How does Fuji compare to Full Frame?

Started Oct 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 16,606
Re: How does Fuji compare to Full Frame?

Jeff Charles wrote:

TThorne wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

I've done print comparisons for people locally using16x24 prints for them. All this talk about more life, 3D looks, creamy this or that simply vanish when they cant tell the prints apart.

Thanks Dave, but there is an even more miraculous revelation brought about by your awesome genius. Think about it:

Full Frame surface area = 864mm2

APSC surface area = 329mm2

Full Frame surface area is 2.6x that of the APSC.

Of course we all know from you that there is no difference in quality between these two. Fantastic!

Stay with me...

APSC surface area = 329mm2

4/3 surface area = 225mm2

APSC surface area is almost 1.5x that of the 4/3.

Here's where it gets good!

If there is no real benefit to having that 2.6x more surface area with a FF over an APSC, then SURELY there is no real benefit to the additional 1.5x surface area of APSC over 4/3!

So... 4/3 image quality/characteristics are indistinguishable from APSC!

Wait, there is more...



By the way, medium format surface area is 1452mm2, so it is only really 1.7x more than FF. Surely, being a much smaller jump from FF than the jump from APSC to FF would mean that there isn't much, if any difference there either!

Dave, on behalf of a grateful photography community, I'd like to thank you for leading us down this path of wisdom, reason, logic, and accountability. I see a nobel prize in your future!!!

Regardless of the theoretical advantages of a larger sensor, if prints from two cameras are indistinguishable, both are "just as good" for that particular photo and output size. I believe that's what Dave is talking about.

For shots in which more limited DOF, greater DR, and higher ISOs are not factors, do FF cameras produce visibly better results than APS-C cameras?

That is exactly what I was saying. Too many people sit in front of their screens viewing files at 100% or more making proclamations as to the image quality. I even ran a few tests between a Nikon D700 and Pentax K-x and produced 12x18 crops from the middle of a 32x48 print. Again, no difference that people could see at iso 200 or 800. I'm certain that someone could produce a DxO chart showing the Nikon is superior....but if it doesn't show in print, I dont really care.

I cant wait to go buy some lenses with my Nobel money.

-- hide signature --

"Look it up. It's science." Skinny Pete

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow