Wrong equivalence. That should read:
So a 150/2 on 4/3 is required for getting 200/2.8 performance on APS-C
(which in turn can be comparable to 300/4 on FF). Or at least this is how I
see things.
The conclusion is the same.
Dario
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dario Bonazza" <dario.bona...@virgilio.it>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Sony Releases A850 FF Camera for $2,000
J.C. O'Connell wrote:
I think maybe your overlooking the fact that APS SLRs are
really retrofits of FF slrs and use the same size lens mounts,
registration etc as FF cameras. The bottom line is that FF
DSLRs and lenses are hardly much bigger than the APS DSLRs/lenses
for these reasons. If APS had been designed from scratch
the difference would be more significant.
We all have evidence that's not true in practice. The 4/3 system was
designed from scratch, but a 4/3 based outfit is hardly smaller than a
comparable APS-C outfit. For unknown reasons, cameras are as big as APS-C
bodies (if not bigger) and lenses need one extra stop for getting
comparable depth of field and IQ (as the smaller sensor needs
approximately one-stop lower sensitivity value to be used for getting
camparable noise). So a 150/2 on 4/3 is required for getting 200/4
performance on APS-C (which in turn can be comparable to 300/5.6 on FF).
Or at least this is how I see things.
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
