>If you cropped so that only 1/2 the width and length is left
>That would be a 50% Crop. For example you have a 8 by 10
>Picture and you reduce to 4 by 5 that's 50%.

Perhaps I’m being a bit pedantic, but it depends upon which metric you are describing. Halving the length and width would be a 50% reduction in the linear measurements, but it would be a 75% reduction, or leaving you with only 25% of the original pixel resolution.

I don’t particularly agree with the use of the term, but the term “100% crop” as used in this context is grammatically incomplete as far as I’m concerned when explaining what is meant. To me the full phrase would be “I’m presenting a sample which is a cropped portion of the whole capture that represents what’s viewable on screen in an editor at 100% view”. Basically, if you are cropping without the need for interpolation when prepping a sample for posting, it is expressed by many as being a 100% crop. Like it or not, that’s the usage. Personally I think “actual pixels” or “100% view” would be a better phrase, but I doubt everyone will agree with me.

If you wanted to express Mark’s sample as representing the percentage of the area cropped from the total capture, it only represents about 2.7% of the total pixel resolution; or cropping away about 97.3% (at least I think I worked that out correctly!!). If that’s the case and it is a 100% crop, then he did a really fantastic job and used great technique for that capture. None the less, the D3200 seems to be a dramatic step forward in digital imaging technology.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.