True, but I think that's just a question of viewfinder magnification. I don't think there's any real gain here in terms of quality of the final image.
If we image two different sized sensors with the same density of bits, then I can't see a real gain. If the smaller sensor had the same number bits more densely packed, then there is quality advantage to the "shorter" tele. I'm not trying to be difficult about this. I just can't see any real advantage. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/02 04:53PM >>> Yeah, but you cant see that through the viewfinder while your taking the shot. Cropping an enlargement is a bit later on. Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -----Original Message----- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:DesJardinS@;wlu.edu] Sent: Monday, 28 October 2002 01:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DSLR and existing lenses at 1.5x The reason I prefer the term "pseudo-telephoto effect" is that you get the same results with 35 mm film by enlarging and cropping. The smaller size of the sensor crops the image, which we then have to enlarge more to get an equivalent picture. This would only be a "real effect is the smaller sensors had as many "bits" packed in as the film, about 20 MP. I'm willing to be corrected here, but have I said anything wrong? Don't I already have that 75 mm f1.4 lens with my 50 if I just crop out the middle? Raining on the parade, Steve Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
