Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 199801" data-attributes="member: 12496">But &quot;all other things being equal&quot; is precisely what Geoff did NOT do, and which caused my objection.His two exposures were some different too, which tended to hide detail in the smaller FX image (metering of a FX wider area of dark background could do that, but he says these were manual, so maybe the flash varied a bit? Or maybe auto something in post processing, which was said to be considerable.) Standing in the same place is not enough, all other is NOT equal.&nbsp; The scene being compared was not equal (caused by standing in the same place).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If standing in same place, with same camera body, and taking a picture with a 100mm lens, and then another with 150mm (effective focal length due to crop factor), and then being surprised that we imagine we can see more in the larger image, is (sorry) nonsense logic.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can only make valid comparisons of the same image scene, which others have also pointed out here.&nbsp; Zoomed in or not is at least apples and oranges.Sure, yes, we certainly can appreciate DX for its telephoto effect, and DX is prized for sports and wildlife pictures, but which is about crop factor,&nbsp; NOT about resolution.&nbsp; But then DX makes wide angle suffer in the opposite effect however. All things are not equal.Tiny compact cameras are have passed 12 mp now, and as compared to say 12 mp FX, we could make arguments about their resolution.&nbsp;&nbsp; Resolution certainly is about mp (the fineness of pixels in the final enlarged view), but enlarging them 6x more does not help them.&nbsp; &nbsp; Their tiny sensor dimensions are maybe 1/6 of FX (crop factor 6x).&nbsp; In bright sun, they do reasonably well, but when ISO gets slightly high, say above ISO 200, they start becoming a poor picture. All things are not equal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 199801, member: 12496"] But "all other things being equal" is precisely what Geoff did NOT do, and which caused my objection. His two exposures were some different too, which tended to hide detail in the smaller FX image (metering of a FX wider area of dark background could do that, but he says these were manual, so maybe the flash varied a bit? Or maybe auto something in post processing, which was said to be considerable.) Standing in the same place is not enough, all other is NOT equal. The scene being compared was not equal (caused by standing in the same place). If standing in same place, with same camera body, and taking a picture with a 100mm lens, and then another with 150mm (effective focal length due to crop factor), and then being surprised that we imagine we can see more in the larger image, is (sorry) nonsense logic. We can only make valid comparisons of the same image scene, which others have also pointed out here. Zoomed in or not is at least apples and oranges. Sure, yes, we certainly can appreciate DX for its telephoto effect, and DX is prized for sports and wildlife pictures, but which is about crop factor, NOT about resolution. But then DX makes wide angle suffer in the opposite effect however. All things are not equal. Tiny compact cameras are have passed 12 mp now, and as compared to say 12 mp FX, we could make arguments about their resolution. Resolution certainly is about mp (the fineness of pixels in the final enlarged view), but enlarging them 6x more does not help them. Their tiny sensor dimensions are maybe 1/6 of FX (crop factor 6x). In bright sun, they do reasonably well, but when ISO gets slightly high, say above ISO 200, they start becoming a poor picture. All things are not equal. [/QUOTE]

Verification