Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS feed
Sens(or) And Sensibility
July 16th, 2009
Sensor size matters. There, I said it. I’m not referring to megapixels, for the most part I could care less and think we ought to be talking about the size of the pixels not only the number of them. But that’s not what I want to talk about.
In an unusually gear-focused post, and I’ll make it quick and painless, I promise, I wanted to mention two things about sensor size.
1. Sensor-size matters. Photography is an aesthetic art and when something – whether that’s gear or settings – affects the aesthetics of an image, it matters as much as the painter’s choice of brush does. Sensor size affects your potential depth of field. Why do some images look more film-like and “professional”? Better glass, yes, but I’d wager that the images had a better-than-good chance of being shot on a full-frame sensor. Want bang for your buck on your next body purchase? Quit chasing the megapixels and get a body with a full frame sensor.
2. Forget Equivalency. An 85mm lens is not “equivalent to a 135″ on a cropped sensor body. If there’s one thing that pushes my gear-geek button it’s this lunacy of perpetuating the notion that, oh, he’s shooting a Canon 50D so his 200mm lens is really a 300mm.” In a word: rubbish. Shooting with an 85mm lens on a cropped sensor is not like shooting with a 135. It’s alot like shooting with an 85mm on a cropped sensor body. Why does this send me to edge of geek-rage? Because it tells me we’re all still fixated on the size of the lens and not the behavior of it. The perceived compression of elements that a 200mm lens will create on an image created with a full sized sensor and a cropped one is the same. Only the crop is different. I get why people still use this equivalency stuff but it perpetuates the notion that magnification is the only property of a lens and that thinking effectively pulls an important tool from our creative thinking as photographers. Choose your lens based on behaviour, then consider the crop. If you need to get closer to the duck, use your feet.
So right! Already Robert Capa said: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you aren’t close enough.” Let’s get closer to those ducks!
Can’t agree more about this. My 20D hardly gets a look in now I have a FF sensor. And on lenses, I want to choose on overall optical behaviour and not sacrifice everything on the altar of the cult of ultimate sharpness. Most lenses are sharp enough for my needs but they don’t all have the same characteristics of bokeh, flare, etc.
So, are you going to review waterproof camera housings for better duck photography?
Couldn’t agree more about FX sensors. My digital work made a quantum leap forward when I started using the D700 (it’s just my penchant for Nikon – Canon/Nikon doesn’t matter, they’re both great). I didn’t become a better artist nor did my inspiration didn’t immediately improve, but my images sure as hell did! MUCH less noise, better definition, better color rendition, and …. oh yeah (forgetting the crop factor BS) Nikon and Canon are just plain gonna put their best technology into lenses designed for their best FX cameras. Will more pixels make me a better photog? Hmmmm……..
David, please educate yourself on the crop thing, because this blog is popular, I recommend it to my friends, and you are misleading your readers.
Perspective comes from distance. Not from lens’ length.
35mm lens gives you the same view as 85mm lens if you crop a smaller rectangle out of it. 85mm lens gives you the same view as a 200mm if you do the appropriate crop.
Described simply: if we had infinite resolution sensor we would just shoot with 15mm lens and do crops out of it. But we don’t, thus the need for different lens.
Out of this: 85mm lens is totally the equivalent of a 135mm in this regard as the different focal length is equal to cropping.
Again to reiterate the point: you can not compress or deform things without physically moving your camera => zooming in and out is just different ways of cropping.
Hey Dave, I usually only like to speak about gear from a practical standpoint and the thing about the full-frame sensor probably being closer to the film look, well I don’t quite agree.
In practical terms the main difference one’s likely to notice with the same lens on a full frame sensor vs cropped sensor is the crop factor, not the difference in bokeh or anything like that. There’ll be less vignetting on a cropped frame sensor too, since the lens is not being utilized to its ‘full’ potential.
Anyhow, those are just my thoughts. I have been hearing this bigger/full sensor thing being better than a cropped sensor, but apart from the crop I don’t see significant difference (perhaps you can educate me here). But I’d challenge people to look at good images, which are stripped of metadata and tell which was taken with a cropped sensor 400D/digital Rebel for eg and which was captured with the full frame 5D.
I prefer to use the full frame, but mainly just because of the wide angle shots that I can now capture.
