Confused about Crop Effect...after I thought I had it.

[jrista]

You maximize the potential of the system in hand. The amount of effort you put in is high regardless of whether your shooting APS-C or FF. So, personally, I don't really believe the notion that bigger pixels mitigate issues from camera shake or anything like that...

Your belief or lack thereof doesn't change the underlying geometry that determines the relationship between pixel size and the effect of angular motion.

I'm not denying the math. I'm denying we can account for the minuscule differences in pixel size out in the field. People experience blurring from camera shake with every system, with a wide range of lenses, regardless of sensor size or pixel size.


My simple point is, you either hold the lens stable, or you use IS, or not. If you don't, your GOING to experience the effects of camera shake no matter how big your pixels or your sensor.

 

[Loswr]

My simple point is, you either hold the lens stable, or you use IS, or not. If you don't, your GOING to experience the effects of camera shake no matter how big your pixels or your sensor.

Sure...you'll just experience those effects more with smaller pixels.

 

[ejenner]

Try metering side by side and see if what you say is true. I am getting a 1/3 to 2/3 stop light advantage with the 5D II and 1D IV.

I've had a t1i, 7D, 5DII and 5DIII and if I take the same shot at exactly the same aperture, SS and ISO they will all be different by 1/3-2/3 stop. Nothing to do with crop and everything to do with how the amplification in-camera is done and how they mark the ISO values. In fact 7D was 2/3 stop darker than t1i at all ISO's above 100. Ti1 ISO 100 was not a full stop darker than at 200 - only 1/3 stop, so that was a little weird.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I figured Canon did that so that when tested at a particular ISO the 7D would look better than the rebels and previous 15MP 'older' and people would think the sensor was better (I think that actually happened too). Of course no-one noticed that the testers had to use a lower SS by 1/3-2/3 stop. OF course if you actually shot at the same exposure the results were essentially identical.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The camera shake issue is two fold.
Imagine holding a beam of light like a lazer on two squares, one square over twice the size of the other. Imagine your hand shaking so the light is moving up and down at the same amount on each square. The movement of the light on the smaller square will cover a larger percentage of its area than it will on a large square. Your hand shake is equal, but the area of the sensor on a crop is smaller and magnifying it. Most people don't get this, distance and FOV do not matter, they are not moving your hand is.
Second your pixels are smaller and if your vibration is over a pixel width your resolution advantage drops quick.

Neat little example. A single point of light pointing at the center of a square. Now, compound the number of squares a few million fold, and instead of one beam of light, you have trillions. All shaking concurrently and synchronously all over this array of a few million squares. Camera shake is camera shake. It's going to soften the image regardless. Light that should fall onto one square is going to fall on more than one square. Acutance is going to drop off precipitously at the first tiny bit of camera shake, and after that it's a diminishing effect.


I have to hold my 5D III as steady as I have to hold my 7D to get the most crisp, sharp shot. In the field, there isn't any difference...I don't think "I can handle X amount of shake with the 5D III" or "I can shake N times more than with my 7D"...I simply hold the lens steady, as steady as humanly possible period, and burst my shots to get a good number of frames so I can pick the sharpest one. There isn't any difference in tactic here, you use FF and APS-C the same way, birds, wildlife, or otherwise.


Do you want to maximize the potential of the system, or not? That's either yes, or no. If yes, then you do everything you can to extract the absolute best out of the system. There is no difference in effort to do that regardless of format...we can't compensate for the microscopic differences in pixels when were out in the field concentrating on a bird. You AFMA with both FF and APS-C. You use IS with both FF and APS-C.

When the Nikon D800 came out, DPR had to beef up their tripods, and take extreme care to get the sharpness that the extra pixels could give. They spent a lot of extra time and effort in their testing before they learned how to get the expected resolution. Its virtually impossible for hand held images at normal shutter speeds to make use of that available 36 MP resolution. So, yes, if you want to get the full resolution that a camera is capable of, sometimes you have to adopt new tactics that were not necessary before. Those tiny photo sites could fill a 51.7 MP FF sensor, and with a long lens, almost any vibration is going to reduce resolution. That doesn't mean that images will be blurred, just that they will not be as good as they could be. I learned that quickly with my 7D, and when hand holding my camera, I doubled shutter speeds or even tripled them where possible. Then, my images really improved. I had to force the camera to use high shutter speeds, using Av turned out to be a bad idea. I believe the 7D MK II allows you the option of faster shutter speeds for a given focal length. That's a worthwhile feature for those who want to use Av or full automatic.

You are right, I do take the same care with my 5D MK III as I did with my 7D. I use faster shutter speeds than with the old 12 MP sensors because it makes a difference. With my D800, I used it the same way as my 5D MK III, and except for a few bright sunlight, high shutter speed images, there was no noticeable sharpness advantage. I did appreciate the extra DR for those bright sun low ISO images, but for me, they were the exception, not the rule, because I was shooting in extreme low light much of the time, and struggled to get sharp images with the D800.

 

[Ryan85]

Could this be the next AF vs MF? IS vs no IS? Dare I say it?, UV filter vs bare glass?

Lol I'm thinking it might

 

[chromophore]

A camera system has many components and a change in one aspect of the system design can have effects on several different properties of that system. An "apples-to-apples" comparison of two systems is not always feasible or meaningful.

So, suppose we take a 24x36 mm "full-frame" sensor and replicate it at 1/1.6 times the scale, without changing its position relative to the lens, resulting in an APS-C sensor with the same number of pixels. We can ask a number of questions about the effect of this scaling, such as:

1. What is the effect on the depth of focus and depth of field?
2. What is the impact on imaging resolution?
3. How does the noise characteristics of the image change?
4. Does the slowest hand-holdable shutter speed change?
5. How is the resulting field of view different?
6. Does the focal length change?
7. Is the f-number the same?
8. What effect is there on diffraction?

All else in the system being equal, there are good theoretical answers to these questions. But the problem is that other aspects of the system and the scene to be imaged--even if kept constant between full frame and APS-C--can have a greater impact on the result than the size of the effect: for instance, an perfect lens shot at f/1.4 for a perfectly flat target scene will show more resolution for higher pixel density. But lenses are not perfect, diffraction losses can negate pixel density advantages, and the objects to be imaged are frequently not flat.

So what happens is that when trying to explain the effect of different sensor sizes, there invariably are numerous caveats and criteria involved. It is difficult to pin these things down and talk about these effects as if they are universal rules. Some aspects, like the effect on field of view, are straightforward. Others, like resolution, are complex and influenced by many other factors.

 

[Joey]

Try metering side by side and see if what you say is true. I am getting a 1/3 to 2/3 stop light advantage with the 5D II and 1D IV.

I've had a t1i, 7D, 5DII and 5DIII and if I take the same shot at exactly the same aperture, SS and ISO they will all be different by 1/3-2/3 stop. Nothing to do with crop and everything to do with how the amplification in-camera is done and how they mark the ISO values. In fact 7D was 2/3 stop darker than t1i at all ISO's above 100. Ti1 ISO 100 was not a full stop darker than at 200 - only 1/3 stop, so that was a little weird.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I figured Canon did that so that when tested at a particular ISO the 7D would look better than the rebels and previous 15MP 'older' and people would think the sensor was better (I think that actually happened too). Of course no-one noticed that the testers had to use a lower SS by 1/3-2/3 stop. OF course if you actually shot at the same exposure the results were essentially identical.

Glad to see someone commented about that. Correct exposure is not dependant on sensor size or pixel density. Otherwise external light meters would need to be configured for sensor size.

 

[AlanF]

The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:

http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html


Quote: "The 7D mark II has very small pixels for a DSLR. To get all the detail in an image that the sensor is capable of delivering, you need very sharp lenses. Most zoom lenses, especially consumer zoom lenses will result in soft images from this sensor as the lenses can't deliver the image quality. Also, one needs to use excellent technique to take advantage of this sensor. Remember, it is the lens plus the exposure time that delivers the light and the detail to the sensor. The sensor just collects the light delivered by the lens and exposure time. Deliver the light to the 7D2 and it will record stunning images."

You need the best lenses, like the big whites (and it looks like the new 100-400mm II is in that category) to get the best out of the small pixel sizes. Shake you can eliminate with good technique, but a soft lens you can't except by getting a better one.

