Crop factor and lens resolution

Many thanks to all of you who have tried to help me.
I think it's better that I investigate by myself because I still have
questions on this subject

Erick



"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
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

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

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.

WTF has Ericks bank balance got to do with you? When has their ever been a
correlation between wealth and intellect? It shows how narrow minded you are
that you have trouble coping with people asking questions that you already
know the answer too and that further more that with over 6,000,000,000
people on the planet you find it difficult to believe that anyone is happy
to drop 20k on camera and lens even it is 'on a whim'?



Evidence in hand strongly suggests "Erick" isn't completely on the
up-and-up.

So tell me. What is the evidence? All he has asked is to generate debate
from others more knowlegable than him (the point of newsgroups like this the
last time I checked) so that he can make an informed opinion.

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?


And again...show me where is intellectual dishonesty lays?



The question I have for you if you're honest enough to answer is why do you
come here? A quick search of your replies on this NG alone is just you
laying **** on every poster you think should have known the answers. What
are you attempting to do? Trying to educate all of the worlds usenet users
by abusing them one by one?

I'd love to know how old you are because you sound to me like you're about
17 - about the age where we as men are full of bravado and think we are full
of lifes answers when in fact you know very little. As you get older you'll
realise this. In the meantime..if you don't like the questions why don't you
just skip it. Your contribution here is 2/3rds of 4/5ths of **** all.