-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin > > ... The explanations I've given are correct (and others have > > confirmed this as well), so the only thing that can be at odds > > here is what the premises we are going by are (or some basic > > misunderstanding of physics/operation), and I've clearly stated > > my premises and you haven't said yours are any different...
> LOL. And others confirmed you are correct? Good try. >Solving this is really easy if you just give us the details of a scenario >that supports your statement. Please don't make this personal, there is no >need to. I'm only asking you to clarify your position so we can see what >exactly you mean. I haven't really followed this closely so what I write might be wrong. In any case, it seems to me you talk about different things. Austin is assuming you take two pictures. One is taken with a camera that has a small sensor (1.6x) and one with a camera that has a FF sensor. Both images show exactly the same content using the FULL(!) sensor area. In other words, if you take a picture of a face then on the first camera the face will fill the full APS frame and on the second camera the full FF. In that case whichever camera has more pixels has a higher pixel density. It seems to me (not sure), Peter is saying you take a picture with the two different cameras from the same position and with the same lens (setting). Now assume the camera with the 1.6 factor shows again the full face. Now the camera with the FF shows the full face and some more. In the next step you take out the part from the FF that is shown in the 1.6 frame. If now you compare the pixel density then the 1.6 camera has a higher density although it has fewer pixels. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
