Relationship between pixels and cropping?

[Peeb70 6]

If I shoot a pic with a 6 MP camera at 200mm, can I get the same picture clarity shooting a 12 MP camera at 100mm and cropping?

(Assume lenses are similar lens quality, and that DOF is not an issue).

 

[KmH]

No, assuming the image sensor in both cameras is the same size.

The 12 MP will deliver better resolution than the 6 MP can.
The difference in lens focal length would alter the field-of-view (FoV). The 200 mm lens will deliver a smaller FoV than the 100 mm lens would.

 

[Peeb70 6]

But I'm cropping the higher Rez 100mm pic which contracts the FOV, no?

 

[astroNikon]

If I shoot a pic with a 6 MP camera at 200mm, can I get the same picture clarity shooting a 12 MP camera at 100mm and cropping?

(Assume lenses are similar lens quality, and that DOF is not an issue).

Are you asking
1 - a 6mp @ 200mm image
vs
2 - a 12mp @ 100mm of the same object at the same distance, but cropped to create the same image size as the 6mp ?

One thing left out is the technical quality of the sensor (for dynamic range, etc), which current sensors are vastly superior to the old sensors.

 

[Peeb70 6]

You are correct. Assume same sensor quality.

 

[astroNikon]

I don't really know. If you are going to crop the image to the same size it should be approximately the same, assuming sensor "everything is equal".

 

[dennybeall]

Part of the equation would be if the quality and size of the individual pixels was equal. That's not usually the case. The larger sensor is usually newer and more capable.

 

[Derrel]

I never can remember...which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold??

 

[Peeb70 6]

I don't really know. If you are going to crop the image to the same size it should be approximately the same, assuming sensor "everything is equal".

I'm just wondering if in the future, superlong lenses will become irrelevant, since you could just crop a portion of the photo to a large size without the need for the reach of a super

I never can remember...which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold??

Ha!

The reason I ask is that I was thinking about the future of photography. As sensors get better and better, will the need for big glass diminish? If you capture an image with a GB of data, you can crop away and draw out the tiniest part of an image captured with, say a 35 or 50mm lens. Most people would stop carrying long tele lenses, I think. Does that make sense?

BTW, I'll happily give you TEN pounds of feathers for one pound of gold.

 

[robbins.photo]

If I shoot a pic with a 6 MP camera at 200mm, can I get the same picture clarity shooting a 12 MP camera at 100mm and cropping?

(Assume lenses are similar lens quality, and that DOF is not an issue).

I guess my question would be, what difference does it make? Since you'd never be able to duplicate this in the real world.

I can tell you from experience that cropping a photo that was taken with a 24 mp D5200 gives you a lot more options than cropping a photo from a 16 mp D5100 when shot at roughly the same distance with the same lens.

Part of it is the MP rating of course, but the 5200 also has other features, better AF system, etc that give you an overall higher quality result on average than the 5100, all of which can come into play when you get ready to crop.

So in the real world the 24 mp D5200 will normally give you photos that will allow you to crop more and still end up with relatively the same image quality as a final result than the 16 mp D5100.

But if you wanted to look at it as strictly a math equation, well your looking at so many variables it isn't even funny. Me my only interest is in real world results. YMMV of course.

 

[Peeb70 6]

If I shoot a pic with a 6 MP camera at 200mm, can I get the same picture clarity shooting a 12 MP camera at 100mm and cropping?

(Assume lenses are similar lens quality, and that DOF is not an issue).

I guess my question would be, what difference does it make? Since you'd never be able to duplicate this in the real world.

I can tell you from experience that cropping a photo that was taken with a 24 mp D5200 gives you a lot more options than cropping a photo from a 16 mp D5100 when shot at roughly the same distance with the same lens.

Part of it is the MP rating of course, but the 5200 also has other features, better AF system, etc that give you an overall higher quality result on average than the 5100, all of which can come into play when you get ready to crop.

So in the real world the 24 mp D5200 will normally give you photos that will allow you to crop more and still end up with relatively the same image quality as a final result than the 16 mp D5100.

But if you wanted to look at it as strictly a math equation, well your looking at so many variables it isn't even funny. Me my only interest is in real world results. YMMV of course.

Thanks, but no- it's not a math question for me- I posed my 'real world' question at (ironically) about the identical time you put up your post.

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't really know. If you are going to crop the image to the same size it should be approximately the same, assuming sensor "everything is equal".

I'm just wondering if in the future, superlong lenses will become irrelevant, since you could just crop a portion of the photo to a large size without the need for the reach of a super

I never can remember...which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold??

Ha!

The reason I ask is that I was thinking about the future of photography. As sensors get better and better, will the need for big glass diminish? If you capture an image with a GB of data, you can crop away and draw out the tiniest part of an image captured with, say a 35 or 50mm lens. Most people would stop carrying long tele lenses, I think. Does that make sense?

BTW, I'll happily give you TEN pounds of feathers for one pound of gold.

The future of photography will be whatever direction the market takes it in, period. Every yakadoodle and his brother has some prediction about how this will be the future of all cameras or that will be, etc - but truthfully even as the technology advances I'd be willing to bet that 10 years from now the biggest share of the market will still be cameras that use the same lenses as DSLR's do right now, or at the very least are capable of using those lenses.

Most of us "serious" amateurs have a pretty decent amount of coin wrapped up in those lenses, and honestly I'm not interested in "upgrading" to any camera system that is going to require me to have to go out and replace my glass.

