If I Cropped A Photo From A 5D...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. Mike

    Mike Guest

    I never was any good at maths.

    If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    megapixels would the image be?

    5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912

    20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336
     
    Mike, Jun 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:01:29 +0100, Mike <> wrote:
    > I never was any good at maths.
    >
    > If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    > megapixels would the image be?
    >
    > 5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    > 5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912


    cropped 5D: (4368/1.6)*(2912/1.6) = 4,968,600
    or roughly 5 megapixels.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Jun 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Mike
    <> writes
    >I never was any good at maths.
    >
    >If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    >megapixels would the image be?
    >
    >5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    >5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912


    >20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    >20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336


    (4368/1.6) * (2912/1.6) = 4,968,600

    3504 * 2336 = 8,185,344
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Jun 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Mike

    Mike Guest

    Cheers Daniel


    "Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:01:29 +0100, Mike <> wrote:
    >> I never was any good at maths.
    >>
    >> If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    >> megapixels would the image be?
    >>
    >> 5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    >> 5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912

    >
    > cropped 5D: (4368/1.6)*(2912/1.6) = 4,968,600
    > or roughly 5 megapixels.
    >
    > -dms
    >
     
    Mike, Jun 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Mike

    boozz Guest

    Please send me your 5D....I'll figure it out for you.


    Mike wrote:
    > I never was any good at maths.
    >
    > If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    > megapixels would the image be?
    >
    > 5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    > 5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912
    >
    > 20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    > 20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336
     
    boozz, Jun 29, 2006
    #5
  6. "Mike" <> wrote:
    >I never was any good at maths.


    The only difficulty is that people sometimes forget to divide by 1.6 in
    _both_ directions.

    > If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    > megapixels would the image be?
    >
    > 5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    > 5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912
    >
    > 20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    > 20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336


    1.6x cropped 5D resolution = (4368/1.6) x (2912/1.6) = 2730 x 1822 = 4.9 MP.

    Since the 5D pixels are quite a bit larger than 20D pixels, if you use the
    same area of sensor from the 5D as you use on the 20D, you get a lot fewer
    pixels.

    In other words, if most of your shooting is birds with long lenses
    (especially if you crop most of your shots), you really don't want a 5D.

    The only exception would be if you really wanted more pixels on the birds
    (to make larger prints) and were willing to use much bigger glass. But most
    birders, I'd think, would be using the largest lenses they can afford...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 29, 2006
    #6
  7. Mike

    Roy G Guest

    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I never was any good at maths.
    >
    > If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    > megapixels would the image be?
    >
    > 5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    > 5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912
    >
    > 20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    > 20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336
    >
    >

    Hi.

    You should have paid a bit more attention at school, if you really cannot
    work out this answer for yourself.

    There is quite a lot of Arithmetic involved in Photography, and in every day
    life. You might well be paying too much for things you buy, or not getting
    paid enough for the work you do, or even worse paying too much in taxes.

    If you came to stay at my Guesthouse for 10 nights, and I said that my
    special offer of "7 Nights for the price of 6" would be applied, would you
    know whether I charged the correct amount. Perhaps I should do you a
    special offer of "6 for the price of 7"

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Jun 29, 2006
    #7
  8. On 6/29/06 6:33 AM, Roy G posted the following:
    >
    > If you came to stay at my Guesthouse for 10 nights, and I said that my
    > special offer of "7 Nights for the price of 6" would be applied, would you
    > know whether I charged the correct amount. Perhaps I should do you a
    > special offer of "6 for the price of 7"
    >

    I'd be especially wary of how the remaining 3 -or 4 - nights were
    charged! Would they be charged reg. rates, or 6/7ths, or 7/6ths??
    Enquiring minds and all.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Mike

    Roy G Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 6/29/06 6:33 AM, Roy G posted the following:
    >>
    >> If you came to stay at my Guesthouse for 10 nights, and I said that my
    >> special offer of "7 Nights for the price of 6" would be applied, would
    >> you know whether I charged the correct amount. Perhaps I should do you a
    >> special offer of "6 for the price of 7"
    >>

    > I'd be especially wary of how the remaining 3 -or 4 - nights were charged!
    > Would they be charged reg. rates, or 6/7ths, or 7/6ths?? Enquiring minds
    > and all.
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams


    Ah, but you are not the arithmetically challenged poster who could not work
    out how many pixels.

