the optical characteristics of a lens are physical and cannot be changed. However it's a much simpler definition that agrees with the magnification of a subject when using a crop camera. Magnification can be seen as enlarging something by appearance not physically. If you look at the a subject through a FF camera, then look at the same subject through a crop camera. The image presented to you in the crop is a magnification of what you saw in the FF viewfinder... Essentially it is only this end result that matters in layman's terms. Yes you can argue that the magnification is not due to optical magnification but the change of field of view due to the crop sensor, but the end results from the camera do fit a definition of magnification quite nicely

Jun 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM

1 2 3 … 6 7 8 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 end

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