kaustubh_d wrote: kakomu wrote: kaustubh_d wrote:
Lot of people say that they like the reach they get (esp. bird, wildlife etc.) with a 1.6x crop factor camera. I myself use a 40d. But I suppose they can get the same \"reach\" by doing the 1.6x crop in photoshop on an image shot by a full-frame, right?
You\'ll get the same composition, but not the same resolution.
Right. I dont disagree. But 1ds is 21 mp, right? So if you crop it to 1.6x, it might be less than the 15mp of 50d...but will that make a significant difference? I am asking..not rhetoric.
The high iso advantage in wildlfie/bird photography is huge.
In a hypothetical world, if 50d and 5D were priced the same, I dont think people will buy 50d because it gives extra reach, will they?...if 1Ds and 1D were priced the same, will they go for 1D? Some will but just because of the FPS advantage...not the crop factor advantage. I guess thats the point I was trying to make.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Kaustubh
If you crop the 5DII image to 1.6x crop size, you\'d essentially have the same image as though you used a crop body. There\'s nothing inherently superior about the 5D\'s sensor. it\'s just larger and has larger pixel pitch (each pixel is larger than a 50D\'s pixel). I think the pixel pitch of the 5D2 is around that of the 30D or Rebel XT.
Jun 10, 2009 at 07:20 PM
Previous versions of kakomu's message #7176858 « Proof of Full Frame IQ vs Crop? »
