4/3 has no focal length advantage-correct him if he is wrong

Started Nov 15, 2008 | Discussions thread
Lobalobo
Lobalobo Senior Member • Posts: 2,445
Re: 4/3 has no focal length advantage-correct him if he is wrong

fldspringer wrote:

Lobalobo wrote:

So the OP's friend was simply correct,
that there is no (or seldom) inherent image-quality advantage of a
small sensor. This is not to discount the advantages of less bulk
and less money from cropped sensors, but the advantage is not image
quality.

With all respect, it isn't clear from what you posted what the OP meant, but from the remainder of the thread it seems that the OPs friend was telling him that his smaller sensor camera could not achieve greater telephoto effect with a given a focal length lens because the FF friend could use the same lens and crop. The friend is right about this, I think you'll agree. Then another poster mentioned that the friend would have lower resolution (measured in number of pixels) and I posted that this may be true but only if the FF friend's sensor had a lower pixel density. It probably does, but lower pixel density is generally a plus--in dynamic range and color. (Don't take my word for this; search articles in Luminous Landscape on the topic, or look at the NY Times this past week, which quoted the host of this site.) All in all, but for expense and bulk, all else equal, a bigger sensor is a better sensor. This is not controversial, nor does it discount the importance of expense or bulk. (I'm buying an e420 instead an e520 because I want the camera to fit in even a small cycling backpack with the pancake lens even though I know I'll suffer from lack of image stabilization on telephoto shots when I carry all my gear.) Lens is important, maybe more important, but sensors do matter and so does sensor size.

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