The lenses are a whole different topic. One can shoot great stuff on the plastic crap you get in the kits, print it large and all the photo “experts” will be “ooing” and “aaing” and asking with a very serious look “and what lens did you use for this shot?”. I’d only pay the money for the extra f stops, but if there’s a plastic equivalent, well I’ll get that.
Just wanted to add my two cents to the “geek” talk.
Hi,
Got to agree with Mitchell regarding the sensor issue. I think the reason why so many pictures look great and they happen to be from a full frame sensor is that more professionals use them. As we study more pictures from pros then not, we are going to believe that the full frame is the reason. But it really isn’t. I love the work of Ziser who used a 40d and still does (I think) and this is a cropped sensor. Look at Mr. Jarvis’ stuff on the iphone…talk about small sensors…It is really about the photographer. Obviously good camera+good glass = a good chance a getting a good picture, but full frame does not equal a better picture over a cropped one (given the same tech and glass), it is just cropped. You just just have to be a little bit more careful with what you include in the frame.
Just my 2 cents…
Kindest regards,
Horses for courses.
I prefer a full-frame sensor, but I think that’s because I was a film shooter for so long. And the full-frame sensor just feels more familiar (although certainly not identical). However, I do think that there is a market for both sensor sizes, and I don’t think that the distinction between these markets is amateur versus pro. They’re simply different tools.
Personally, I’d talk people into buying better glass rather than necessarily switching to a full-frame sensor. Oh, I’d also recommend that they buy a book called “Within the Frame”. Good stuff in that!
Boris. Longer lenses compress differently. Not sure where you’re getting your facts about perspective but you’re wrong. Crop and compression are two different things entirely.
My contention here was not to say I wouldn’t shoot cropped, or that better glass was necessary for better images, per se, but to bring to light two facts:
1. Sensor size does affect depth of field.
2. The behaviour of a lens in regards to compression is unrelated to the crop of a sensor.
That’s all. Would I shoot a cropped sensor again? Sure, if I had to, but I prefer the look made possible on a full-frame.
This isn’t going to turn into a mutiny is it? Cause a geek mutiny is just never pretty.
Well, not all of us can shell out for a full frame sensor at the moment. They aren’t cheap, you know.
So shoot what you have. Look, this isn’t an elitist thing, it’s simply a recognition of the limits/benefits of the technology. Shoot cropped, shoot with a Holga. But if you want the look achieved with a ff sensor, you need a ff camera. If you want the look achieved with a 200mm then you need a 200mm. Those aren’t cheap either. If you wanted cheap, you should have got into crochet – much cheaper
i agree completely. i shot 96 weddings in two years with a 1DMk3 – using my primes. Then I got the 5DMK2 this year and still using primes I see a HUGE difference in the depth of field. Ever wonder why a photograph shot on a medium format camera like an H3 looks “3D”? Sensor size and the distance/relationship with the lens.
Geek talk bores the crap out of me though, so lets move on….the only people who freak out about this sort of thing are those that look at photographs at 2400% to find “burnt out pixels” or “jaggies”…NEXT!
Perhaps this link will be useful:
DIGITAL CAMERA SENSOR SIZES
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Everything that Dave says is right, at least according to that link
Still, I’ll argue that from a real life standpoint, the difference in the final image from ff or cf is not going to be recognized, for most part (unless we’re talking wide angle on a ff).
Bravo David. I cant tell you how tired I am of getting into arguments with people when they start talking that crop sensor/increased distance on a lens stuff. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens theres no magic that makes it longer.
P.S. just started watching your podcasts last night and am really enjoying them
Focal length is a very misleading notion, as it only make sense in regards to the format. 150mm is as a wide angle… on a 8×10 view camera. By the way, both David and Boris are right. A lot more to dig out of wikipedia, for those who are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size
Happy reading
I love your sense of humor David…”Cause a geek mutiny is just never pretty.” I started rolling on the floor when I got this…
I think if people understood why camera companies call it a crop factor and not a magnification factor, there would be a lot less confusion about this.
Great article, Mitchell, thanks for the link.
I said to myself that I would not enter this fray. But here goes… This is DOF/sensor thing is a bit like splitting hairs in my book. However, I use a 5D and would NEVER go back. For many reason, the main one is the crop factor. I know what I want to shoot and how generally to shoot it. When I reach into my bag and pull out a 17 mm lens I want a 17 mm lens. A friend and I were shooting the same scene in a hut in India. He kept complaining he wasn’t getting my shot. We had forgot about the crop factor. He had to go out the door to get the shot, but then it wasn’t the same. All that to say, I want my lens to act like it is suppose to act. I don’t want to have to pull out a slide rule to figure out what I need to use to get the shot!
Matt – How is it splitting hairs? You said it’s splitting hairs, but then said you’d never go back and gave good reasons for your decision. This is no more hair-splitting than saying /2.8 and f/8.0 are different. One is not right or the other wrong, it’s simply the acknowledgement that both create a different aesthetic.
Photography is all about the aesthetic and how “the look” communicates our vision. So film stock matters, so does sensor size, choice of lens, and choice of post-production. Again, one isn’t right and the other wrong. As one commmenter mentionned, Chase uses his iPhone and gets great photographs. But here’s where it’s important – they aren’t the SAME photographs he’d get from his D3x. Different brushes and paints. Different look.
Hey, my avatar and Matt’s avatar match! isn’t that cute?
Splitting hairs about the DOF – NOT the crop factor. Heck yeah there is a difference. A Huge difference and it make total sense there is a DOF difference as well. But I wonder if I could tell the DOF difference in an image shot with a 20D and a 5D. But then I never really looked for the DOF difference.
Hmm Must have shot those avatars on the same day or something.
Matt, a 17mm on a crop sensor is still a 17mm. I suspect that for somebody who begins photography with a crop sensor, putting that same 17mm on a full sensor will seem wrong (or odd). It feels right to me on a full-frame sensor, but that’s because I used film for decades. And 35mm film is closest to a full-frame sensor. My brain connects 17mm with that format. For a new generation, they might connect it’s look to a cropped sensor. I think that is what Nikon was initially thinking, until they remembered the rest of us and finally came out with a full-frame sensor.
Right again. It was such a relief when I got the original 5D back in 2005. For the three years before that I was completely digital things just weren’t right. (I’ve been shooting digital / film mix since 1997.) I got the 5D and it was a like came on over my head. My 28mm lens was a 28mm lens not whatever it was on a D30/D60/10D/20D before it. I hated carrying my 16-35 so I could get close to a 28mm fov. I got the 5D and in months I was back to shooting with primes, only using zooms for the occasional sports assignment or breaking news gig.
On a sort of a related note, the original 5D is a steal now at less than $2k (US) at some places in New York. This is a great price for a camera that still has outstanding image quality.
jack
I’m lured to the full frame world ever so often. But when I look at my small sized bag carrying a full weatherproofed system with high quality lenses in a relatively small size, I’m happy enough with the Olympus E-system (which is not really a crop, since it doesn’t crop the image circle). And even when I’d be very happy if my images didn’t look that pro because of the system, alas photogs like John Isaac proof that concept wrong. I guess it must be me.
Some of my workshop students had trouble with this –
There are two images here taken with the same lens at the same focal length of the same subject from the same spot. One was shot on the 5DMII full frame and the other on a Rebel XSi cropped sensor.
http://pixographers.com/2009/05/sensor-sense-and-cents/
OK, I don’t want to add fuel to the fire and I can see that there’s some danger of this discussion becoming a little overheated but there’s something crucial here that you are ALL missing: that sensor at the top of the page is NEVER going to fit into that camera.
I’m here to help.
Thank you Gavin for helping pull it all together and making sense of it! Now it’s crystal clear. But now we also know David’s secret. He has a custom-built, oversize external sensor. It’s not a cropped frame. It’s not a full frame. It’s Vision frame!
[...] I think many people are still confused about all this. This short post gets right to the point. Link [...]
Leave it to the smart-ass brit to bring levity to this
Thanks Gavin. Will buy you a pint when I hit Bangkok!
Completely agree..once I went full frame I never went back…For me it made a difference in the quality of my work…
I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this but David is correct and most of us crop body shooters should be jealous.
I have been looking to sell my 40D or 50D and get a 5DII so I rented it’s older brother the 5D and compared some images. In every case the bokeh looked better (more smooth and fuzzy) on shots taken with the 5D than on shots taken with the 40D or 50D using exactly the same lens and aperture. I have no idea why this occurs but it’s true. BTW – the bokeh of the 40D sensor also “seems” to be better than the 50D but not nearly as good as the old 5D.
