Crop factor and lens resolution

Hi,

In terms of getting the maximum power together with the maximum usable
details and sharpness from a particular telelens, I wonder which option
gives the best results for a particular purpose: let's say: get the max.
amount of details of a bird on a 1600x1200 display.

A full frame SLR (EOS 5D 12 megapixels) combined with a top class CANON
400mm

or

a EOS 20D (crop factor = 1.6x but only 8 megapixels)) combined with the same
lens as above


From a general point of view and at equal sensor resoultion, does a smaller
CMOS provide any advantage in terms of power and resolving small details if
using the same lens?

Another question:

What will be the best buy for widelife photography: EOS5D with Canon 400mm
or NIKON 200D with Nikon 400mm
10 megapixel + 1.5x or 12 megapixel FF

Thanks for your advising me

Erick

Erick apparently trolls:

[does the crop factor change resolution]

Take a resolution chart and cut it in half. What do you think: have
you changed the resolution?

What will be the best buy for widelife photography: EOS5D with Canon 400mm
or NIKON 200D with Nikon 400mm
10 megapixel + 1.5x or 12 megapixel FF

Your questions, if honest, suggest you wouldn't be able to tell the
difference at this point, even if the answer was available (few people
have more than one set of high-end gear, and really, at this level, one
is almost picking at nits resolution). So why not flip a coin?
It's gonna be many kilobucks either way.

Sorry if I have some difficulties to understand what apparently is
self-explanatory for you.
I am not an expert in digital slr and lenses...it happens..... and it could
be that I have enough money to buy high end digital equipment but the
question is not there!
I don't ask if the crop factor changes resolution.
I know that 200D and 5D together with top class tele will give the very best
results. Forget about that last question...

I try again in another way:
I don't know if a small 8 megapixel sensor (20D) pick up the max of a top
telelens or if a Full Frame12 megapixel (5D) will show more details.
Is this question so stupid? What is the limiting factor for giving maximum
amount of details? The lens, the sensor size or the sensor resolution?

There must be an ideal combination I presume.

Do you understand my concerns?

thanks

Erick

PS. I am frenchspeaking, so, what does "Erick trolls" mean?



wrote in message
oups.com...
Erick apparently trolls:

[does the crop factor change resolution]

Take a resolution chart and cut it in half. What do you think: have
you changed the resolution?

What will be the best buy for widelife photography: EOS5D with Canon
400mm
or NIKON 200D with Nikon 400mm
10 megapixel + 1.5x or 12 megapixel FF

Your questions, if honest, suggest you wouldn't be able to tell the
difference at this point, even if the answer was available (few people
have more than one set of high-end gear, and really, at this level, one
is almost picking at nits resolution). So why not flip a coin?
It's gonna be many kilobucks either way.

Erick wrote:

I don't ask if the crop factor changes resolution.

The subject of this thread reads "Crop factor and lens resolution".
Your initial question includes "crop factor" as a variable.

Is this question so stupid? What is the limiting factor for giving maximum
amount of details? The lens, the sensor size or the sensor resolution?

You say you "don't ask if the crop factor changes resolution", and then
go ahead and ask if the sensor size is a "limiting factor" for "giving
maximum amount of details". That is, you just asked the question you
claim you don't ask.

Whatever. Answer it yourself: you have a resolution chart. You cut
it in half. Does this change the resolution of the chart, or simply
make it smaller? You have a two sensors. One has tiny pixels, one has
large pixels. Which one do you think has more resolution? This is not
rocket science.

PS. I am frenchspeaking, so, what does "Erick trolls" mean?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

PS. I am frenchspeaking, so, what does "Erick trolls" mean?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29



Don't worry about this guy Erick...he's just an asshole. Your questions are
reasonable, the way you asked perfectly polite. This guy thinks he's
intellectually superior to everyone when well...as we say in
Australia...he's just a ******..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******

Steve Franklin wrote:

Don't worry about this guy Erick...he's just an asshole. Your questions are
reasonable, the way you asked perfectly polite.

Franklin, are you acting as stupid as this Erick is acting, or is your
stupidity for real?

I've met a few wealthy people. I doubt any of them (but one) even knew
that USENET exists. And none of them struck me as the sort who thinks
it is wise to ask random strangers how to spend large amounts of money
on what appears to be a whim. Rich people are rich for a reason:
either they are smart enough to do their research on their own, or they
know someone they trust who can help them.

But who knows: maybe this Erick won a lottery instead of earning the
multiple kilobucks that are apparently burning a hole in his pocket,
and hasn't figured this sort of thing out yet. It certainly would
explain why he asks a question -- that he claims not to ask -- that is
equivalent to asking if tearing a map in half somehow changes it's
scale. Or opening a window wider changes the resolution of the view
outside. If you believe these are reasonable, then that weird
dripping sound you hear are the last of your brains slopping onto the
floor.

This guy thinks he's intellectually superior to everyone when well...as we say in
Australia...he's just a ******..

Evidence in hand strongly suggests "Erick" isn't completely on the
up-and-up. Feel free to deny the evidence -- is 'IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH' the Austrailian slogan? -- but I've tried the experiment many
times, and I can report the results: being polite to intellectual
dishonesty achieves a big fat zero. And defending a troll is just
plain dumb. Why do it?

On 30 Nov 2005 17:03:28 -0800, "
wrote:

Erick wrote:

I don't ask if the crop factor changes resolution.

The subject of this thread reads "Crop factor and lens resolution".
Your initial question includes "crop factor" as a variable.

Is this question so stupid? What is the limiting factor for giving maximum
amount of details? The lens, the sensor size or the sensor resolution?

You say you "don't ask if the crop factor changes resolution", and then
go ahead and ask if the sensor size is a "limiting factor" for "giving
maximum amount of details". That is, you just asked the question you
claim you don't ask.

Whatever. Answer it yourself: you have a resolution chart. You cut
it in half. Does this change the resolution of the chart, or simply
make it smaller? You have a two sensors. One has tiny pixels, one has
large pixels. Which one do you think has more resolution? This is not
rocket science.

PS. I am frenchspeaking, so, what does "Erick trolls" mean?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

It's nice to see you are an equal opportunity ass----.
-Rich

Erick wrote:

In terms of getting the maximum power together with the maximum usable
details and sharpness from a particular telelens, I wonder which option
gives the best results for a particular purpose: let's say: get the max.
amount of details of a bird on a 1600x1200 display.

A full frame SLR (EOS 5D 12 megapixels) combined with a top class CANON
400mm

or

a EOS 20D (crop factor = 1.6x but only 8 megapixels)) combined with the same
lens as above

You're talking about the same lens from the same distance, so, whichever
camera has smaller pixels will give higher resolution. The larger sensor
will only create a wider field of view around the subject.

From a general point of view and at equal sensor resoultion, does a smaller
CMOS provide any advantage in terms of power and resolving small details if
using the same lens?

No. The sensor size has no bearing on it. Pixel size does, but of course
smaller pixels come with other baggage as well.

What will be the best buy for widelife photography: EOS5D with Canon 400mm
or NIKON 200D with Nikon 400mm

The Nikon.

10 megapixel + 1.5x or 12 megapixel FF

Pixel count and resolution are very low on the list of things that are going
to make your pictures better. You're falling into the marketing trap.

--
Jeremy |

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Erick wrote:

In terms of getting the maximum power together with the maximum usable
details and sharpness from a particular telelens, I wonder which option
gives the best results for a particular purpose: let's say: get the max.
amount of details of a bird on a 1600x1200 display.

A full frame SLR (EOS 5D 12 megapixels) combined with a top class CANON
400mm
or
a EOS 20D (crop factor = 1.6x but only 8 megapixels)) combined with the same
lens as above

You're talking about the same lens from the same distance, so, whichever
camera has smaller pixels will give higher resolution. The larger sensor
will only create a wider field of view around the subject.

From a general point of view and at equal sensor resoultion, does a smaller
CMOS provide any advantage in terms of power and resolving small details if
using the same lens?

No. The sensor size has no bearing on it. Pixel size does, but of course
smaller pixels come with other baggage as well.

What will be the best buy for widelife photography: EOS5D with Canon 400mm
or NIKON 200D with Nikon 400mm

The Nikon.

10 megapixel + 1.5x or 12 megapixel FF

Pixel count and resolution are very low on the list of things that are going
to make your pictures better. You're falling into the marketing trap.

I agree. Good advice. Some of the other things you need to look at a
camera speed: speed to turn on, speed to wake up from sleep, shutter lag
time, frames per second, buffer size when writing raw, write speed to
empty buffer, autofocus precision and speed. All the pixels in the world
will not help if you don't have good specs listed above. Most wildlife
or sports photographers would not choose the 5D. The Nikon isn't out yet,
and I haven't studied the specs, but if it competes with the 5D I would
bet wildlife and sports photographers would choose a faster camera
with lower megapixels, than more megapixels but slower.

Which gives a better image: 300 mm f/2.8 on an 8-megapixel camera, hand held
at 3 meters versus 500mm f/4 IS on an 8-megapixel camera at 5 meters,
also hand held?
I tested this today at Bosque Del Apache while photographing a road runner.
Answer: the IS lens produced perfect images, while the non-IS were blurred
due to shake, despite faster shutter speeds. (There was no time for a tripod,
and my window mount wasn't within reach.)

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

Pixel count and resolution are very low on the list of things that are going
to make your pictures better. You're falling into the marketing trap.

I agree. Good advice. Some of the other things you need to look at a
camera speed: speed to turn on, speed to wake up from sleep, shutter lag
time, frames per second, buffer size when writing raw, write speed to
empty buffer, autofocus precision and speed.

Technical stuff like this allows you to pick a model from your chosen
"brand". Accepting that this "Erick" is looking to buy "the best" from
scratch (maybe he just woke up yesterday and decided to become a bird
photographer while in the shower), one is better advised to look at
core user-interface of the camera and not to distract yourself with
frivolous feature cross tables and the like. As Mr. Nixon says: don't
fall into the "marketing trap".

Everyone must, ultimately, answer the question: "Can I _live_ with
Nikon or Canon or Minolta or whatever, unit in hand, warts and all?" A
test -- maybe the only test -- is to this is to go to a camera store
and play. How much can you figure out about the camera on your own,
without the help of a manual?