Most pros probably feel the same way for the most part. Smaller and lighter isnot the end all be all holy grail for a lot of us. I like a camera with some heft to it. I don't have delicate little hands, I've got bear paws. My D7100 is about as small as I ever want my camera to be, any smaller and it would be increasingly difficult for me to use.

 

[Peeb70 6]

I don't really know. If you are going to crop the image to the same size it should be approximately the same, assuming sensor "everything is equal".

I'm just wondering if in the future, superlong lenses will become irrelevant, since you could just crop a portion of the photo to a large size without the need for the reach of a super

I never can remember...which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold??

Ha!

The reason I ask is that I was thinking about the future of photography. As sensors get better and better, will the need for big glass diminish? If you capture an image with a GB of data, you can crop away and draw out the tiniest part of an image captured with, say a 35 or 50mm lens. Most people would stop carrying long tele lenses, I think. Does that make sense?

BTW, I'll happily give you TEN pounds of feathers for one pound of gold.

The future of photography will be whatever direction the market takes it in, period. Every yakadoodle and his brother has some prediction about how this will be the future of all cameras or that will be, etc - but truthfully even as the technology advances I'd be willing to bet that 10 years from now the biggest share of the market will still be cameras that use the same lenses as DSLR's do right now, or at the very least are capable of using those lenses.

Most of us "serious" amateurs have a pretty decent amount of coin wrapped up in those lenses, and honestly I'm not interested in "upgrading" to any camera system that is going to require me to have to go out and replace my glass.

Most pros probably feel the same way for the most part. Smaller and lighter isnot the end all be all holy grail for a lot of us. I like a camera with some heft to it. I don't have delicate little hands, I've got bear paws. My D7100 is about as small as I ever want my camera to be, any smaller and it would be increasingly difficult for me to use.

You make some excellent points, but I see smart phones pushing 'real' cameras out of the way on a regular basis right now. Where a soccer Mom used to snap pics of the big game on a Canon Rebel, she now shoots with an iPhone 6+. I'm not saying that serious photographers are interested in this path, but I don't thing that the push for smaller and lighter will be totally ignored, either.

Just my take.

 

[Alexr25]

If I shoot a pic with a 6 MP camera at 200mm, can I get the same picture clarity shooting a 12 MP camera at 100mm and cropping?

(Assume lenses are similar lens quality, and that DOF is not an issue).

No, you would need a 24MP camera to get the same resolution. To double the resolution (pixels/mm) you need 4 times the total pixels.

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't really know. If you are going to crop the image to the same size it should be approximately the same, assuming sensor "everything is equal".

I'm just wondering if in the future, superlong lenses will become irrelevant, since you could just crop a portion of the photo to a large size without the need for the reach of a super

I never can remember...which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold??

Ha!

The reason I ask is that I was thinking about the future of photography. As sensors get better and better, will the need for big glass diminish? If you capture an image with a GB of data, you can crop away and draw out the tiniest part of an image captured with, say a 35 or 50mm lens. Most people would stop carrying long tele lenses, I think. Does that make sense?

BTW, I'll happily give you TEN pounds of feathers for one pound of gold.

The future of photography will be whatever direction the market takes it in, period. Every yakadoodle and his brother has some prediction about how this will be the future of all cameras or that will be, etc - but truthfully even as the technology advances I'd be willing to bet that 10 years from now the biggest share of the market will still be cameras that use the same lenses as DSLR's do right now, or at the very least are capable of using those lenses.

Most of us "serious" amateurs have a pretty decent amount of coin wrapped up in those lenses, and honestly I'm not interested in "upgrading" to any camera system that is going to require me to have to go out and replace my glass.

Most pros probably feel the same way for the most part. Smaller and lighter isnot the end all be all holy grail for a lot of us. I like a camera with some heft to it. I don't have delicate little hands, I've got bear paws. My D7100 is about as small as I ever want my camera to be, any smaller and it would be increasingly difficult for me to use.

You make some excellent points, but I see smart phones pushing 'real' cameras out of the way on a regular basis right now. Where a soccer Mom used to snap pics of the big game on a Canon Rebel, she now shoots with an iPhone 6+. I'm not saying that serious photographers are interested in this path, but I don't thing that the push for smaller and lighter will be totally ignored, either.

Just my take.

Yup.. if I had a dime for every "10 years from now all cameras will be smart phones" blog posts and articles I'd be richer than Donald Trump...lol. But the truth is, I don't see it happening.

The DSLR market isn't driven by soocer mom's and cell phone snappers. Sure, it got a boost from those sales back in the age of the flip phone where you couldn't get a recognizable photo from a cell phone but entry level DSLR's got cheap enough for a soccer mom to want one.

They lost some of that market when cell phones improved to the point where you could actually get usable pics from them in some more common shooting situations. But strangely enough the DSLR market is still going strong and companies like Nikon are still making billions of dollars a year despite all the blog posts about how someday the cell phone will be the only camera on the market.

Truth is the market for DSLR's is a different market. Always has been. There was some crossover for a while, sure. But even as the cross over faded DSLR's are still going strong. They are now, and will be 10 years from now.

You can't defy physics. A bigger sensor means more light. Bigger glass, more light. Photography, it's all about light. Smart phone sized lens? Sensor small enough to fit in smart phone? Only so much you can do. Period.