Let's put the FF crowds into test

Started Sep 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
DontThinkSo Regular Member • Posts: 244
Re: Yes, depending on cost and size and quality

moving_comfort wrote:

That's only true if the aps-c camera in your comparison has a higher pixel-pitch than the FF camera in your comparison. In many comparisons, this happens to be true, but for example with a 36MP FF vs. 16MP aps-c, its not true. (This is one reason why the 24MP aps-c sensor was hoped for in Pentax - to maintain a slight 'reach' advantage for aps-c.)

I think you are a bit confused. First of all, I am assuming by "higher" you mean a larger number (unless you mean pixel density, in which case is completely different than pixel pitch and in fact is the opposite). A larger pixel pitch results in less pixel density, which doesn't offer more reach via cropping, its actually less (less pixels for any given FOV). Secondly, I am attempting to refrain from specific cameras and or resolutions since those can vary. I am simply trying to show how each is different, FF and apsc. FF is not better in EVERY circumstance.

Some people seem to think pentax will sink if they don't release a FF and I disagree. I think apsc bodies can still be competitive if only for their unique advantages.

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