So, Why FF ?

In article ,
wrote:


No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully.

it isn't.

Pixel count is all about the resolution of the resulting image. My
premise was that this should be equal in both cases.

pixel count has nothing to do with field of view or the image circle of
the lens, the part you snipped.

Pixel count is all about the resolution of the resulting image. My
premise was that this should be equal in both cases.

pixel count has nothing to do with field of view or the image circle of
the lens, the part you snipped.

Except that it was natural and necessary to include it
as part of my supposition of a smaller sensor.

In article ,
wrote:


Pixel count is all about the resolution of the resulting image. My
premise was that this should be equal in both cases.

pixel count has nothing to do with field of view or the image circle of
the lens, the part you snipped.

Except that it was natural and necessary to include it
as part of my supposition of a smaller sensor.

actually it's not necessary, since it has nothing to do with the field
of view or image circle. include it if you want, but it doesn't change
anything.

My supposition was to imagine a smaller sensor with the same
resolution, so yes it was necessary to specify the same pixels.

Without that, one might suppose a sensor that was cut back by
eliminating edges, instead of shrinking the whole.

In article ,
wrote:

My supposition was to imagine

and that's exactly what you did.

Well to clarify, I was comparing 2 different things to illustrate a
point :

1 - a FF sensor with lens

2 - a smaller sensor with the same pixel count or resolution, in
conjunction with a longer lens to yield the same result.

Correction - shorter

In article ,
wrote:

Correction - shorter

learn to quote.

here's your original post:

In article ,
wrote:
Well to clarify, I was comparing 2 different things to illustrate a
point :

1 - a FF sensor with lens

2 - a smaller sensor with the same pixel count or resolution, in
conjunction with a longer lens to yield the same result.

but despite the correction, it's still wrong, for reasons that have
been explained to you several times, by several people.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I stand by my comment with the correction of longer to shorter. A
shorter lens would create a smaller image and if viewed with a smaller
sensor with the same resolution, would produced a similar result

I don't recall anyone addressing my comparison supposition dirrectly -
i.e. comparing the resulting captured images, how or if they're
different and why. I'm getting up in years and may have missed it ...

In article ,
wrote:


I stand by my comment with the correction of longer to shorter. A
shorter lens would create a smaller image and if viewed with a smaller
sensor with the same resolution, would produced a similar result

similar yes. same no.