Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Draek Senior Member • Posts: 2,028
Re: mFT has eveything FF has except .... Re: Is Full frame still the most versatile?

69chevy wrote:

Really? So you think a sensor needing a 17x enlargement of it's pixels to produce a 20"x 30" print will be on par with pixels needing a 4.5x enlargement? Did you forget the sensor is nearly 4x smaller?

"Enlargement" is meaningless. With film it was different because grain size was constant among formats, but with digital all that matters is sensor and lens resolution, and those are nowhere *near* linear with area.

I would love to see a 20" x 30" print from a M 4/3 of any moving object shot at 300mm. I am sure it would be lovely.

So am I, provided a half-competent photographer took it, but I'm not sure of its relevance to the thread.

As for AF, capture size matters jack as well; what does matter is PDAF vs CDAF and the quality of the specific AF sensors, which are dependant mostly on budget. Larger capture size only give you more of them, but they individually work the same as they would on a smaller format camera.

 Draek's gear list:Draek's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Samsung TL500 Canon PowerShot A1200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A390
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow