Hi Mike, > As I said before, no two people will get the exact same image. So, unless > you guys find a way to make it happen NO ONE is correct here.
True, no two images will be EXACTLY the same in the strictest sense of the word...but there is a matter of common sense and context where two images, having some of the same characteristics (that may be different for different contexts) are close enough and can be called "the exact same image" or maybe even more correctly "the same image" (no exact) for the purposes of discussion/comparison. It's a matter of qualifying/understanding those characteristics beforehand. > Of course not but none one of us sit there arguing > about why > each is different. Exactly, and in your specific context, whether one is zoomed in or out more doesn't effect what you guys mean by "the same"...it's the player in the same "pose" (or at the same "time") basically is what you would be comparing. But, I'm sure if one were zoomed out so the player was barely visible (or the player wasn't the overall image focus), and one was cropped in tight, that too wouldn't be considered "the same shot". But, "the same shot" isn't the same as "the exact same image". > The discussion is about pixels and how many occupy the same area of the > sensor on two specific bodies. The type of image is really irrelevant. The discussion was about the pixel density of the resultant image's "features" not the pixel density at the sensor. That aspect (pixel density at the sensor) is understood and entirely deterministic. That "specification" doesn't care a wit about where you stand, what lense you use or anything about the shot...pixel density at the sensor is what it is. But, as has been pointed out, there are characteristics of smaller vs larger sensor cell size that do matter...but not for this discussion. > If you set a 70-200 on a tripod and attach a 5D and take a > picture and then > attach a Rebel in my opinion you have just taken the exact same shot. That's your opinion and you and I have a different definition of "exact same shot", and as I pointed out, that may or may not matter depending on the context. To me, given the discussion of taking a picture of a group (which is the context this discussion was in) which one would want to crop so you get the entire group in the shot, unless you change the zoom to accommodate the different sensor sizes they are not the "exact same shot". And in the discussion of a technical aspect of imaging, really, either qualify what you mean by "the exact same image" or it should really mean as close as reasonably possible in all aspects relevant to the discussion, which was image pixel density. > Peter was trying to compare the sensors on > both bodies. > > The difference is that compared to the 5D the Rebel will be cropped much > tighter. A person's face in the image taken by the 5D will be > larger in the > image taken by the Rebel. It's the opposite. If you stand in the same place, and use the same focal length, the person's face in the Rebel image will be larger...because the Rebel has a higher magnification and the face would occupy more pixels in the Rebel than in the 5D, given the same output size with no cropping of the resultant digital images. > See, THE EXACT SAME IMAGE is irrelevant! It may be irrelevant in some specific circumstances, but there are many circumstances that it is entirely relevant, and IMO, those circumstances provide far more relevance themselves. I, personally, see no use for a comparison as has been outlined, but that's just me. Perhaps someone else does have some use for that comparison. Magnification should be a commonly understood phenomenon amongst people in this group. > But, some people just like to > argue. :) Apparently! And, some people like to get the facts straight. When making an authoritative analysis like Peter did, I believe it is best to provide the details of the analysis (as in, outline the important information that got you to that conclusion...like the missing focal length part of the equation, and what you mean by "the same exact image") so nothing is left to question about the conclusion, and the conclusion can be drawn by others with the same information. Not just say "because I say so". But again, that's just me...I *have* to write things that others can understand such that nothing important/relevant is left to question for the particular audience I am writing for. I really don't think any more need be said. We disagree on what "the exact same image" means, and we now are perfectly clear as to what Peter was talking about, how ever relevant or not. Regards, Austin * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
