Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
69chevy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,445
Like?
Re: mFT has eveything FF has except .... Re: Is Full frame still the most versatile?
In reply to Draek, Apr 2, 2013

Draek wrote:

69chevy wrote:

Really? So you think a sensor needing a 17x enlargement of it's pixels to produce a 20"x 30" print will be on par with pixels needing a 4.5x enlargement? Did you forget the sensor is nearly 4x smaller?

"Enlargement" is meaningless. With film it was different because grain size was constant among formats, but with digital all that matters is sensor and lens resolution, and those are nowhere *near* linear with area.

I will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that an 8mp iPhone enlargement would hold up against an 8mp crop from a M 4/3. Even if exposure was perfect on the camera phone, and the scene had low DR and low contrast.

I would love to see a 20" x 30" print from a M 4/3 of any moving object shot at 300mm. I am sure it would be lovely.

So am I, provided a half-competent photographer took it, but I'm not sure of its relevance to the thread.

The thread is about the versatility of 35mm format. Quality enlargements is one of it's strong suits, as is AF tracking (AI Servo).

As for AF, capture size matters jack as well; what does matter is PDAF vs CDAF and the quality of the specific AF sensors, which are dependant mostly on budget. Larger capture size only give you more of them, but they individually work the same as they would on a smaller format camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow