r&Bob, Don't worry about Jim and I (well, maybe Jim -- who knows what other problems he may have), but neither of us is unaware that a crop is a cr*p. Still, when switching to a 10D or any other digital camera, there is more going on than just a simple crop. 1. Using the 35mm analogy, cropping out of the center seems like an appropriate thought. But it is more like cropping out of the center AND using a film that doubles or quadruples the resolving power of the film at the same time. (Okay, so I pulled those numbers out of my anatomy somewhere, but you get the idea.) Kind of like switching from Tri-X to Pan-X to do the crop. Sure, it is a crop, but the final print doesn't look like it was cropped. 2. Psychologically, when you use a camera -- any camera -- you look through the viewfinder and you compose based on what you see. So while shooting you really are not thinking in terms of a crop. If you look through the viewfinder and see nothing but the eye of the raven at 700 meters, then that's the picture you are going to wind up with. Sure, a bigger sensor would show the entire head, but that's not the format you are using. 3. The way we look at it in practical terms is just using a different format film. Do you consider a 240mm lens used on a 35mm camera to be "just" a crop of the image produced by a 240mm lens used on an 8x10 camera? I doubt that you think that way, but It is the same argument. There is more going on in a practical sense than just a crop. It is just that most photographers think in tems of what a certain focal length will do on 35mm film. When you switch to digital, you should break out of that mindset and think in terms of what a given focal length will do for your sensor. But we can't because we use the same lenses. So we think in terms of multipliers: 1.4, 1.6, etc. Perhaps future generations will not grow up with a 35mm mindset and learn what each lens will do for a different format. But I am part of the generation that was indoctrinated into 35mm-think. ANd here is one last thought (for now): which is less expensive? A Canon 10D plus an f/2.8 70-200mm zoom OR just adding a 400mm f/2.8 lens to your existing film camera? Which will be lighter to carry? Which is easier to store while trudging through the boonies looking for a yellow-bellied sapsucker? Which one will fit better on your present tripod? Then consider that an 8x10 print of both (appropriately cropped to show the same area) will look about the same. A similar comparison of a 16x20 print will probably give the nod to the digitally-acquired print. Nothing is simple any more. But it is great to have so many choices. r2 and yes...I have a brother d2
