Longer Lens or Crop Sensor

[Overread]

From what I've seen Tony both gets things wrong, gets the wrong end of the stick and presents things in away which is counter intuitive to getting the point across when he does get it right.

Also he seriously needs to change his shirt! All those moire patterns as the digital video recorder fails to work with the dense pattern - gah a nightmare

 

[Braineack]

Tony has good instructional videos, but his technical videos suck. he gives false "facts" on purpose

his formula for multiply the aperture by the crop factor is correct -- but he presents it in a way that's purposefully confusing and controversial.

all he has to do is caveat the statement by saying "in terms of DOF", but he doesn't. Because he knows people will see it, link it, and be like "this guy is crazy, sensor size has nothing to do with exposure rules". and he gets more $$$ from the views.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Tony has good instructional videos, but his technical videos suck. he gives false "facts" on purpose

his formula for multiply the aperture by the crop factor is correct -- but he presents it in a way that's purposefully confusing and controversial.

all he has to do is caveat the statement by saying "in terms of DOF", but he doesn't. Because he knows people will see it, link it, and be like "this guy is crazy, sensor size has nothing to do with exposure rules". and he gets more $$$ from the views.

I suppose its a deliberate thing just to get website hits up ergo more money from sponsors and book sales

Similar to saying
Reach is Real.

 

[Braineack]

I've thoroughly explained why reach is real in this thread. It's not a similar statement. Saying "reach is real" is not a trick, it's not misleading, and it's not false. "Cropping" an image by using a smaller sensor is much different than cropping an image after it has been created and it allows a shorter lens to be used on a smaller sensor to achieve the same framing as a longer lens on a larger sensor -- with 100% of pixels used to create the image.

if you crop a 300mm image taken with a FX to look like the same subject taken by your buddy standing next to you with the same lens on a DX body -- your image will look like ****, his won't.

which is much different than stating: "a 2.8 lens on a DX will behave like a 4.6" -- which is only true in the regards of DOF. He's completely ignoring the effects on exposure with aperture, since the same aperture value will still collect the same amount of light, not less light by the crop factor.

I'm also not selling anything, or misleading anyone, or playing with semantics, plus I hand out my wisdom for free.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I've thoroughly explained why reach is real in this thread. It's not a similar statement. Saying "reach is real" is not a trick, it's not misleading, and it's not false. "Cropping" an image by using a smaller sensor is much different than cropping an image after it has been created and it allows a shorter lens to be used on a smaller sensor to achieve the same framing as a longer lens on a larger sensor -- with 100% of pixels used to create the image.

if you crop a 300mm image taken with a FX to look like the same subject taken by your buddy standing next to you with the same lens on a DX body -- your image will look like ****, his won't.

which is much different than stating: "a 2.8 lens on a DX will behave like a 4.6" -- which is only true in the regards of DOF. He's completely ignoring the effects on exposure with aperture, since the same aperture value will still collect the same amount of light, not less light by the crop factor.

I'm also not selling anything, or misleading anyone, or playing with semantics, plus I hand out my wisdom for free.

Ok jees

I was not comparing you to him I merely said, all be it without going into much explanation as I thought the remark would be understood, that his method of ham fisted explanation is most likely intentionally confusing in order to create more interest and hype about his brand and therefore sell more of his stuff.

Furthermore allot of crud is sold nowadays on the basis of one liners and soundbites and click bait and your statement that "reach is real" is very like what confidence men churn out in order to line there pockets.

FYI i am not calling you a con man and if you cant see that well then thats on you.

(End Transmission)

 

[Braineack]

I consider people who deny reach is real, flat-earthers

 

[chuasam]

How much do you want to spend? Also, fieldcraft counts for a LOT with bird and animal photography.

 

[photoflyer]

How much do you want to spend? Also, fieldcraft counts for a LOT with bird and animal photography.

Very true. Sometimes we lose sight of the art (and craft) and caught up in the technology. I think this has become even more of a trap with the advent of digital photography.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I consider people who deny reach is real, flat-earthers

 

[Ferrarimx5]

I consider people who deny reach is real, flat-earthers

A light hearted perspective, not to be taken seriously.

"Reach is real": Perhaps this statement is nothing more than a two dimensional misdirection, same as our flat earth is a two dimensional misdirection. (being a reflection of our ignorance both are a challenge to our perceived reality). (Click bait).. When you expand into the three dimensional world, your new depth of field not only changes your perspective, it provides a completely different perception of new, expanded facts to sift. Can "reach" be measured in megapixels? Depends not only on your frame of reference, (on the density of the crop you are harvesting, or the quality of the sensor), but also on the chipset that is attached. (Or not)...

In reality, we are all mislead by marketing and only by discussing the real world applications (and the results there-of), are we ever going to be satisfied with our understanding.

Most of us understand that reach is real and the earth is not flat.. Our problem is in properly defining "Reach" without blurring the subject with an unrelated discussion about the amount of resolution.

Here is one perspective:

 

[Braineack]

In reality, we are all mislead by marketing and only by discussing the real world applications (and the results there-of), are we ever going to be satisfied with our understanding.

Put a 300mm lens on your 24mp crop sensor body -- and have the reach -- to achieve a picture like having a 450mm on your full frame 24mp camera.

real world application. it's as simple as that. no misdirection.

 

[Ferrarimx5]

Real world...
Put a 300mm lens on your 24mp crop sensor body -- and have the reach -- to achieve a picture like having a 450mm on your full frame 36mp camera. But not quite the same f-stop and not the same DOF... if you compare this to a 24mp full frame your resolution will suffer,... minor points but still important misdirection...

real world application. it's as simple as that. no misdirecti

In reality, we are all mislead by marketing and only by discussing the real world applications (and the results there-of), are we ever going to be satisfied with our understanding.

Put a 300mm lens on your 24mp crop sensor body -- and have the reach -- to achieve a picture like having a 450mm on your full frame 24mp camera.

real world application. it's as simple as that. no misdirection.

 

[Braineack]

REAL WORLD:

Put a Xmm lens on your Ymp crop sensor body -- and have the reach -- to achieve [framing] a picture like having a (X * crop factor)mm on your full frame Ymp camera.

Both images will having equal framing and image size.

Put a Xmm lens on your Ymp crop sensor body -- and have more reach -- to achieve a picture longer/closer/more zoomed in than having the same Xmm lens on your full frame Ymp camera.

the crop sensor will have an image with a larger subject while maintaining the same image size. Meaning you would have to physically crop MPs out of the FF image to achieve similar framing.

 

[Ferrarimx5]

Yes. Reach ( as defined) is independent of Depth of field. And I agree with this definition. This is a worthwhile discussion and helps us understand the complexity of the differences between full frame and cropped. The F-stop being just one of the variables.

 

[BrentC]

But not quite the same f-stop and not the same DOF... if you compare this to a 24mp full frame your resolution will suffer,... minor points but still important misdirection...

Yes. Reach ( as defined) is independent of Depth of field. And I agree with this definition. This is a worthwhile discussion and helps us understand the complexity of the differences between full frame and cropped. The F-stop being just one of the variables.

F-stop on crop or FF is the exact same. The DoF may be different at same f-stop but f2.8 on a crop lets in the same light as f2.8 on FF. And larger DoF does not mean image quality will suffer.