So You Wanna See the Difference Between Full Frame and Cropped Sensors?

[Braineack]

$7.50 wont get you in a matinee here...

 

[WayneF]

No, I have no objections to a resurrected, four year-old thread filled with back and forth and back and forth and lots of posturing and stuff....

Yes, being in this thread certainly was my mistake. Went wrong somewhere, I still can't figure out how I got here. Prowling around without enough attention obviously, got sidetracked. Sorry about that part.

I intended to be in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...th-field-lenses-relationship.html#post3215301

where yesterday you had posted there about DOF and my "it's all crop" nonsense, and then thought better I guess, at least apparently deleted it quickly, or someone did. But I don't mind discussing it with you.

There you pointed out the obvious DOF difference in 35mm and roll film and sheet film, and digital compact, DX and FX, regarding depth of field. Those factors are "all crop", so we already agree.

You seem to credit DOF to the film itself, but I realize you cannot mean it that way. I feel sure you know and care.
But sure, I will word it that way if you wish, yes, of course it is all crop. Crop is the only difference in any of those cameras, how much their sensor crops the lens view. It could be worded how well the lens covers the film size, but of course, that is specifically about the crop size.
They of course do also necessarily use different lenses, but which needed magnification is ONLY because of the crop size, so it will see a normal view, so yes, of course it is all about crop. And of course, their varying sizes also have to be enlarged differently later (more magnification), so again, it is all crop.
Other than aperture fstop, what does affect DOF is magnification, which could be lens focal length or focus distance, but all specifics come about because of crop size. How hard is that?

You had said: "If you WANT TO MAKE pictures that have VERY LIMITED depth of field, what people have done for well over 100 years, is to use a BIG piece of film."

That 8x10 is of course just a bigger crop size, pure and simple. Of course, the film does not actually do anything about DOF, but the crop size demands use of the lens that does cause it.

So, how is this statement wrong? If you want a drastic difference in DOF (for an assumed similar view of a subject), find a camera with a drastically different crop size. (I just quoted your agreement)

If crop size is not the FIRST STEP, then what would be the first step?

 

[vintagesnaps]

I haven't the foggiest notion what a quantum leap actually is, all I know is at the end of every episode what's his name leapt into another character in a different place - whew, the show would be on again another week!

The thread by now just seems to be making this harder than it has to be.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I remember that show. Did he ever make it back to his correct time?

 

[KmH]

Only if you know what the real Quantum Leap actually is?

I just hope the next leap is the leap home.

Niels Bohr explained how electrons are arranged around an atoms nucleus in discrete energy levels that are akin to discrete electron orbits.

Electrons are able to move from energy level to energy level, and when they change level they emit or absorb photons (light).
The energy level changes follow a Poisson statistical distribution which is part of how they were able to verify what Bohr had theorized.

But here is the non-intuitive quantum mechanical thing - When an electron jumps from one energy level to another it does not cross the space between the orbits - it just instantly appears at the new level and was called a Quantum Leap.

 

[kundalini]

Mr. Fulton,
I do not doubt that you are well versed in your knowledge of photography. I will not debate that and assume it to be true. However, I do believe your recent immergence in this thread has left a sour taste in many mouths for the intentions of the original post. With over 11K views and no significant disputes of my attempt to enlighten of what I originally presented, you now wish to be the cock of the walk with 6 months of membership under your belt. Go ahead and bask in the sun of your formidable knowledge. But you don't know me and I doubt you have vested the interest to find out my history on TPF. It doesn't matter, but it is worth mentioning.

There is a difference between “the letter of” and “the spirit of” which you are attempting to interject from the effort I made years ago. While the link you provided is valid FX - DX Lens Crop Factor, even though many examples of that same visual can be searched via Google and has been addressed several times on TPF, it only demonstrates an overview of the differences between FX versus DX. The spirit in which I posted this thread was to reveal what interested people may actually see when they upload their image to their computer. You know, from their memory card of an image they actually took and wondered what the difference would be between the formats. Yeah, it was a kinda ugly monkey for a subject, but let me tell you that monkey has been a tireless friend for my experiments with photography. I determined quickly not to bother living human beings with my experiments, or rather, while I was figuring things out. That’s a good way to lose a friend or partner’s patience.

So even though you state “You did what you did, and got what you got. I said you unfairly compared unequal items, and then failed to make the real point.” , you are mistaken. I made the exact point I was after. While I may not be the expert of your caliber, I made a decent effort nonetheless, IMO. You expressed that you are knowledgeable of my processes, but I have an opinion that you are SWAGing because you don’t have a clue of what I did on that day. Again, I challenge you, but don’t try to give the same link as before. Do a real world study (with or without a pink monkey) of what someone would see on their uploaded image and wondered what the difference would be.

If you continue with your l-o-n-g-w-i-n-d-e-d validations, I’m afraid this thread may be locked. That would be a shame. At the expense of ego, are you willing to thwart efforts towards awareness of the uninitiated? It is okay to take a step back.

Peace out.

 

[WayneF]

Mr. Fulton,

Uh oh...

I can see now that you were offended, which certainly was not my intent, and for that, I am sorry if it bothered you. I did not imagine it was personal, and instead thought we discussed photography subjects here. But yes, I was indeed in the wrong place and did not even realize the thread was so old. It was linked in another thread recently, and I was thinking DOF, which unfortunately was on a different track than your purpose.

Still, I thought I only said two things. One was I did say I thought you should have shown the "same lens / different sensor" comparisons proportionate to actual original size, and left additional enlargement out of it. You disagreed, and seem pleased with your choice, and of course, it was your choice. Which clearly wasn't my own DOF notion, and which seemed to fail to impress you.

I did think there was much more potential though, and scaling original size still seems a reasonable idea, since you did do exactly that in your second image posting (in reverse, enlarging FX 50% more instead of DX less, but with same effect, both had same 50% enlargement degree then). I should have offered an attaboy, since your second image post also clearly shows the same lens view is obviously projected the same onto both sensors, so obviously same subject size and DOF is expected. Same lens at same distance on two bodies must be exactly the same, because it is in fact the same lens and same projected image. That is a major point of confusion about the DX/FX subject. We just have to show it equally. Which you did show well (both enlarged 50% more to be an equal comparison). I'm not sure everyone grasped what they were seeing however, which seems a shame, there is so much there.

In the last two compares in first post, and also your second image post which I did not comment on, you did really well showing the same subject at same size, which must have been your intent, which showed same DOF extending behind subject, regardless of different lens/distances (used to show same size). The distances are very close, really too close to expect it perfect, but it still came out very well anyway. It would be easier at a few feet instead of a several inches. Three ways you showed this well though, with focal length and then distance in the first post, and with same enlargement in the second. Same image magnification any of the three ways is the same DOF (maybe not quite if too close).

Then two, I did say you didn't comment on this in the first, which you didn't. I guess my saying that must be a bigger sin than I realize, apparently you don't find it very helpful. But three ways done so well does seem a pretty big deal nevertheless, IMO well worthy of comment. It would have been awesome if more comment were offered there, which it deserved, and I thought it was nice work which offered much more than you are willing to claim. Impressed me though, even if the omission.

But clearly the fault was mine, maybe my comments could have added enough more to make it more clear what I noticed you did there, and maybe less about what you didn't do since that bothered you. That part was not intended. Additional comment now is probably not helping either. I do regret that my notions were not useful to you, and do regret if you were offended.