It may have to do with sensor size or pixel size or sensor quality, but I really have no idea why. I’ll leave that to those sensor engineers that design these amazing cameras.
I do know this. I’ll be buying a full frame Canon body for my landscape work when I can afford it. I’m not in a hurry and I still like my crop body cameras, but the difference in image quality, color tones and bokeh on a full frame are real, if not well understood.
I honestly wish this weren’t the case given my investment in crop body gear, but it’s real folks and we just have to live with it.
Please forward any hate mail to Chuck Westfall at Canon.
My Holga is full frame, but the bokeh is crap.
[...] full sensor cameras like the 5DMKll vs the cropped sensors like the 400D. Check it out his post Sens(or) And Sensibility and weigh-in if you [...]
The things that I love about FF are:
1. thinner DOF
2. bigger viewfinder
But for certain types of photography, I don’t see any real distinct advantage. The thinner DOF can be a pain too i.e. lighting group shots where you need more power because of using a smaller aperture.
Jeff > you’re finding the bokeh to be better because you get a thinner DOF with the 5D compared to the 50/40D.
Gavin, nice one!
I used to bring my 35mm film slr along for certain landscapes, such as layered mountains… but Velvia is getting expensive =\
When I can afford it (probably few years time) I will get a full frame DSLR, but for now, I’m using my cropped one as much as I could, except when I wanna have fun, bring my much lighter film body and rough it up!
To some extent, it’s about what your happy with, but the basic message of what David is saying holds true.
A cropped sensor magnifys the image. And due to the construction of the sensor, cropped sensors facilitate wider depth of field and FF facilitates a narrow DOF.
So its not about the focal length, its about the construction of the sensor, and the effect it has on an image.
Dave
I totally agree. I went full frame in December, and the first thing I noticed was better bokeh on my cheap 50 mm lens. Well, I also noticed a huge difference in noise but I expected that.
Its all about what we want to shoot. I love going to my local indoor skate part to shoot the little guys kicking butt out there with the older ones. & when I’m down stairs shooting if i still had my D300 & not my D3 my 50 would be too close at 70. & moving isn’t an option. & then it would be nice have it back when I’m up stairs shooting with my 70-200 & really having a 98-280, because a 300 2.8 is pretty darn expensive.
Both have their good & bad points. These kind of post are all right but usually non productive.
end of line…
Jared, thanks for the comment. I’m going to strongly, but cordially, disagree with you on this.
Saying it’s unproductive is saying the aesthetics of an image don’t matter. They not only matter, they’re vital. You’ve missed my point entirely. The point assumes that both cropped and full-frame sensors have pros/cons, sure, but more importantly that they create different looks. By all means, use your 70-200/2.8 in lieu of a 300/2.8 but remember that they aren’t the same, and that’s all I’m saying. The 300mm lens will compress the scene differently and give you a different aesthetic. The full-frame sensor will give you a different potential depth of field, and that too is aesthetic. Arguing about which is “better” is counterproductive, but education about the differences is important. At the end of the day this is not about technology it’s about the look of the image, and that’s everything.
I wonder if there is an undercurrent of defensiveness in these comments from people with cropped sensors. I’m not saying you can’t create great work with a cropped sensor, of course you can. Nor am I saying a full-frame camera will create “better” work. I’m saying they are different and recognizing those differences, and the behaviour of our optics beyond just the need to fill the frame, is a step in the direction of acknowledging that every decision we make has an effect on the aesthetics of the image and in turn how well that images expresses ourselves.
I don’t talk about geek/gear stuff that much, and this is one of the reasons. Clearly this stuff touches a nerve, and it’s a nerve I don’t understand. But this stuff matters when it has an effect on the image. Is it a huge issue? No, but then at the end of the day neither is shutter speed and aperture and yet we can be very particular about those decisions. Why? Because they effect the aesthetic.
Anyways, I’ll move on, I promise. Next week will be all unicorns and faeries and stuff.
On second viewing of your image David.
Are you sure that sensor is from a 5D? It sure doesn’t look like mine, I mean where are the spots of dust;-) ?
David in this one I think you may have missed my point.
I just felt this was not one of those post that really doesn’t go any where with such different opinions.
Since i have owned the D300 & the D3 & rented the 300 for my D3 & compared it to similar shots with the D300 & the 70 -200 they are so close that i feel it better to look at lighting, f-stop, shutter speed subject matter. Instead of getting hung up on this.
Hell getting this Program could really blur the lines for alot of people any way
http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx
Jared – You’re probably right. In the end this is a personal choice. For some it will matter a great deal, for others not so much. As for me missing your point, well, there’s a pretty good chance of that. I get pretty tunnel-visioned at times.
Oh gear….
I think it is about walking the line between your means and your vision. For those of us who don’t get paid much to take picures, we buy the best camera we can (sadly usually a DX) and then we adjust our vision to the crop factor or lack theirof.
I’ve been thinking about switching to a FX sensor (from my D300), but after much reflection, I don’t think I would. I like grain in my pictures, and I’m usually aiming for a DOF that’s thicker rather than thinner. Because of how a cropped sensor helps me to acheive my vision, I’ll stick with it.
I think the reason people get all defensive, is that we have what WE have, and we therefore think that everyone else should have it too! I realize MY vision and how i achieve it is totally different from everyone else, so I’m not going to get hot and bothered about it!
Of course, those of us that don’t get paid also usually REALLY want the “professional” gear that comes with a big sensor these days. Do we want it because of the sensor size/lens behaviour and how it affects our image on paper, or do we want it because it’s “professional” and how it affects our self-image?
It’s a difficult topic to discuss, and you’ve touched on it with previous posts (what defines “pro”, etc).
I submit that it doesn’t matter how you get the image, as long as you get the image you want. To each their own….
Great post and resulting discussion!
I only read half of the above so far (sorry!) but “crop” is a somewhat confusing term in these discussions.
Which is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?
A “smaller” 12 megapixel sensor has the same number of pixels as a “larger” 12 megapixel sensor. What determines the “crop factor” or different effective focal length of a lens is more about sensor size and density.
Take a Nikon D300 (DX “cropped sensor”) and D700 (FX “full frame sensor”) and a 200mm prime lens for example. The D300′s smaller sensor will make use of a smaller area of the total image projected to the focal plane by the lens. This means a D300′s smaller sensor will “see” the equivalent of a 300mm magnification on it’s more densely packed 12 megapixels than a D700 will “see” from the same 200mm lens, with the same number of pixels which happen to be spread across the lens’s entire image when it hits the focal plane.
I don’t know if that helps. I just want to be friends with everyone and make good images. And maybe it’s mostly nostalgia and familiarity but I agree, I prefer a full frame and for a 50mm lens deliver what it always did, not some multiple.
And full frame sensors have the elbow room to deliver much better pixels in low light. Hurrah for that.
Barry –
“I just want to be friends with everyone and make good images.”
LOL. Me too man, me too. Screw this sensor talk, let’s just go make some photographs. What was I thinking?
LOL.
Reminds me, I watched the first of a few “D-Town” podcasts about lenses. Ouch. I realized even a certain well known someone was extremely confused about what “35mm” even means. There’s room enough for all of us including little wigs and big wigs to be confused and to confuse each other about the magic and the science that happens when we record light. Let’s transcend, and make compelling images with all available sensors even as we don’t understand exactly how.
No-one mentions anything about noise. The biggest advantage with a full frame sensor is the low noise! My god, thoose small sensors are noisy compared to the full frame.
Here is a review of the difference between a D700 and D300 with ‘similar’ (dare I say that word) focal length lenses.
I think its quite informative and illustrates Davids point.
http://www.prophotonut.com/2009/07/16/nikon-d700-with-24-70-f28-vs-d300-with-17-55-f28/
Depth of field and noise handling on FF sensors I agree with. The perspective/compression stuff is pretty much a lock IMO. A 15mm on FF and 10mm on my cropped sensor aren’t massively different — you have to be judicious with either. Likewise with 70-200mm and 50-135mm. To me, the subtle differences in aesthetics aren’t worth the massive difference in cost.
