Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: it is impossible for it to be double, its just that the M4/3 sensor sees less of the projected image...
Agreed but the "magnification" effect is the same.
LoL
But there is no 'magnification', you are right it is just a visual effect you are just seeing a section of the whole, it would make my job a lot easier if a smaller sensor did in fact increase magnification...
Seems Ade's thread has been a little highjacked... ![]()
Phil
Quote: Then when the photo is viewed it's magnified.
Exactly the point I am making Pete. It's the end result that matters.
Thanks. ![]()
But we were talking about sensors, I have to work to specific magnifications so obviously the magnification on the sensor has little relationship to the final file I produce.... In reality when using a smaller sensor you will be further away to get the same framing anyway......![]()
Coffee time then see if I can get home through the Olympic crowds....
not how I read it CB...
Quote: so you would agree that a macro lens which, at closest focus, provides a life-size image on FF will produce double life size on a 2.0 crop sensor?
you could take the shot on the left of my illo and magnify it by using the cameras LCD zoom magnification feature, or print out with a crop. The fact is the lens isn't magnifying the image - it's as a result of the cropped sensor.
Other wise you could say any lens will produce 4:1 ultra macro shots....and just crop them dramatically.
Which is exactly the same as taking a picture with 'full frame' and cropping it 50%. But with the MFT the camera saves you the job of cropping.
In fact what is more important than sensor size is pixel quality and noise as to whether the image is more presentable.
Quote: Which is exactly the same as taking a picture with 'full frame' and cropping it 50%. But with the MFT the camera saves you the job of cropping.
In fact what is more important than sensor size is pixel quality and noise as to whether the image is more presentable.
There is an old article on the Bob Atkins site which demonstrates why cropping a FF image does not always produce as good a result as capturing a larger image on the sensor in the first place. All depends on comparative number of pixels, as between 'FF cropped' and the cropped sensor, and the quality of the technology, of course.
Quote: There is an old article on the Bob Atkins site which demonstrates why cropping a FF image does not always produce as good a result as capturing a larger image on the sensor in the first place
I have watched this thread without commenting until now, but you are spot on CB
It is either a macro or it is not![]()
[quote]I knew all this all the time
My 10 year old 90mm Tamron shows 1:1 on the distance scale, so on my D7000 I will get 1:1.5
No.... No.... No.... It will be 1:1, a crop sensor does not magically increase the magnification.....
Ok Follow this logic:
My Tamron is set at 1:1. I have focused on a steel rule graduated in millimetres. With an FX camera the steel rule will be size for size, presumably registering 36 mm graduations across its sensor width. With a DX camera you will only get ~24 mm graduations across the sensor width. Therefore a DX camera gives an enlargement ratio of 36/24 or 1.5.
BTW I never mentioned magnification, but enlargement ratio.
I am happy to hear contradictory logic.
Pete's photos of the bee says it better than any words. It shows why people mean different things about 'magnification'.
By the way, the image bottom right is what someone will also see in their viewfinder which only reinforces their (IMO technically incorrect) view that APS-C sensors 'magnify the image'.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.

















