Air shows. Post your best shots.

Very interesting discussion and...

Lots of very nice photos, I have to get to an airshow soon.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #18017316
Sorry take two cameras with the same pixel count, a 6D and a 7D mark II for example are pretty close and shoot the same scene with the same focal length lens, crop the 6D photo to the same field of view as the 7D mark ii and the part of your photo contained in the 7D mark II will be much larger.

...

This is where you're running off the track. In that example, you would find that (as displayed in the above sample posts) the subjects are, effectively, the same size in relation to the edges of the image.

Increasing focal length changes the size of the image of your subject being projected on the sensor; this is why, if you put a 200mm lens on a 35mm sensor camera you get a larger image of that subject than you would if you used a 100mm lens on that same sensor at the same distance. This is not because the 200mm lens projects a narrower image circle on the sensor; it projects exactly the same size image circle as the 100mm lens does...it magnifies the subject so that it takes up more of that image circle.

The size of the image circle and the magnification of the subject does not physically change when you mount that 100mm lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor.

Which is what Paul's been talking about.

You've been talking about the advantage of pixels on target; which can also be illustrated using 35mm sensor cameras only. If you take a 5Dc and a 6D, both with a 100mm lens, you'll have a higher quality image out of the 6D where your subject looks larger in the final product...again, even though the actual magnification of your subject by the lens has not changed. The size of your subject being reproduced on the sensor, relative to the physical surface area of the sensor has not changed one bit. Only the number of pixels being used to record it has changed.

THAT is why the APS-C is so handy in focal length limited situations; and also, why the 5DS is sort of a playing field leveler in the scope of this discussion. The number of pixels on that sensor means that you get an image where the number of pixels used to capture the portion of a scene that is captured by the APS-C sensor in a 7DII, at the same distance and focal length, is close enough to be equivalent. However, the 5DS is severely lacking in things like the AF system and a few other things that make it less useful for action shooting than the 7DII.

Magnification does not equal pixels on target; they're two different parts of the process of recording an image.

Snydremark wrote in post #18018198
This is where you're running off the track. In that example, you would find that (as displayed in the above sample posts) the subjects are, effectively, the same size in relation to the edges of the image.

What? The guy is arguing that cropping his full frame 6D image gives as much reach as my 7D mark II would. All he is doing is throwing away pixels to match the field of view.

Snydremark wrote in post #18018198
Increasing focal length changes the size of the image of your subject being projected on the sensor; this is why, if you put a 200mm lens on a 35mm sensor camera you get a larger image of that subject than you would if you used a 100mm lens on that same sensor at the same distance. This is not because the 200mm lens projects a narrower image circle on the sensor; it projects exactly the same size image circle as the 100mm lens does...it magnifies the subject so that it takes up more of that image circle.

The size of the image circle and the magnification of the subject does not physically change when you mount that 100mm lens on a camera with an APS-C sensor.

Which is what Paul's been talking about.

Thanks for explaining something everyone knows, I argued that you get more reach from a crop sensor due to more pixels on a target.

Snydremark wrote in post #18018198
You've been talking about the advantage of pixels on target; which can also be illustrated using 35mm sensor cameras only. If you take a 5Dc and a 6D, both with a 100mm lens, you'll have a higher quality image out of the 6D where your subject looks larger in the final product...again, even though the actual magnification of your subject by the lens has not changed. The size of your subject being reproduced on the sensor, relative to the physical surface area of the sensor has not changed one bit. Only the number of pixels being used to record it has changed.

THAT is why the APS-C is so handy in focal length limited situations; and also, why the 5DS is sort of a playing field leveler in the scope of this discussion. The number of pixels on that sensor means that you get an image where the number of pixels used to capture the portion of a scene that is captured by the APS-C sensor in a 7DII, at the same distance and focal length, is close enough to be equivalent. However, the 5DS is severely lacking in things like the AF system and a few other things that make it less useful for action shooting than the 7DII.

What do you think I have been talking about? I know the advantage of a crop sensor in focal limited situations, I also know a 5DS will contain about 19.5MP on an APS-C sized portion of its sensor and a little over 30MP on an APS-H sized portion of its sensor

Snydremark wrote in post #18018198
Magnification does not equal pixels on target; they're two different parts of the process of recording an image.

No one is talking about lens magnification, I am saying if you have equal focal length lenses on two cameras with the same sensor pixel counts but different sized sensors that the smaller sensor will have more pixels in a smaller area which gives you a magnified image from that area. The larger sensor is going to have a wider field of view, which is great if that is what you are after but not so much if you need maximum reach.

http://improvephotogra​phy.com …crop-sensor-dslr-cameras/
THE DRAWBACKS TO FULL FRAME DSLR CAMERAS
Full Frame Problem #1: Cost. Imaging sensors are cut out of large sheets of expensive chips called wafers. Since a full frame sensor is larger, only 20 sensors can be cut out of a standard-sized wafer. This, among other similar production costs, means that Full Frame DSLR cameras will always come at a premium.
Full Frame Problem #2: Field of view. This is both a drawback and a benefit. Landscape photographers like full frame cameras because it makes all lenses seem like they are zoomed out more. You might think of crop sensor cameras as having a built-in zoom of 50 or 60%. This is a blog post all of itself to fully explain. Just know that SOME wildlife photographers choose a crop frame camera to get the extra zoom and landscape photographers almost universally prefer full frame, even though a crop frame camera can achieve the same wide angle of view by buying a wide angle lens built for a crop frame camera, like the fantastic Nikon 10-24mm. Just to be technically correct, the sensor size doesn’t magnify the scene at all, it just restricts the field of view.
Full Frame Problem #3: Weight. The sensor itself barely adds any weight to the DSLR, but it requires larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses. This means that the gear can be much more cumbersome and awkward to use.
Full Frame Problem #4: Lens availability. Although full frame lenses will work properly on crop frame DSLRs, the reverse is not true. Therefore, crop sensor DSLR cameras have a greater variety of lenses available to them.

This is what I tried to highlight with my images
http://s3.amazonaws.co​m …ropped-Sensor-490x326.jpg
It's not zoomed, it's not magnified. It's a crop of a fullframe. It would sit over the top if printed at the same DPI

I think most everyone knows that this crop vs full frame discussion/ argument with regard to 'reach' will never, ever be settled to anyone's satisfaction.

The one here, in the middle of an otherwise good thread, is pointless, useless, moot, boring, wasting space and dragging the thread to a slow, agonizing death. I, and I'm sure many others, am getting kind of tired of it......at least here, in this thread.

We all have our beliefs and opinions about this and we all shoot with both crop and full frame cameras. Interestingly, as can be seen in the pictures here and in all of the other threads on this forum, we all shoot some pretty killer pictures regardless of the hardware we use. Why do you think that is? As I've said many times, it's not the camera that takes a great photo. Most all of the cameras we use are capable beyond our own abilities.

So how about putting this crap to bed.......or go start a new thread where you can beat each other up ad nauseam. Then, the folks that came here to look at the AIR SHOW THREAD can look at the great pictures of planes in flight.

I want to say - I am Loving these WW11 aircraft Superb Shots folks

P.

several years back when i was first returning to photography beyond the snapshot phase...

Yspilanti Michigan (Willow Run Airport, home of the Ford B-24 assembly plant) for the Navy's 100th anniversary of aviation...

everyone has the "cool" planes. heres a couple that get overlooked. weather was socked in overcast and i was just getting the feel of the T1i had bought my wife..

IMAGE LINK: http://smg.photobucket​.com …3149_zpsr84surp​m.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://smg.photobucket​.com …3215_zpsezpldeb​h.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://smg.photobucket​.com …3146_zpsjls4mar​q.jpg.html

Desertraptor wrote in post #18017097
Then you are saying FF is pointless why would anyone bother buying one.
I'm talking field of view which on a crop sensor is reduced by the crop factor to give the illusion it's magnified. Take an image with a particular lens at same focal length on a crop sensor and with FF and the crop image will look as if it's zoomed in. It's not.
MPs density is a different argument.

FF is not pointless... The better lower light (higher ISO capabilities) of some FF cameras in comparison to some crop cameras make FF worthwhile.

The larger field of view of a FF camera may help in tight spots.

I use both a 5DII and a 7D, using the right tool for the job is paramount...

Outstanding! The Tigercat is the sexiest twin engine WWII aircraft ever IMHO. And you did a great job showing off its' form; all horsepower and very aerodynamic.