Technically, a crop is any thing less than full size taken from a full size image. If you make a 400x300 up to 800x600 you will loose detail as that is now enlargment over and above original size.



Lets say that crop means; an area from an image which is smaller than original size. Therefore, if you make a crop from an image which on screen is 100% (full size from camera and bigger than the screen size)you are making a 100% crop.

If you re-size an image to 50% of original size and then make a crop as that crop would be a 50% crop.

It's ambiguous to say the least!!

Any clearer?

Best regards

I vaguely remember that my first LX (bought in Kuwait) had a UK price of 900 pounds, body only, no lens or viewfinder. So that was 1982, makes the above price cheap!

I still have two with all the add on's and viewfinders. One has a sticking mirror, the other is fine. Served me well over the years. I don't recall the originals in chrome finish? Mine are black.

Also, there was a Ltd edition with 18 carat gold plate, inc lens.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/Pentax_LX_Gold/...

Hens Teeth and more than a Picasso...

OK, I think I'm on-board with what your doing.

When they refer to a 100% crop they don't mean the whole image. They mean a much smaller crop to show detail, often in the smaller image areas of the main picture.

e.g. You have a portrait of a model, maybe head & shoulders (without the dandruff comments). You put it up for the gallery as is, full image but sized to suit the page etc. Now you enlarge the original file to 100% or actual image size and crop just the eye or eyes and if your crop is 800 pixels x 600 pixels or so, you now put that image on the gallery to show how much actual detail was actually recorded by the camera-lens combination. Since the image was actual size before you cropped the eyes, it's classed as a 100% crop. Simplified, I suppose it's any crop selection from an actual size image less than the original size, in pixel terms....

Does this make sense....:

Regards

About sixteen 35mm Pentax lenses just for starters, then five 3rd party Pentax fit lenses. That said, maybe my inner self knew Pentax would not do a FF. Hence a D700 with, 12-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all f/2.8 with a 1.7 TC.

The fact that they will finally launch the 645D is good news. Initially I thought, yep, I'll have one. Now, I won't. It's a lot of kit to carry if you consider wide to tele lenses and no super tele lens...as of today.

But it does prove that bigger sensors are better than little sensors.....
just as bigger negs etc gave better resolution etc etc etc.

Regards

Does it mean that the image was enlarged to 100% on the screen and then the wanted portion cut and saved as a new file?

Yes it does.

A 200% crop would cause pixelation. Anything less than 100% is fine. over caused pixelation as you go above the native full size.

Regards

DAB....Darn Awsome B..bs?

Can't quite see where the Aerial bit comes in?

I'm more concerned with the statement that Pentax will never produce a FF DSLR!!! All of those lenses wasted...

If that does turn out to be the case it will be a blow.

Regards

This must cost a few pounds?

The new Nikon 3000mm f/1.2

http://www.treklens.com/gallery/photo543457.htm

Wonder if Canon and Pentax will follow?

Regards

VERY well seen and composed.

Regards

I think we agree?

A 300mm lens on a 35mm is then enlarged by whatever the ratio is, up to 6x7 or there abouts. Do we then say that the 300mm lens is equivalent to 300mm x the ratio? Focal length of a lens is, I believe, fixed. What we do with it's projected image surely cannot alter that?

There has to be a huge difference of course as 35mm is too far off 6x7, where as cropped and 35mm are relatively close

Best regards