    If the booking were to be initiated through this NG, you might well get an
    even better deal.

    But then again..............................

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Jun 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Mike

    Matt Ion Guest

    Roy G wrote:
    > "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I never was any good at maths.
    >>
    >>If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    >>megapixels would the image be?
    >>
    >>5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    >>5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912
    >>
    >>20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    >>20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Hi.
    >
    > You should have paid a bit more attention at school, if you really cannot
    > work out this answer for yourself.
    >
    > There is quite a lot of Arithmetic involved in Photography, and in every day
    > life. You might well be paying too much for things you buy, or not getting
    > paid enough for the work you do, or even worse paying too much in taxes.


    Maybe the math itself isn't the problem... everyone else who's responded
    seems to have a grasp on how to work their calculators, but my
    understanding was that the "crop factor" figure referred to the effectiv
    35mm focal length; ie. a 200mm lens on a 1.6 "crop factor" sensor would
    be equivalent to a (200*1.6) or 320mm lens on a 35mm sensor; on a 1.5
    "crop factor" sensor, it would be (200*1.5)=300mm.

    If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided
    thus far are wrong...
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 29, 2006
    #10
  11. On 6/29/06 8:34 AM, Roy G posted the following:
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On 6/29/06 6:33 AM, Roy G posted the following:
    >>> If you came to stay at my Guesthouse for 10 nights, and I said that my
    >>> special offer of "7 Nights for the price of 6" would be applied, would
    >>> you know whether I charged the correct amount. Perhaps I should do you a
    >>> special offer of "6 for the price of 7"
    >>>

    >> I'd be especially wary of how the remaining 3 -or 4 - nights were charged!
    >> Would they be charged reg. rates, or 6/7ths, or 7/6ths?? Enquiring minds
    >> and all.
    >>
    >> --
    >> john mcwilliams

    >
    > Ah, but you are not the arithmetically challenged poster who could not work
    > out how many pixels.
    >
    > If the booking were to be initiated through this NG, you might well get an
    > even better deal.
    >
    > But then again..............................
    >

    All righty, then, gotta web page?

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Mike

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
    news:SBSog.109025$IK3.103979@pd7tw1no...
    > Roy G wrote:
    >> "Mike" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>I never was any good at maths.
    >>>
    >>>If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    >>>megapixels would the image be?
    >>>
    >>>5D Sensor Size = 36 x 24 mm
    >>>5D Resolution = 4368 x 2912
    >>>
    >>>20D Sensor Size = 22.5 x 15.0 mm
    >>>20D Resolution = 3504 x 2336
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Hi.
    >>
    >> You should have paid a bit more attention at school, if you really cannot
    >> work out this answer for yourself.
    >>
    >> There is quite a lot of Arithmetic involved in Photography, and in every
    >> day life. You might well be paying too much for things you buy, or not
    >> getting paid enough for the work you do, or even worse paying too much in
    >> taxes.

    >
    > Maybe the math itself isn't the problem... everyone else who's responded
    > seems to have a grasp on how to work their calculators, but my
    > understanding was that the "crop factor" figure referred to the effectiv
    > 35mm focal length; ie. a 200mm lens on a 1.6 "crop factor" sensor would be
    > equivalent to a (200*1.6) or 320mm lens on a 35mm sensor; on a 1.5 "crop
    > factor" sensor, it would be (200*1.5)=300mm.
    >
    > If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided thus
    > far are wrong...



    Using a 20D, whose sensor is 22.5 x 15.0mm, as an example, where
    "full-size" 35mm is 24 x 36mm, 1.6 x 22.5 = 36 and 1.6 x 15 = 24. So the
    length and width of the APS-C of the 20D are each 1/1.6 of same dimension
    of a full size sensor. So all the calculations so far are pretty much
    correct. What numbers did you come up with?

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Jun 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Mike

    Matt Guest

    Don't be so ridiculous.

    Making such a ridiculous statement gives me the impression that you are one
    of those people who take photos of brick walls and colour charts to see how
    good camera equipment is, as opposed to actually getting amongst the action
    and getting great photos. It wouldn't surprise me if you have never even
    photographed anything outside of the UK.



    "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    news:_EQog.82604$...
    >
    > You should have paid a bit more attention at school, if you really cannot
    > work out this answer for yourself.
    >
    > There is quite a lot of Arithmetic involved in Photography, and in every
    > day life. You might well be paying too much for things you buy, or not
    > getting paid enough for the work you do, or even worse paying too much in
    > taxes.
    >
    > If you came to stay at my Guesthouse for 10 nights, and I said that my
    > special offer of "7 Nights for the price of 6" would be applied, would
    > you know whether I charged the correct amount. Perhaps I should do you a
    > special offer of "6 for the price of 7"
    >
    > Roy G
    >
     
    Matt, Jun 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Mike

    Bill Hilton Guest


    >Matt Ion wrote:
    >
    > If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided
    > thus far are wrong...


    Maybe you are confusing linear with area? If it's 1.6 each direction
    then it's 2.56 area-wise. Multiply the cropped pixel number by 2.56
    and you'll see it's correct.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jun 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Mike

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Bill
    Hilton <> writes
    >
    >>Matt Ion wrote:
    >>
    >> If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided
    >> thus far are wrong...

    >
    >Maybe you are confusing linear with area? If it's 1.6 each direction
    >then it's 2.56 area-wise. Multiply the cropped pixel number by 2.56
    >and you'll see it's correct.


    Hence my post in which I put "(4368/1.6) * (2912/1.6) = 4,968,600" I did
    consider (4368 * 29120 / 1.6^2 = 4,968,600, but felt that the poster
    would not comprehend the derivation.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Jun 29, 2006
    #15
  16. Mike

    Matt Ion Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>Matt Ion wrote:
    >>
    >>If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided
    >>thus far are wrong...

    >
    >
    > Maybe you are confusing linear with area? If it's 1.6 each direction
    > then it's 2.56 area-wise. Multiply the cropped pixel number by 2.56
    > and you'll see it's correct.


    Umm no, we're talking about two different things... everyone else here
    is calculating the difference in sensor size... my understanding was the
    "crop factor" number was a relative difference in "35mm equivalent focal
    length".

    My point was, if the number does refer to the "35mm equivalent focal
    length", then any calculations against the sensor size are going to be
    necessarily wrong.
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Mike

    Matt Ion Guest

    Prometheus wrote:
    > In article <>, Bill
    > Hilton <> writes
    >
    >>
    >>> Matt Ion wrote:
    >>>
    >>> If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided
    >>> thus far are wrong...

    >>
    >>
    >> Maybe you are confusing linear with area? If it's 1.6 each direction
    >> then it's 2.56 area-wise. Multiply the cropped pixel number by 2.56
    >> and you'll see it's correct.

    >
    >
    > Hence my post in which I put "(4368/1.6) * (2912/1.6) = 4,968,600" I did
    > consider (4368 * 29120 / 1.6^2 = 4,968,600, but felt that the poster
    > would not comprehend the derivation.


    But that's meaningless - "crop factor" numbers are published to indicate
    the difference in field of view you'll get compared to a 35mm film
    frame. The number of pixels one way or the other doesn't tell you that,
    particularly since 35mm film doesn't have pixels, and the size of the
    pixels varies from one camera (sensor) to the next. It's a useless
    specification that way.

    This, I believe, is the best explanation of "crop factor" that I've come
    across so far:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

    In particular:
    "The focal length remains the exact same but the angle of view is
    reduced to the same as that of a lens of 1.5 or 1.6 times greater focal
    length on a 35mm format camera."
     
    Matt Ion, Jun 30, 2006
    #17
  18. "Matt Ion" <> wrote:
    >> "Mike" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>If I cropped a photo from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many
    >>>megapixels would the image be?

    >
    > Maybe the math itself isn't the problem... everyone else who's responded
    > seems to have a grasp on how to work their calculators, but my
    > understanding was that the "crop factor" figure referred to the effectiv
    > 35mm focal length; ie. a 200mm lens on a 1.6 "crop factor" sensor would be
    > equivalent to a (200*1.6) or 320mm lens on a 35mm sensor; on a 1.5 "crop
    > factor" sensor, it would be (200*1.5)=300mm.


    No. The "crop factor" figure refers to the ratio of the sizes of the
    formats.

    This discussion is about using a crop from the 5D to get the same angle of
    view as a 20D user would get using the full 20D sensor. The only question
    here is how many pixels would one get if one used the same focal length
    lenses on a 5D and a 20D from the same position and cropped the 5D image to
    get the same image content as the 20D image.

    This discussion has nothing to do with focal lengths.

    > If that is in fact the case, then all the other calculations provided thus
    > far are wrong...


    Nope, everyone so far is exactly right.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Mike

    Bill Hilton Guest


    >> Bill Hilton wrote:
    >> Maybe you are confusing linear with area? If it's 1.6 each direction
    >> then it's 2.56 area-wise. Multiply the cropped pixel number by 2.56
    >> and you'll see it's correct.


    >Matt Ion replied
    >
    > Umm no, we're talking about two different things... everyone else here
    > is calculating the difference in sensor size...


    That was what the original poster asked for ... "If I cropped a photo
    from a 5D to match a 1.6 crop sensor size, how many megapixels would
    the image be?"

    The number that was calculated, just under 5 Mpixels, follows from that
    Q.

    >my understanding was the "crop factor" number was a relative difference
    >in "35mm equivalent focal length".


    Yes, because of the difference in sensor size. So?

    > My point was, if the number does refer to the "35mm equivalent focal
    > length", then any calculations against the sensor size are going to be
    > necessarily wrong.


    So what number to YOU come up with to answer his question, a number
    that addresses your concerns? I don't really see the point you are
    trying to make, sorry ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jun 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Mike

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:08:28 GMT, Matt Ion wrote:

    > My point was, if the number does refer to the "35mm equivalent focal
    > length", then any calculations against the sensor size are going to be
    > necessarily wrong.


    The 35mm equivalent focal length doesn't come into play at all,
    because the reference to "1.6 crop sensor size" was just an another
    way of specifying the dimensions of the 20D's sensor, which was in
    fact already known by the OP.

    Just a little basic math shows that the sensors of the 5D and 20D
    have, respectively, 36x24 sq. mm and 22.5x15.0 sq. mm, or 865 sq. mm
    vs 337.5 sq.mm. From this, if you wanted to know how many of the
    5D's 12 megapixels would be covered by placing a 20D sensor over the
    5D's sensor, it would be:

    Pixel Count == 12 mp * 337.5 / 865 == 4.74 mp, which agrees with
    DS's "roughly 5 megapixels", P's "4,968,600", DJL's "4.9 MP", who
    also said "This discussion has nothing to do with focal lengths".

    The 4.74 mp (4,968,600 pixels) result is a bit off, as the 5D's
    sensor is, I think, slightly greater than 12 mp, but it's close
    enough for gov't work.

    --
    "What's lens got to do with it?" -- Tina Turner
     
    ASAAR, Jun 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rick B.
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    822
    David
    Jun 3, 2004
  2. Luke

    Major League Cropped?

    Luke, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    406
    Joshua Zyber
    Apr 23, 2004
  3. Rick Holland

    New Godfather DVD cropped?

    Rick Holland, May 26, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    818
    Smaug69
    Jun 1, 2004
  4. Grand Inquisitor
    Replies:
    99
    Views:
    2,385
    Mike Kohary
    Jul 29, 2004
  5. Walter Traprock
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    533
    Bill Vermillion
    Nov 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page