My feeling is that the biggest difference that a full-frame camera should have is in its viewfinder. It should have a big monster 100% magnification viewfinder (remember film cameras?) that your eye can wander around. But they’re around 70% — not night and day from a crop sensor at 90+%. Until manufacturers get that right the reasons aren’t compelling enough for me to spend 300% of what I paid for my current gear. (Realistically, liveview may preclude that engineering effort, which isn’t my preference, though it does lower the playing field.)
Whatever. I like my camera and my growing ability with it. I’ll just keeping going with that.
Oh yes, the viewfinder size, another great advantage of the full frame sensor!
Okay, so if a FF sensor possibly has a smaller DOF due to its bigger size, which of the following two combinations would have a smaller DOF?
- a DX camera with an 85 f 1.4 lens or…
- a FF camera with a 135 mm f 2.0 lens?
After using the 5D Mark II for the last six months, I have no interest in using any of my cropped sensor cameras any longer. They literally don’t come out of the bag anymore. I suppose I’m going to sell them and buy myself another 5D because everyone absolutely raves about the images and colors. They sell themselves and surprise me sometimes. I didn’t know I was that good a photographer.
I believe that the images this Canon produces can compete with some medium format cameras out there.
Also the video it creates through my L lenses are phenomenal, the standard videos are extremely high-quality, and the HD videos are just amazing, and I don’t even have the equipment to process them properly yet.
Now I understand why the Canon resisted putting this sensor into an affordable consumer level camera, it seems to be rewriting the book on what can be created with relatively basic easily portable equipment.
I’m really shocked at this post.
LOL thought I was crazy for thinking that way…thanks for justifying gear rage
[...] it can be hard to articulate – and the more I try to articulate the worse it gets. Check out David’s approach to explaining cropped sensors and focal length – he does better then I do. And then reading the dozens of comments in David’s article, [...]
[...] and Read More: pixelatedimage.com SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Sens(or) And Sensibility – David duChemin (pixelatedimage)", url: [...]
I have to echo the choruses of agreement above me. One of the reasons I recently made the jump from advanced p&s to dslr was sensor size.
Well, I have an entry-level (and I mean Entry!) DSLR with a cropped sensor, which is currently all I can afford. I would love to upgrade to a full-frame sensor someday, but I won’t let a cropped sensor stop me from making great photos.
Just yesterday I got one of the best compliments a photographer can receive. “My hubby wants to know what camera you have, because he really likes your photos!” LOL!
Interesting article. I own two FF bodies (1Ds mk III and 5D) and two crop bodies (1D mk III and 30D) and a couple of nice lenses.
I do use the equivalencies only to fetch the right lens from the bag prior to the shot. In terms of image quality, it never occured to me that there might be a difference depending on the body. At least, I do not see much difference. I have done some stunning shots with the crop bodies. The 1D mk III produces images that satisfy most of my customers. For those who want even better image quality (also in terms of image size), I use the 1Ds mk III. Easy.
But let’s be honest – unless the customer is planning a wall-sized print, or an extreme crop (heaven help!), there is just no need for these big bodies. It’s the image that really counts.
great little article….and by the way : the comment of Boris Yankov is so funny…. zooming in and out is SO NOT like cropping…. zooming in and out changes the perspective !!!!!!! cropping is just … cropping
[...] in mid-July David wrote a post entitled Sens(or) and Sensibility where he postulated; 1) that sensor size really does matter in so many ways, but especially to [...]
“Shooting with an 85mm lens on a cropped sensor is not like shooting with a 135. It’s alot like shooting with an 85mm on a cropped sensor body.”
It’s all marketing, like the 234082304 focus points on the new 7D
[...] of wisdom of a pro: “Shooting with an 85mm lens on a cropped sensor is not like shooting with a 135. It’s alot [...]
‘Perspective comes from distance. Not from lens‘ length.’
Boris is perfectly right. (This is not about gear, just optics. And truth.)
David, please convince yourself by shooting with your zoom lens at the long and the wide end from the same POV. Then crop in the wide shot and compare the ‘perceived compression of elements’. It’s going to be exactly the same.
Nevertheless I wish I had a FF sensor camera for all the other good reasons;-)
Great blog, love your books, thanx.
Oso, this is an old conversation, but not once did I use the word “perspective” in my post. Yes, perspective comes from distance – as well as position. But I wasn’t talking about perspective. But no, the perceived compression will not be the same.