I'm an amateur astrophotographer and I need to say that we are pretty used to that kind of discussion. We all know that with the same optic train and same pixel size of the sensors, the bigger sensor will just have more field covered but the "magnification" and the resolution will be the same. Good video, good demonstration and very well explained.
A well explained demonstration from a man prepared to break his kit to illustrate a major misconception. But I'm sure you've not yet flogged the dead horse enough - I can still hear some neighing
Allan, spot-on assessment and illustration. Anyone that has ever used a compound microscope realizes that it is the lens (or objective) that determines the magnification. Changing the relationship distances of the lens to the sensor, such as using extension tubes, changes magnification so all one must do is realize that again it is the function of the lens that affects the degree of magnification. If it truly were the sensor then the tiny cell phone camera sensor would be enormously magnified compared to that of a full frame or APS-C sensor camera...however it is not.
This looks like it took a lot of effort to explain this in a way makes it understandable for everyone. I started photography quite recently and I struggled with this for a bit. Mainly because I had a hard time finding the correct information. So thank you very much for this video!
Allan, you are a brave man to take on clearing up the considerable needless confusion created by "crop factor", "equivalent focal length", etc. Who would guess that the simple act of placing a sensor of a different size at the focal plane of a lens could create such confusion. You got away with your Photoshop overlay of the D850 and D7500 images through the happenstance that both sensors have very similar pixel pitch, 4.34 um for the D850, 4.20 um for the D7500. A very direct demonstration would be to remove the ground glass from your neighbor's view camera and draw two concentric rectangles on the ground glass, one 35.9 x 23.9 mm representing the D850 sensor, the other 23.5 x 15.7 mm representing the D7500 sensor, then mount the ground glass at the focal plane of the lens. Its the same image enclosed by rectangles of different sizes. You can also use a scale to measure the size of the subject image projected onto the ground glass and demonstrate that magnification is, by definition, simply the scale of the subject's image divided by the scale of the subject itself. Don't drop your neighbor's ground glass, and don't use permanent ink. :-)
You are totally right, but APSC cameras do give you more detail as long as the lens is sharp enough. The pixel density of a 20/24mp apsc sensor is higher than the densityof a 45mp FF one. So it is in a way true that a crop-sensor gives you "more magnification" but not because of the crop itself but because of the higher pixel density. (the pixel density of the D7500 is only marginally higher than the D850s so there is practically no difference. A D7200 or other even higher resolution crop-sensor cameras should give you a significant boost in magnification.)
Hi Otto, I see what you are saying but it has nothing to do with magnification. Magnification is factor by which your subject is increased or decreased in size, relative to the size it appears on the sensor. The size, shape, type, or even the pixel density of the sensor has nothing to do with it. A higher pixel density may or may not affect the quality of an enlargement (pixel size and pitch are much more important), but it has nothing to do with magnification. I have a video that looks at this in much greater detail - should be out soon. Thanks!
@Allan Walls Photography Yes I know technically it’s not magnification but I thought that stronger cropping in post would be possible, giving you more practical „magnification“ in your final image. I didn’t know that the size of the photosites and the pixel pitch have such a big impact on the result. I’m always open to learn so I’ll be waiting for your next video on the topic. Keep up the great work!
@@OttoLP There is a lot of nuance in this discussion, I agree, and a lot of the misunderstanding springs from the different ways in which we use certain terms. I definitely get your point, and it certainly has merit, but when we come to an agreement on the interpretation of some of these key terms, the premise may need to be restated. You will see what I mean. There is one thing that we both appear to agree on completely - this stuff is important and worth taking the time to understand. I hope the upcoming video(s) will help move us all a bit closer to a better understanding of sensor science - Thanks for your interest and enthusiasm - that is also very important!
14:21: I don't agree on this: the screen is just a medium, not the picture. your assumption would be correct if these sensors were in fact analogic media, like different size film pieces that has to be enlarged to fit the frame you are putting them in. It is not the case, with digital imaging as the pictures you get are just made by a finite number of pixels. If you put, for example, side by side a Full frame 20MP sensor, like for example a canon R6 and then put the same lens at the same distance on an Olympus EM5, which is also 20MP, the size of the image, file wise, is exactly the same. We may discuss that the larger sensor spreads the imperfections of the lens finishing on a larger area then the M43 sensor, but that's not the point. Any 20MP sensor fill exactly the same area and are the same size in Bytes (information amounts) at the same magnification independently of the media through which the picture has been recorded.
Thats a really excellent visual explanation of the crop factor. it can be tricky wrap your head around at first even though it's in the name "crop sensor"
Nice work Allan. I'm not sure the bit about pixel measurement in PS is valid, as that's variable across different generations of FF or APS-C sensors, and so will be different on the focus plane.
Very good point, Paul. I should have measured the subject in a standard unit of distance - not pixels (which is a similar mistake to one I was trying to explain!)
For anybody who still doubts this, the clue is in the term " cropped sensor ". It's a crop not a magnification. Quite what people don't understand about this is beyond me quite frankly.
Ther's a flaw in his test....that he is not using equal mp camera's.. He is using a 45mp(full frame) photo in photoshop/lightroom and compares it to a 20mp (crop ) I you are into bird or macro photography (where you need to get the most out of the lenses you own) and you could buy a 20mp crop or a 20mp full frame....the crop camera will always show you a bigger object in the photo because it devides those20mp pixels over a smaller part of the lens. If you really think mpixels dont make the difference in this comparison than do this test Alan did above ...but this time use a high pixel count crop camera and a low pixel count full frame................you will be amazed how much difference you get than looking in photoshop or lightroom. I assure you. He's right on the magnification of the lens...that remains the same because its fixed. But the representation on screen using different camera's is another thing.
@@HoutmeyersP You are correct that had a 30MP APSC sensor been used then absolutely you would have more translational data, thus you'd have an image that would potentially print bigger. So yes, in that situation the crop sensor would be preferable. I think Alan is quite explicit however in that the point he is proving is the misconception that the image is " magnified " when clearly it isn't. It is of course an understandable error given on the face of it the image " looks " more magnified using a crop sensor. I'm sure Alan accepts that more megapixels can only be a good thing if you want as much data to play with but that wasn't the point of this video. 😉😊
@Allan I agree with you regarding the fact that magnification is independent of sensor size but I think you missed on the demo. The easiest way to demonstrate magnification is to just photograph a ruler with mm scale on it and compare how many mm are captured in the field of view vs the sensor size. A full frame camera will see 36mm across a 36mm sensor and a m4/3 camera will see 17mm across a 17mm sensor at 1:1 magnification. This is of course intended to be constructively. Love your content :)
Great example Allen! I've been using my full frame for macro for a while and found the same misconception blown out of the water. Photography Online - Mc2 Photography just did a similar example with lenses wide to tele and perspective.
Cheers Alan - it still surprises me how often the matter comes up. I just riveted a note to my forward, reminding me to check out the article - (this nylon does dissolve eventually, right?)
Hey Allen, I have to tell you that what you are saying isnt correct as I measured this very accurately. I had to measure it because I use the camera to capture the data for photogrammetry on a daily basis and what I capture is a pure data for 3D reconstruction. Anyway, its not about the magnification, but pixels resolution on a sensor - amount of cells/pixels in both axis the camera can store. So if the sensor can store 4000x3000pixels it is called a 24Mega pixel one.. because 4000 pixels multiplied by 3000 pixels gives 24 million (mega) pixels. Cropped sensors have usually higher pixels resolution, therefore they can store more details. Of course due to their limited size the image coverage is smaller. So full frame due to bigger size catches wider image - therefore vignietting etc. while smaller sensor catches just the middle of what higher sensor sees. So its all about the matrix size/pixel density used to store the data. So if cropped camera uses 6000x4000px for cropped area, it is able to store more data within this area to the camera which use full frame but stores just 4000x3000px. So its not about the magnification but the actual image resolution used to store the image, therefore a 30Mpx caemra with cropped sensor is going to give you way more details to the 20Mpx camera with full sensor even if the overal coverage will be wider. Full frame tho has a different avantage, larger physical coverage allows more light to get in therefore it works much better in low light conditions.
Hi Gregorz, did you read the note I had placed in the video description - I made an error to refer to pixels when I was talking about physical size. Obviously what you say is correct and I do not dispute that, but the point I am making is accurate when the pixel density is held constant which was the constraint placed in the example. I need to remove this video until I can remake it with my error corrected. Thanks for pointing out the error!
@@AllanWallsPhotography oh, I missed that. My bad. Yeah, honestly I think it would better to remove it since the entire video is wrong.. Such a shame since I can see how much work you put into this one. But I respect you somuch that believe every single word you say without any hesitation :) and after I watched your video, it hit me realy hard that what if was really so wrong all the time .. had to rewatch it to be sure I didnt misunderstood what you say and there is no some hidden truth I missed.. especially if what you said is true it would affect my daily job as hell as it would mean I was so wrong all the time :D
@@GrzegorzBaranArt Just to be clear, my mistake was a slip of the tongue - if you replace pixel and mm, the point is valid - the crop sensor does not magnify the image - it crops the image making it smaller than the FF image but appearing to be the same size on the back of the camera. This is of course provided the sensor architecture is held constant. Your statement about pixel resolution is not relevant to the point, and not accurate in many cases. The argument that I was refuting was that a crop sensor camera enlarges the image - it is a commonly held belief but it is wrong. I then explain that the pixel density of the two sensor is the same, so your pixel resolution argument cannot be used - I am setting the constraints to exclude that variability. As it happens, my mistake did not make any difference in this example because the math works out even with the wrong units. You are a smart man so I believe the issue here is that language is getting in the way of our communication. If you want to discuss offline, send me an email and we can set up a time to talk. It is important that you understand this concept
@@AllanWallsPhotography Thanks, I believe I understand the concept in 100% and I fully agree with you. I just got confused at the beginning as I thought I could be wrong. And of course you are right in everything you say, but I am biased a bit since I work and think in pixels as by taking images I simply capture the data for photogrammetry reconstruction - I covered the sensor size it in my video in 13:45 (th-cam.com/video/REA3XNgUMJg/w-d-xo.html). So from the pixels resolution point of view, cropped sensor provides the higher magnification even if this magnification is based just on pixel density, not the physical sensor size. Of course the images is cropped therefore lose a lot of data which is out of the crop which would be captured by the full sensor, its especially painful when you deal with 360 captures. So for me, what matters is the actual sensor resolution and smaller sensor with higher resolution gives me more data to larger sensor with lower resolution, even if it captures wider overall. Thank you for being such inspiring and awesome
@@GrzegorzBaranArt I think we both started questioning what we know to be correct -which is a good thing! We should always question the things we are certain of. In this case you are working every day with actual examples of sensors whose architecture and pixel density are NOT equivalent, but I was throwing out an example where they were equivalent, to make a point. So it is an understandable miscommunication but we both have valid and correct facts. You are a smart man - please keep questioning me - when I make mistakes (all the time) I need to know! Thanks Grzegorz!
I think you need to do a third video but address pixel density. For me, magnification wasn’t the issue, it was sharpness due to pixel density. You explained it to me last time and I conceded.
Absolutely - I was going to do it in this video, but had a good idea (by my standards, anyway) for how to present the material. It will be out in a couple of weeks!
Use the same lens at the same distance from the sensor plane and you get the same image circle falling on any sensor you care to place there. i.e. Completely independent of the choice of sensor. If your choice of sensor has more pixel density then you can enlarge it and see more pixels on your screen. Of course the quality of said sensor pixels are not equal.
There is one caveat to all of this … pixel density for a given finite area of sensor… maybe for another video or two…? ;-) (Plus lens/glass resolving power aka the ‘why’ in ‘why are lenses so expensive?’)
Pixel density is interesting, though fairly unimportant without knowledge of pixel size and pitch. And, as you say, the glass is far more likely to be the limiting factor in resolution. I actually do have a video on this very topic, currently in production. Yay!
Hi Allan, thanks for your videos, Yes it matters but sensor resolutions too!! Your analysis is correct for the difference in resolution of the cameras you use, but if you do the same exercise by comparing for example the D750 vs D7500 that have similar resolution sensors, the results are different. Greetings from Ecuador.
Your table has to be level, that’s why the camera looks level I live in not level floor apartment in uneven London , and may not be subject to my work .
The magnification on a lens is fixed...thats very correct sir. But the rest of your comparison has an enourmous flaw when you want to compare full frame to crop and the size the object is after you go to print or look a pc screen. The only difference should be the sensor size not the amount of pixels......compare a 20mp crop to a 20 mp full frame and you loose this whole discussion. You are now comparing a 45mp full frame to a 20mp crop camera.....the outcome will always be about equal due to the higher pixel count(more than double) on the fullframe. If you think the pixel count has nothing to do with it well than compare a high pixel crop camera to a low pixel full frame and be amazed how much more object to surrounding you get using the crop sensor. I dare you....if you are certain you are still right than another test with equal mp camera's(one crop and one fullframe) would not scare you in the least ;)
You are absolutely correct to call me out on measuring the disc using pixels - that was an error on my part. I should have used a fixed unit of measurement (mm) to make my point. I can absolutely see why the use of pixels as the unit of measure would imply something entirely different. But the point remains the same. The number size, shape, pitch and density of the photo-sites/pixels has no bearing whatsoever on magnification. All of these factors have important roles to play in image quality and resolution, however. The next video in this series deals with sensor science, resolution, pixel density, and all the other stuff that matters for image quality. The purpose of this video was simply to dispel the belief that sensor size affects magnification. The next video will close the loop. Thanks for taking the time to raise all these points - it is only through spirited and open conversation that we can ever learn from one another. I will correct the mistake that you have pointed out in the next video. Thanks!
@@AllanWallsPhotography I'am very glad i still can disagree on things on some You Tube vids. That can only mean that the one you are discussing or sharing idea's with has taken the time to listen/read or wants to further discuss on the subject. Lately i often experience that post are removed or just ignored because they are different or not confirming the narrative presented. Thanks for the effort and time you always put in your video's ..while not always agreeing on all things you say , i sure have learned a lot by just looking at them. I very much doubt that on You Tube you can find video's on macrophotography that contain more detail/usefull info than people can find in yours. ps : dont shoot me for the bad english writing or misuse of words...its not my mother language.
@@HoutmeyersP Your English is excellent and your comment is appreciated. I make mistakes, but my goal is to make fewer. Listening carefully to people who know more than I do is the only way that is possible. Please continue to keep me honest!
I fell for this crop sensor magnification BS story when I first started with macro photography. The only thing that changes as the sensor size decreases is the field of view. Allan is exactly right.
I'm an amateur astrophotographer and I need to say that we are pretty used to that kind of discussion.
We all know that with the same optic train and same pixel size of the sensors, the bigger sensor will just have more field covered but the "magnification" and the resolution will be the same.
Good video, good demonstration and very well explained.
Another enjoyable lesson from the articulate professor.
A well explained demonstration from a man prepared to break his kit to illustrate a major misconception. But I'm sure you've not yet flogged the dead horse enough - I can still hear some neighing
Allan, spot-on assessment and illustration. Anyone that has ever used a compound microscope realizes that it is the lens (or objective) that determines the magnification. Changing the relationship distances of the lens to the sensor, such as using extension tubes, changes magnification so all one must do is realize that again it is the function of the lens that affects the degree of magnification. If it truly were the sensor then the tiny cell phone camera sensor would be enormously magnified compared to that of a full frame or APS-C sensor camera...however it is not.
This looks like it took a lot of effort to explain this in a way makes it understandable for everyone. I started photography quite recently and I struggled with this for a bit. Mainly because I had a hard time finding the correct information. So thank you very much for this video!
Allan, you are a brave man to take on clearing up the considerable needless confusion created by "crop factor", "equivalent focal length", etc. Who would guess that the simple act of placing a sensor of a different size at the focal plane of a lens could create such confusion. You got away with your Photoshop overlay of the D850 and D7500 images through the happenstance that both sensors have very similar pixel pitch, 4.34 um for the D850, 4.20 um for the D7500. A very direct demonstration would be to remove the ground glass from your neighbor's view camera and draw two concentric rectangles on the ground glass, one 35.9 x 23.9 mm representing the D850 sensor, the other 23.5 x 15.7 mm representing the D7500 sensor, then mount the ground glass at the focal plane of the lens. Its the same image enclosed by rectangles of different sizes. You can also use a scale to measure the size of the subject image projected onto the ground glass and demonstrate that magnification is, by definition, simply the scale of the subject's image divided by the scale of the subject itself. Don't drop your neighbor's ground glass, and don't use permanent ink. :-)
You are totally right, but APSC cameras do give you more detail as long as the lens is sharp enough. The pixel density of a 20/24mp apsc sensor is higher than the densityof a 45mp FF one. So it is in a way true that a crop-sensor gives you "more magnification" but not because of the crop itself but because of the higher pixel density. (the pixel density of the D7500 is only marginally higher than the D850s so there is practically no difference. A D7200 or other even higher resolution crop-sensor cameras should give you a significant boost in magnification.)
Hi Otto, I see what you are saying but it has nothing to do with magnification. Magnification is factor by which your subject is increased or decreased in size, relative to the size it appears on the sensor. The size, shape, type, or even the pixel density of the sensor has nothing to do with it. A higher pixel density may or may not affect the quality of an enlargement (pixel size and pitch are much more important), but it has nothing to do with magnification. I have a video that looks at this in much greater detail - should be out soon. Thanks!
@Allan Walls Photography Yes I know technically it’s not magnification but I thought that stronger cropping in post would be possible, giving you more practical „magnification“ in your final image. I didn’t know that the size of the photosites and the pixel pitch have such a big impact on the result. I’m always open to learn so I’ll be waiting for your next video on the topic. Keep up the great work!
@@OttoLP There is a lot of nuance in this discussion, I agree, and a lot of the misunderstanding springs from the different ways in which we use certain terms. I definitely get your point, and it certainly has merit, but when we come to an agreement on the interpretation of some of these key terms, the premise may need to be restated. You will see what I mean. There is one thing that we both appear to agree on completely - this stuff is important and worth taking the time to understand. I hope the upcoming video(s) will help move us all a bit closer to a better understanding of sensor science - Thanks for your interest and enthusiasm - that is also very important!
14:21: I don't agree on this: the screen is just a medium, not the picture. your assumption would be correct if these sensors were in fact analogic media, like different size film pieces that has to be enlarged to fit the frame you are putting them in.
It is not the case, with digital imaging as the pictures you get are just made by a finite number of pixels. If you put, for example, side by side a Full frame 20MP sensor, like for example a canon R6 and then put the same lens at the same distance on an Olympus EM5, which is also 20MP, the size of the image, file wise, is exactly the same.
We may discuss that the larger sensor spreads the imperfections of the lens finishing on a larger area then the M43 sensor, but that's not the point. Any 20MP sensor fill exactly the same area and are the same size in Bytes (information amounts) at the same magnification independently of the media through which the picture has been recorded.
Simply brilliant!
Thats a really excellent visual explanation of the crop factor.
it can be tricky wrap your head around at first even though it's in the name "crop sensor"
Thanks Allan, makes sense to me!
Nice work Allan. I'm not sure the bit about pixel measurement in PS is valid, as that's variable across different generations of FF or APS-C sensors, and so will be different on the focus plane.
Very good point, Paul. I should have measured the subject in a standard unit of distance - not pixels (which is a similar mistake to one I was trying to explain!)
Cant argue with that, Every days a school day. thanks
For anybody who still doubts this, the clue is in the term " cropped sensor ". It's a crop not a magnification. Quite what people don't understand about this is beyond me quite frankly.
Ther's a flaw in his test....that he is not using equal mp camera's.. He is using a 45mp(full frame) photo in photoshop/lightroom and compares it to a 20mp (crop ) I you are into bird or macro photography (where you need to get the most out of the lenses you own) and you could buy a 20mp crop or a 20mp full frame....the crop camera will always show you a bigger object in the photo because it devides those20mp pixels over a smaller part of the lens. If you really think mpixels dont make the difference in this comparison than do this test Alan did above ...but this time use a high pixel count crop camera and a low pixel count full frame................you will be amazed how much difference you get than looking in photoshop or lightroom. I assure you. He's right on the magnification of the lens...that remains the same because its fixed. But the representation on screen using different camera's is another thing.
@@HoutmeyersP You are correct that had a 30MP APSC sensor been used then absolutely you would have more translational data, thus you'd have an image that would potentially print bigger. So yes, in that situation the crop sensor would be preferable. I think Alan is quite explicit however in that the point he is proving is the misconception that the image is " magnified " when clearly it isn't. It is of course an understandable error given on the face of it the image " looks " more magnified using a crop sensor. I'm sure Alan accepts that more megapixels can only be a good thing if you want as much data to play with but that wasn't the point of this video. 😉😊
@Allan I agree with you regarding the fact that magnification is independent of sensor size but I think you missed on the demo. The easiest way to demonstrate magnification is to just photograph a ruler with mm scale on it and compare how many mm are captured in the field of view vs the sensor size. A full frame camera will see 36mm across a 36mm sensor and a m4/3 camera will see 17mm across a 17mm sensor at 1:1 magnification. This is of course intended to be constructively. Love your content :)
Great example Allen! I've been using my full frame for macro for a while and found the same misconception blown out of the water. Photography Online - Mc2 Photography just did a similar example with lenses wide to tele and perspective.
Cheers Alan - it still surprises me how often the matter comes up. I just riveted a note to my forward, reminding me to check out the article - (this nylon does dissolve eventually, right?)
@@AllanWallsPhotography Just put a piece of gaffer tape over the hole....no problemo lol
Great job…would be great to include 4/3 size image in the photo shop session….
Hey Allen, I have to tell you that what you are saying isnt correct as I measured this very accurately. I had to measure it because I use the camera to capture the data for photogrammetry on a daily basis and what I capture is a pure data for 3D reconstruction. Anyway, its not about the magnification, but pixels resolution on a sensor - amount of cells/pixels in both axis the camera can store. So if the sensor can store 4000x3000pixels it is called a 24Mega pixel one.. because 4000 pixels multiplied by 3000 pixels gives 24 million (mega) pixels. Cropped sensors have usually higher pixels resolution, therefore they can store more details. Of course due to their limited size the image coverage is smaller. So full frame due to bigger size catches wider image - therefore vignietting etc. while smaller sensor catches just the middle of what higher sensor sees. So its all about the matrix size/pixel density used to store the data. So if cropped camera uses 6000x4000px for cropped area, it is able to store more data within this area to the camera which use full frame but stores just 4000x3000px. So its not about the magnification but the actual image resolution used to store the image, therefore a 30Mpx caemra with cropped sensor is going to give you way more details to the 20Mpx camera with full sensor even if the overal coverage will be wider. Full frame tho has a different avantage, larger physical coverage allows more light to get in therefore it works much better in low light conditions.
Hi Gregorz, did you read the note I had placed in the video description - I made an error to refer to pixels when I was talking about physical size. Obviously what you say is correct and I do not dispute that, but the point I am making is accurate when the pixel density is held constant which was the constraint placed in the example. I need to remove this video until I can remake it with my error corrected. Thanks for pointing out the error!
@@AllanWallsPhotography oh, I missed that. My bad. Yeah, honestly I think it would better to remove it since the entire video is wrong.. Such a shame since I can see how much work you put into this one. But I respect you somuch that believe every single word you say without any hesitation :) and after I watched your video, it hit me realy hard that what if was really so wrong all the time .. had to rewatch it to be sure I didnt misunderstood what you say and there is no some hidden truth I missed.. especially if what you said is true it would affect my daily job as hell as it would mean I was so wrong all the time :D
@@GrzegorzBaranArt Just to be clear, my mistake was a slip of the tongue - if you replace pixel and mm, the point is valid - the crop sensor does not magnify the image - it crops the image making it smaller than the FF image but appearing to be the same size on the back of the camera. This is of course provided the sensor architecture is held constant. Your statement about pixel resolution is not relevant to the point, and not accurate in many cases. The argument that I was refuting was that a crop sensor camera enlarges the image - it is a commonly held belief but it is wrong. I then explain that the pixel density of the two sensor is the same, so your pixel resolution argument cannot be used - I am setting the constraints to exclude that variability. As it happens, my mistake did not make any difference in this example because the math works out even with the wrong units. You are a smart man so I believe the issue here is that language is getting in the way of our communication. If you want to discuss offline, send me an email and we can set up a time to talk. It is important that you understand this concept
@@AllanWallsPhotography Thanks, I believe I understand the concept in 100% and I fully agree with you. I just got confused at the beginning as I thought I could be wrong. And of course you are right in everything you say, but I am biased a bit since I work and think in pixels as by taking images I simply capture the data for photogrammetry reconstruction - I covered the sensor size it in my video in 13:45 (th-cam.com/video/REA3XNgUMJg/w-d-xo.html). So from the pixels resolution point of view, cropped sensor provides the higher magnification even if this magnification is based just on pixel density, not the physical sensor size. Of course the images is cropped therefore lose a lot of data which is out of the crop which would be captured by the full sensor, its especially painful when you deal with 360 captures. So for me, what matters is the actual sensor resolution and smaller sensor with higher resolution gives me more data to larger sensor with lower resolution, even if it captures wider overall. Thank you for being such inspiring and awesome
@@GrzegorzBaranArt I think we both started questioning what we know to be correct -which is a good thing! We should always question the things we are certain of. In this case you are working every day with actual examples of sensors whose architecture and pixel density are NOT equivalent, but I was throwing out an example where they were equivalent, to make a point. So it is an understandable miscommunication but we both have valid and correct facts. You are a smart man - please keep questioning me - when I make mistakes (all the time) I need to know! Thanks Grzegorz!
THANK YOU! That crop magnification never made sense to me. Thanks for showing what nonsense it is.
I think you need to do a third video but address pixel density. For me, magnification wasn’t the issue, it was sharpness due to pixel density. You explained it to me last time and I conceded.
Absolutely - I was going to do it in this video, but had a good idea (by my standards, anyway) for how to present the material. It will be out in a couple of weeks!
Top notch as always. Can't wait to read the naysayers comments lol.......still waiting for the irix 150 with nisi 77mm close up filter video though. 😜
Use the same lens at the same distance from the sensor plane and you get the same image circle falling on any sensor you care to place there. i.e. Completely independent of the choice of sensor. If your choice of sensor has more pixel density then you can enlarge it and see more pixels on your screen. Of course the quality of said sensor pixels are not equal.
👍👍👍👍👍💛
There is one caveat to all of this … pixel density for a given finite area of sensor… maybe for another video or two…? ;-) (Plus lens/glass resolving power aka the ‘why’ in ‘why are lenses so expensive?’)
Pixel density is interesting, though fairly unimportant without knowledge of pixel size and pitch. And, as you say, the glass is far more likely to be the limiting factor in resolution. I actually do have a video on this very topic, currently in production. Yay!
Hi Allan, thanks for your videos, Yes it matters but sensor resolutions too!!
Your analysis is correct for the difference in resolution of the cameras you use, but if you do the same exercise by comparing for example the D750 vs D7500 that have similar resolution sensors, the results are different.
Greetings from Ecuador.
basically the only thing that really matters is sensor distance to object.
Your table has to be level, that’s why the camera looks level
I live in not level floor apartment in uneven London , and may not be subject to my work .
God teir intro
… folks the clue is in the term ‘CROP frame’ camera…! Capish!
The magnification on a lens is fixed...thats very correct sir. But the rest of your comparison has an enourmous flaw when you want to compare full frame to crop and the size the object is after you go to print or look a pc screen. The only difference should be the sensor size not the amount of pixels......compare a 20mp crop to a 20 mp full frame and you loose this whole discussion. You are now comparing a 45mp full frame to a 20mp crop camera.....the outcome will always be about equal due to the higher pixel count(more than double) on the fullframe. If you think the pixel count has nothing to do with it well than compare a high pixel crop camera to a low pixel full frame and be amazed how much more object to surrounding you get using the crop sensor. I dare you....if you are certain you are still right than another test with equal mp camera's(one crop and one fullframe) would not scare you in the least ;)
You are absolutely correct to call me out on measuring the disc using pixels - that was an error on my part. I should have used a fixed unit of measurement (mm) to make my point. I can absolutely see why the use of pixels as the unit of measure would imply something entirely different. But the point remains the same. The number size, shape, pitch and density of the photo-sites/pixels has no bearing whatsoever on magnification. All of these factors have important roles to play in image quality and resolution, however. The next video in this series deals with sensor science, resolution, pixel density, and all the other stuff that matters for image quality. The purpose of this video was simply to dispel the belief that sensor size affects magnification. The next video will close the loop. Thanks for taking the time to raise all these points - it is only through spirited and open conversation that we can ever learn from one another. I will correct the mistake that you have pointed out in the next video. Thanks!
@@AllanWallsPhotography I'am very glad i still can disagree on things on some You Tube vids. That can only mean that the one you are discussing or sharing idea's with has taken the time to listen/read or wants to further discuss on the subject. Lately i often experience that post are removed or just ignored because they are different or not confirming the narrative presented. Thanks for the effort and time you always put in your video's ..while not always agreeing on all things you say , i sure have learned a lot by just looking at them. I very much doubt that on You Tube you can find video's on macrophotography that contain more detail/usefull info than people can find in yours. ps : dont shoot me for the bad english writing or misuse of words...its not my mother language.
@@HoutmeyersP Your English is excellent and your comment is appreciated. I make mistakes, but my goal is to make fewer. Listening carefully to people who know more than I do is the only way that is possible. Please continue to keep me honest!
I fell for this crop sensor magnification BS story when I first started with macro photography. The only thing that changes as the sensor size decreases is the field of view. Allan is exactly right.
Allan, please remember that half of all people are of below average intelligence.
Shouldn't be Mathematik more democratic?
first :)