For me the difference between FF and APS-C is at shooting time. When I shoot film then SMC K 18/3.5, K 28/2 and 35/2 all behave as they are supposed to. When using my DSLR I suddenly loose all my low light wide angle capability. That's because I don't see a reasonable DSLR alternative for FF 28/2 lens - is there any 20/2 lens available? And if (a Sigma maybe) - what is quality and the price? Even if I weren't after (relatively) fast glass, there are plenty of A 28/2.8 and M 35/2.8 around here - on DSLR they have to be substituted with not so cheap 18 and 24 mm lenses.
Pawel Fernando Terrazzino pisze: > Furthermore, take a look at this: > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/page24.asp > > Is the 12mpixeks Nikon D2X vs Canon's 17.2mpixels EOS-1Ds Mark II FF > > There are obviously other factors to consider, but resolution-wise, at > low ISOs you'll see there can't be to much difference in a web-size > image, only in a print. > > On 5/10/07, Fernando Terrazzino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My point is that the advantage of a larger sensor is less noise and >> the ability to print at a larger size (more mpixels), so unless you >> need the clean high ISO I doubt that you can tell the difference >> between downsized images for the web coming from a FF camera and a >> APS-C camera, any extra resolution advantage is lost in the downsizing >> process, don't you think? Otherwise I don't understand why you want a >> FF size sensor? Maybe the difference that you are seen have to do with >> glass and postprocessing? >> >> On 5/10/07, Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> --- Fernando Terrazzino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Here is an idea that I never tried, take a raw photo >>>> with the k10d, >>>> process as 10Mb, 6Mb and 2Mb. Downsize every jpeg to >>>> half the size of >>>> the 2Mb photo. See any difference? >>>> >>> No, I haven't done that either. But why would I? >>> Wouldn't that only show relative resolutions at >>> different quailities of the same sensor? I need to get >>> a hold of a camera with a different sensor and run it >>> through it's paces and see if I notice a difference. >>> >>> -Brendan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 5/10/07, Brendan MacRae >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> On May 10, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Brendan MacRae >>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> I talk to him all the time and he's really >>>>>>> >>>>>> craving the >>>>>> >>>>>>> quality that he's seeing from guys on his >>>>>>> >>>> Canon >>>> >>>>>>> forums. I've subscribed myself to one and have >>>>>>> >>>>>> seen >>>>>> >>>>>>> some of this work and it blows me away. Much >>>>>>> >>>> of it >>>> >>>>>>> looks like MF to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Then you've seen prints. Because on the web MF >>>>>> >>>> work >>>> >>>>>> looks exactly >>>>>> like APS-C sensor work. They're all just itty >>>>>> >>>> bitty >>>> >>>>>> images. >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>> All I can say is what I've seen on the web. To my >>>>> >>>> eye >>>> >>>>> it appears vastly improved over what I see with >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>>> smaller sensor cameras. It has a pop that just >>>>> >>>> isn't >>>> >>>>> there with my stuff (inviting all now to simply >>>>> >>>> say >>>> >>>>> it's my lousy photo skills vs. gear...<groan>). >>>>> >>>>> It's been enough to prompt me to see about renting >>>>> >>>> one >>>> >>>>> to check it out for myself. >>>>> >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________________________ Czas wybrac dobra nazwe! www.nazwa.pl -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
