definition/usage of 'reach' ?

In another thread I was pulled-up over my use of the word 'reach', which I have always taken to be just a shorthand we'd coined here to use in APS-FF AoV /focal length explanations - a word that was both clear to newbies and not too offensive to our 'strict definitions' wing.
My corrector (below) states that 'reach' also encompasses pixel density - a connection I have never made when I have used the word here, or seen made by others using it.

What is everybody elses' understanding of the word as we use it in these forums?


" Actually you are wrong. Reach comes from pixel density, not sensor size. Reach is about maximizing resolution regardless of distance and given the same lens....
The 1Ds Mark II has more reach than the 5D or the 1D Mk II, even though it is full-frame and its sensor is bigger than the 1D Mk II."

In my opinion, pixel density should not be used as a part of the definition for the term "reach". That's because the term is used for film photography as well as for digital photography. The term has been around a lot longer than digital cameras have.

That said, the other poster did make some valid points about the differences between various digital cameras and their capabilities.

I've always used it in connection with or instead of 'range', in regards to lens focal length abilities.

Pixel peepers are in a different world of describing things sometimes.

SkipD wrote in post #2770874
In my opinion, pixel density should not be used as a part of the definition for the term "reach". That's because the term is used for film photography as well as for digital photography. The term has been around a lot longer than digital cameras have...

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #2771030
I've always used it in connection with or instead of 'range', in regards to lens focal length abilities.

Pixel peepers are in a different world of describing things sometimes.

Pixel density has nothing to do with the "reach" of a lens. That's totally a function of the lens focal length and the sensor crop.

Of course, there are those that attempt to over-complicate everything. A simple thumbrule, for them, has to be dissected and its component parts analyzed ad nauseum until they convince others that the guideline is worthless and the only correct way to do things is to measurebate, test, and measurbate some more. They suffer from analysis paralysis. Never mind that great photographers have been using those thumbrules for years to capture outstanding images.

For some reason, the digital age has brought out a swarm of shooters whose passion seems to be analysis and argument. They shoot rulers, charts and batteries instead of landscapes, nature and people. And then they wonder why others don't care for their photography.

Okay, rant over. I didn't know what I was going to say when I started writing, but I feel better now.

Mark

Unless I'm mistaken, higher sensor density would allow more cropping post processing which would have the same effect as a longer lens or a camera crop factor. Its obvioust that "reach" has something to do with angle of view, whether it is what is seen in the viewfinder or what can be achieved after cropping. Perhaps a good definition would be narrowness of angle of view while still achieving good detail?

[geezer diatribe]
In the days when film was film, resolution was measured by the quality of the film not its total area; i.e. the ability to resolve (duh!) fine details. In those days you used lenses to make the image bigger to be able to make a bigger and better print of, say, the distant bird. The bigger the image falling on the film, the greater reach the lens had.
Then came digital. Resolution now means how many pixels (to most people it seems) regardless of the size of the pixels or the fineness of the details they can resolve. In an APS-C sensor on a D30 with 3MP and a similar size sensor in a 400D at 10MP, which one is going to provide the bigger picture of the bird in a print?
Treeshrugger has the right idea about the way reach should be expressed in a digital era : number of pixels per angle of view. The bigger the number, the bigger the reach. Narrower angle of view or more pixels for the same angle will create a more detailed image (as long as the pixels are good enough quality). Reach is one of those words whose meaning has changed with digital, whether we like it or not. [/geezer diatribe]

Sorry, can't go along with that.

If I am shooting across a horse arena and can't fill the frame with subject matter using my 28/135, I swap it for my 70/200 which gives me greater reach. I can't see how this differs between film and digital. It is a matter of optics "I need a lens with greater reach" is a common enough term among shooters past and present.

Sensor size, pixel numbers and density are all after the fact of gaining reach.

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #2773826
Sorry, can't go along with that.

Sensor size, pixel numbers and density are all after the fact of gaining reach.

Do you ever print your images "after the fact" of acquiring them ? Is the quality of the print limited by the number of pixels in what you want to print? If everyone used the same density of pixels, I would agree that lens determines "reach".

"I can't reach it" is a sentiment that, to me, implies a limit. My point was that in the digital era, once you've got to the limit of your lenses, you can improve "reach" by increasing the pixel density of the camera you choose to use (for my 500mm lens, the 20D has much more "reach" than my D30 - even though what I see in the viewfinder isn't much different).

[QUOTE=Jon, The Elder;2773826]Sorry, can't go along with that.

If I am shooting across a horse arena and can't fill the frame with subject matter using my 28/135, I swap it for my 70/200 which gives me greater reach. I can't see how this differs between film and digital. It is a matter of optics "I need a lens with greater reach" is a common enough term among shooters past and present.

Right to the point, thats what i understand it meant, with what ever camera your using, you are trying to capture an image, if you can't fill the frame with what your trying to capture you swap for a larger lens for more reach

Just like Optical and Digital zoom in camcorders: both of them represent the 'reach’ of the lens..

NOT digital zoom. That is a byproduct of in camera manipulation once maximum optical zoom is achieved. One of the oldest ploys used by camera manufacturers to impress P&S noobies with the old 10x zoom (digital). All in all a misleading and damned dirty trick on gullible first time buyers.

But it seems, still believed by some.

hidden forms wrote in post #2775113
Right to the point, thats what i understand it meant, with what ever camera your using, you are trying to capture an image, if you can't fill the frame with what your trying to capture you swap for a larger lens for more reach

Then you could capture a better image by swapping for a camera with a sensor with more pixels . Couldn't do that with film so the issue never arose as to whether anything else affected "reach". Some used to think that a smaller sensor yielded more reach but it's actually the pixels that matter...

Jon, what ASJones said about reach:

AJSJones wrote in post #2774167
… once you've got to the limit of your lenses, you can improve "reach" by increasing the pixel density of the camera you choose to use …

is basically the same as what you said for digital zoom:

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #2778625
… camera manipulation once maximum optical zoom is achieved...

Is it not?

This is how I understand this whole thing, in layman's terms and broken English..

- When you zoom in with dSLR, you do it with the lens - until you fill the frame, or actually, sensor.
Let's call it maximum Optical Reach.

Then, in post processing, you can further enlarge that same image from the sensor - until you fill the frame of the final picture (digital or printed).
Higher pixel density will allow higher magnification (while preserving decent resolution).
That is the Digital Reach.

- When you zoom in with P&S/camcorder, you first use optical zoom, and when its reach is maxed, you continue zooming in with digital.
If you're careful, you can achieve decent resolution for your picture/movie.

If you look at the digital camera + lens + post processing (in camera or with the computer) as a System, AJSJones' explanation makes sense.

reach and resolving are not one in the same and should not be confused.

Reach is a distance term and often interchanged with RANGE...both are measured in distance...and in present case, have to do with lens mm..

Resolving power of the sensor: the ability of an optical instrument or type of film to separate or distinguish small or closely adjacent images. • the ability of an electronic device to produce images that can be distinguished.

Cropping down has to do with resolving. Distance from a subject that is captured by the lens is reach.

Hmm, relationship between distance from the subject and image on the sensor has to do with lens resolving power too..