Is FF really better than m43? and why?

Started Jun 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
xxbluejay21
Regular MemberPosts: 337
Like?
.
In reply to A2T2, Jun 10, 2013

Simple answer: IT ISN'T. I'm quite annoyed by the full frame obsession people have. There's nothing special about full frame. If you want such a large sensor, you should be saving up for a medium format camera, but noone ever mentions those. These days APS-C and M43 have quality that is negligible (under most cases) from FF sensors, and some APS-C cameras even surpass modern 35mm sensors (as is the case with the D5200 and 5D3). Seriously, having a little more DOF can be nice, but FF isn't a magical format.

"if they take the same number of pixels and spread it across a larger area the results will have better color, lower noise and higher quality - every time."

And that is absolute BS. Is that why the D800 has better color, dynamic range, AND low light (at high and low ISO's) than the 5D3, which has much bigger pixels? Is that why cameras today with the same megapixels take way better pictures than cameras of 10 years ago? It's about the quality of pixels, not the pixel density or number. You're talking science vs common sense. Obviously, in this case, common sense is dead wrong.

People have so many misconceptions and fantasies about 35mm and it's ridiculous how much they glorify it as the ultimate image format.

Of course, all things equal a bigger sensor would be better, and the D800 has the best digital sensor ever made, but things aren't that simple with today's technology.

-- hide signature --

Clark Kent

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