What really makes big sensors produce more appealing images? *Serious*

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,436
Like?
Re: Smoother, more natural, richer, better tonality
In reply to PerL, 9 months ago

PerL wrote:

...that is what you hear from Nikon and Canon people upgrading from APS-C to FF. From those who has no upgrade path (m43, Pentax, Fuji, Samsung etc) you will here that there is no difference.

It's no surprise that everyone is biased toward their own favorite equipment, but how much of a difference is there when you remove that crutch?

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2013/10/moving-on-to-micro-four-thirds-and-klpf.html

http://www.cnet.com.au/olympus-om-d-versus-a-full-frame-camera-339338741.htm

My experience, besides my own, is that the photos I see from professionals in my job as magazine producer usually are FF and in general looks better than those from the few who uses smaller formats.

I'm curious, as a magazine producer, you're probably familiar with the extensive PS retouching that goes into images prepped for magazines.  Do you agree with me that the Shumilova images posted as exemplars by the OP show obvious postprocessing in Photoshop (or similar tool)?

Final question: what does "more natural, richer, better tonality" mean when looking at significantly downsized jpegs posted on websites in the sRGB color space utilizing (mostly) 8 bit monitors?

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