 

[takesome1]

The camera shake issue is two fold.
Imagine holding a beam of light like a lazer on two squares, one square over twice the size of the other. Imagine your hand shaking so the light is moving up and down at the same amount on each square. The movement of the light on the smaller square will cover a larger percentage of its area than it will on a large square. Your hand shake is equal, but the area of the sensor on a crop is smaller and magnifying it. Most people don't get this, distance and FOV do not matter, they are not moving your hand is.
Second your pixels are smaller and if your vibration is over a pixel width your resolution advantage drops quick.

Neat little example. A single point of light pointing at the center of a square. Now, compound the number of squares a few million fold, and instead of one beam of light, you have trillions. All shaking concurrently and synchronously all over this array of a few million squares. Camera shake is camera shake. It's going to soften the image regardless. Light that should fall onto one square is going to fall on more than one square. Acutance is going to drop off precipitously at the first tiny bit of camera shake, and after that it's a diminishing effect.


I have to hold my 5D III as steady as I have to hold my 7D to get the most crisp, sharp shot. In the field, there isn't any difference...I don't think "I can handle X amount of shake with the 5D III" or "I can shake N times more than with my 7D"...I simply hold the lens steady, as steady as humanly possible period, and burst my shots to get a good number of frames so I can pick the sharpest one. There isn't any difference in tactic here, you use FF and APS-C the same way, birds, wildlife, or otherwise.


Do you want to maximize the potential of the system, or not? That's either yes, or no. If yes, then you do everything you can to extract the absolute best out of the system. There is no difference in effort to do that regardless of format...we can't compensate for the microscopic differences in pixels when were out in the field concentrating on a bird. You AFMA with both FF and APS-C. You use IS with both FF and APS-C.

When the Nikon D800 came out, DPR had to beef up their tripods, and take extreme care to get the sharpness that the extra pixels could give. They spent a lot of extra time and effort in their testing before they learned how to get the expected resolution. Its virtually impossible for hand held images at normal shutter speeds to make use of that available 36 MP resolution. So, yes, if you want to get the full resolution that a camera is capable of, sometimes you have to adopt new tactics that were not necessary before. Those tiny photo sites could fill a 51.7 MP FF sensor, and with a long lens, almost any vibration is going to reduce resolution. That doesn't mean that images will be blurred, just that they will not be as good as they could be. I learned that quickly with my 7D, and when hand holding my camera, I doubled shutter speeds or even tripled them where possible. Then, my images really improved. I had to force the camera to use high shutter speeds, using Av turned out to be a bad idea. I believe the 7D MK II allows you the option of faster shutter speeds for a given focal length. That's a worthwhile feature for those who want to use Av or full automatic.

You are right, I do take the same care with my 5D MK III as I did with my 7D. I use faster shutter speeds than with the old 12 MP sensors because it makes a difference. With my D800, I used it the same way as my 5D MK III, and except for a few bright sunlight, high shutter speed images, there was no noticeable sharpness advantage. I did appreciate the extra DR for those bright sun low ISO images, but for me, they were the exception, not the rule, because I was shooting in extreme low light much of the time, and struggled to get sharp images with the D800.

I started to mention the D800 example, I remember when it was released and the discussions on camera stabilization.
The point made to the OP and the discussion in this thread is that for the full benefit of the crop camera and it's pixel density you have to remove vibration.

On the extreme that would be a mirror up, time delayed shot with your hand not on the camera on very sturdy tripod legs and a head. Shoot in dead calm on a solid surface also. But the crop benefit is usually debated as a focal length limited option. For wild animals time delay and mirror up are rarely going to happen. Big lenses are heavy so you have to exhaust every method to stay stable. Shutter speed is one of these things and it is lowered sooner on a crop than a FF.

For me I see the resolution advantage of the crop body as a sliding scale starting high with the tripod as described above and disappearing hand held as light goes away. Whether someone sees a benefit from it will be determined by what, when and how they are shooting.

 

[takesome1]

Try metering side by side and see if what you say is true. I am getting a 1/3 to 2/3 stop light advantage with the 5D II and 1D IV.

I've had a t1i, 7D, 5DII and 5DIII and if I take the same shot at exactly the same aperture, SS and ISO they will all be different by 1/3-2/3 stop. Nothing to do with crop and everything to do with how the amplification in-camera is done and how they mark the ISO values. In fact 7D was 2/3 stop darker than t1i at all ISO's above 100. Ti1 ISO 100 was not a full stop darker than at 200 - only 1/3 stop, so that was a little weird.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I figured Canon did that so that when tested at a particular ISO the 7D would look better than the rebels and previous 15MP 'older' and people would think the sensor was better (I think that actually happened too). Of course no-one noticed that the testers had to use a lower SS by 1/3-2/3 stop. OF course if you actually shot at the same exposure the results were essentially identical.

So the theory might be that Canon is doing this to give us a false perception of high ISO noise improvement?
I like conspiracy theories and that is easy to buy.

Of course either way we loose that 1/3 to 2/3 stop whether it be with altered ISO numbers or in camera exposure values.

 

[jrista]

When the Nikon D800 came out, DPR had to beef up their tripods, and take extreme care to get the sharpness that the extra pixels could give. They spent a lot of extra time and effort in their testing before they learned how to get the expected resolution. Its virtually impossible for hand held images at normal shutter speeds to make use of that available 36 MP resolution. So, yes, if you want to get the full resolution that a camera is capable of, sometimes you have to adopt new tactics that were not necessary before. Those tiny photo sites could fill a 51.7 MP FF sensor, and with a long lens, almost any vibration is going to reduce resolution. That doesn't mean that images will be blurred, just that they will not be as good as they could be. I learned that quickly with my 7D, and when hand holding my camera, I doubled shutter speeds or even tripled them where possible. Then, my images really improved. I had to force the camera to use high shutter speeds, using Av turned out to be a bad idea. I believe the 7D MK II allows you the option of faster shutter speeds for a given focal length. That's a worthwhile feature for those who want to use Av or full automatic.

You are right, I do take the same care with my 5D MK III as I did with my 7D. I use faster shutter speeds than with the old 12 MP sensors because it makes a difference. With my D800, I used it the same way as my 5D MK III, and except for a few bright sunlight, high shutter speed images, there was no noticeable sharpness advantage. I did appreciate the extra DR for those bright sun low ISO images, but for me, they were the exception, not the rule, because I was shooting in extreme low light much of the time, and struggled to get sharp images with the D800.

Again, I'm not denying the theory. I simply don't see any real-world difference in the impact to my photos when I shoot with the 7D or the 5D III.



Perhaps it is simply because I started with a camera that had 4.3 micron pixels, I don't know. But I tend to get the sharpest shots of all with the 7D and 600mm lens. I had no option but to force myself with the 7D to learn how to stabilize as much as possible to get the best sharpness possible out of that system. I also really DO use the sharpest glass available...perhaps that is skewing my perceptions here. I don't shoot any differently with the 5D III, but unless I'm right on top of my subject at the shortest focal length and fastest apertures possible, the images from that, although maybe less noisy, are usually not sharper than what I get from the 7D. If I shake...it ruins the shot, it doesn't matter which camera I'm using.


Shutter speed is also of paramount importance. With either camera, getting the shutter speed high enough to freeze motion is also critical. I have some skill in freezing motion of fast little birds at very low shutter speeds, but it takes a lot of effort, regardless of the camera. It also usually takes longer bursts to get that one sharp frame (to which the 7D/7D II is going to be more advantaged than the 5D III). These days I just say to hell with it, and jack up the ISO nearly as high as it will go, 3200 on the 7D II, 6400-12800 on the 5D III. That motion-freezing shutter results in critical sharpness, which in and of itself helps diminish the impact of noise.


One thing I will say, diffraction does certainly present earlier with cameras that have smaller pixels. The 5D III is FAR more forgiving of smaller apertures than the 7D ever was. If I was normally shooting at f/8, then I don't think I'd see much of a real-world difference between the two cameras. In a reach-limited situation, I am usually at a faster aperture with the 7D (i.e. 600mm f/4 vs. 1200mm f/8)...the diffraction limited resolving power of a lens at f/4 is significantly higher than at f/8, and assuming a stable frame (I always burst, so there is pretty much always a frame that's razor sharp), that gives the 7D's smaller pixels what they need to be as sharp as possible.


There is also the fact that at 1200mm I suffer from the effects of less camera shake a touch sooner than the 7D at 600mm. So, for any given amount of camera shake, the impact to the image is pretty much the same. There are a number of normalizing forces when it comes to getting the same kind of framing in the real world, and those forces, in a reach limited situation, tend to balance out the "benefit" of larger pixels as far as camera shake goes.


The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

 

[AlanF]

The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:

Roger Clark seems to be a very bright fellow. But the resolution issue ultimately comes down to the problem that light does not behave entirely like a particle nor entirely like a wave. It's both at once. But not really. And if you look at light too closely, it responds by changing what it is.

Not even the worlds best physicists have managed a complete solution to explain this phenomenon. So, no one really does understand the Physics. Obviously, lots of people understand it better than I do. Roger Clark certainly seems to be one of them.

What are the problems with the wave-particle duality of light and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum effects at a level that is going to affect the observed resolution of a lens and sensor that we can detect in our images? The wave nature of light is sufficient that we can calculate the diffraction patterns at different wavelengths and work out the how they depend on f number, the particle nature means that we can apply Poissonian statistics to photon noise, and regarding the uncertainty and effects; are they large enough to affect us in any practical way?

Even though we don't fully understand the laws of physics, we can design a car without using Einstein's theory of relativity, just based on Newtonian mechanics, and land a space vehicle on a comet. We are dealing with practicalities, not metaphysics. You don't need a "theory of everything" for most practical aspects of engineering.

 

[AlanF]

The remark was made that no one understands the physics. Here one person who knows enough: Roger Clark. Read his review of the 7D II and follow the links in it:

Roger Clark seems to be a very bright fellow. But the resolution issue ultimately comes down to the problem that light does not behave entirely like a particle nor entirely like a wave. It's both at once. But not really. And if you look at light too closely, it responds by changing what it is.

Not even the worlds best physicists have managed a complete solution to explain this phenomenon. So, no one really does understand the Physics. Obviously, lots of people understand it better than I do. Roger Clark certainly seems to be one of them.

What are the problems with the wave-particle duality of light and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum effects at a level that is going to affect the observed resolution of a lens and sensor that we can detect in our images? The wave nature of light is sufficient that we can calculate the diffraction patterns at different wavelengths and work out the how they depend on f number, the particle nature means that we can apply Poissonian statistics to photon noise, and regarding the uncertainty and effects; are they large enough to affect us in any practical way?

Even though we don't fully understand the laws of physics, we can design a car without using Einstein's theory of relativity, just based on Newtonian mechanics, and land a space vehicle on a comet. We are dealing with practicalities, not metaphysics. You don't need a "theory of everything" for most practical aspects of engineering.

Whatever, I find this constant bickering over non-existent issues tiresome.

In which case, stop bickering. You raised the non-existent issue of the inadequacy of physics.

 

[takesome1]

The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

The statement is a bit skewed. I like these kind of statements because they are half based in reality and enough outside that only pieces of it can be disputed.

However

You need to check how this idea works out in the real world. The distance you need to get closer is no where near 2x as close.

More like 20% closer, maybe a bit more. I have already shot a few test shots on this one with the 7D II.
This is one real world test I have been thinking about doing a bit more. Shoot a test shot with FF at say 30' and then 6 shots at 3' intervals till I am at the same framing 1.6x out. I have already done comparisons at about 1.4x to 1.6 and the FF had much better resolution. It might be a good way to see how much benefit the crop factor really is.

In the concept you offer camera shake is a smaller part of the resolution equation.

 

[Ryan85]

I think as long as your happy and your clients if you have them are happy with the the outcome that's all that matters. I have some shots with my old rebel xsi and 70-300 non L lens I'm happy with and I didn't even know what I was doing then.

 

[Ryan85]

In which case, stop bickering. You raised the non-existent issue of the inadequacy of physics.

I was making an earnest attempt to answer the OP's question. I then acknowledged your bump of my post with what I though was a gracious and polite reply which you unnecessarily threw back in my face.

+1

 

[jrista]

The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

The statement is a bit skewed. I like these kind of statements because they are half based in reality and enough outside that only pieces of it can be disputed.

However

You need to check how this idea works out in the real world. The distance you need to get closer is no where near 2x as close.

More like 20% closer, maybe a bit more. I have already shot a few test shots on this one with the 7D II.
This is one real world test I have been thinking about doing a bit more. Shoot a test shot with FF at say 30' and then 6 shots at 3' intervals till I am at the same framing 1.6x out. I have already done comparisons at about 1.4x to 1.6 and the FF had much better resolution. It might be a good way to see how much benefit the crop factor really is.

In the concept you offer camera shake is a smaller part of the resolution equation.

I said 2x because that would generally normalize composition within the area of the frame as well (not exactly, but enough). No, you probably don't need to move that full distance forward to start seeing an improvement, but I try to stick to equivalency...otherwise the size of the subject in the frame/the number of pixels on the target, is entirely arbitrary. I think about OOC composition I guess...is the bird framed, in camera, how I want it to be framed? I used to crop...heavily. The only time I crop these days is to straiten or tweak composition...I'm not dropping down to 10-20% of the frame like I did the first six months I had my 7D and 100-400mm. To that end, FF is actually more than 2x the area of APS-C (2.6x, actually), so I wasn't actually stating that you should halve your distance to subject anyway.


This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.


It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.


If you are willing to expend the greater amount of time to get closer to really make a difference with FF, you can indeed get some phenomenal shots...but not everyone has that kind of skill or time. That's why the reach argument exists in the first place. A 7D II with a 400mm or 150-600mm lens is going to get a lot more people excellent shots in fairly difficult situations with birds and wildlife than a 5D III with the same lenes. To take it to the next level, a 500mm or 600mm f/4 and some TCs so you can get 1000mm to 1200mm on FF (which would also normalize composition with APS-C at the same distance), is well beyond most people's budgets.


Now, I'm not saying you get more resolution with smaller pixels for free. It takes a lot of effort to hold and KEEP a lens steady while your shooting it. Especially longer lenses, which magnify ever smaller movements. It is possible to maximize the potential of your system, though, small pixels or large. That's my point. We can throw around numbers like 20% or 1.2x or 1.4x or whatever it is all day long. In the end...does your tactic change? Do you actually think in the field, I have 20% bigger pixels, so I can relax my hand-holding technique by 20%? No one does that. You hold yourself, and your gear, steady, as steady as humanly possible, period. You cannot account for the differences in the field...if you try, the chances of experiencing blurry shots with FF are going to be higher, as your not putting your full attention on what matters. Keeping yourself and your gear stable, as stable as you possibly can, with whatever tools are at your disposal to do so (IS, tripod, monopod, beanbags, whatever.)

 

[BozillaNZ]

Focal length itself does not mean anything.

Focal length combined with sensor size (diagonal) determines the angle of view. Angle of view determines "telephoto compression"

So, 135mm on APS-C (1.6x) and 216mm on FF will give you the exact same "telephoto compression".

And 135mm on 20MP APS-C and 216mm on 20MP FF will give you the same degree of angle of view per pixel, hence being affected by camera shake exactly same too.

Note that we haven't touched about depth of field yet, which is another big can of worms.

 

[Ryan85]

Focal length itself does not mean anything.

Focal length combined with sensor size (diagonal) determines the angle of view. Angle of view determines "telephoto compression"

So, 135mm on APS-C (1.6x) and 216mm on FF will give you the exact same "telephoto compression".

And 135mm on 20MP APS-C and 216mm on 20MP FF will give you the same degree of angle of view per pixel, hence being affected by camera shake exactly same too.

Note that we haven't touched about depth of field yet, which is another big can of worms.

Let's not get everyone riled up with that lol

 

[Loswr]

Focal length itself does not mean anything.

Focal length combined with sensor size (diagonal) determines the angle of view. Angle of view determines "telephoto compression"

So, 135mm on APS-C (1.6x) and 216mm on FF will give you the exact same "telephoto compression".

'Telephoto compression' and 'wide angle distortion' are aspects of perspective – the apparent size and distance relationships between objects in 3D space when projected onto a 2D medium. Perspective is determined solely by distance to subject – focal length, sensor size and AoV are irrelevant.

So your example happens to be correct, but the reasoning is not.