Quote: I guess my issue with this entire thread and discussion is the generalization that APS-C or cropped sensors in general have more reach. Inherently they do not.
The two criteria are field of view and magnification.
If you compare sensor of the same MP they do. That APS-c gives you more reach they meets both criteria.
If you compare 36 MP FF to 24 MP APS-c they meet both criteria.
If you compare 36 MP FF to 6 or 10 MP APS-c, they meet the narrow field of view criteria and magnification is you reduce the images to the same 6 MP canvas.
But in terms of magnification per MP, 12 MP FF would give you less magnification than 8 MP ASPc. So the image is still magnified in terms of pixels on the subject relative to it's size, in MP.
24 MP APS_c vs 24 MP FF, the APS_c gives you less field of view and more magnification.
And the APS-c sensor will always give you a magnifcation advantage in the number of pixels on the subject relative to the size f the frame, in every instance.
Your computer can't tell what the pixel size was once the image leaves the cameras. Pixel size really isn't part of the discussion. If you reduce a 36 MP K-1 image to 6 MP (or even 12 MP) to normalize the image to the same canvas size a the K100D, the APS-c image still has narrower DoF. And a larger subject.
mag·ni·fy
/ˈmaɡnəˌfī/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: magnify; 3rd person present: magnifies; past tense: magnified; past participle: magnified; gerund or present participle: magnifying
1.
make (something) appear larger than it is, especially with a lens or microscope.
"the camera's zoom mode can magnify a certain area if required"
APS-c makes the subject appear larger than it would appear in FF with the same size canvas, in every image. Can we put this to rest?
People seem to arguing that producing a bigger subject is not magnification because of the way it's achieved. I'm going to argue the way it's achieved is irrelevant, as long as there are more pixels incorporated into the subject and there is more detail, it's magnified.