On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:22:51PM -0400, J.C. O'Connell wrote: > I disagree with one point made below. FF actually allows LOWER > quality lenses to be > used because the absolute lines/mm doesnt have to be as high for > same quality of > results. Yes with some really bad lenses the softness in the > corners may become more > visible, but with decent lenses, FF puts less emphisis on lens > quality than apsc does.....
That's pretty much what Ken Rockwell says: You Can Use Cheap Lenses! I get better results on full-frame with crummy lenses than I do with my very best lenses on DX. Having bigger pixels on a larger format means you can use cheaper lenses and usually get better results than the best lenses on a smaller format. The only reason I use the weasel word of "usually" is because as of 2007 we're only talking about a 1.6x linear format difference among consumer (under $9,000) DSLRs. In film, with a 2x linear difference from one format to the next, the crappiest lens on the next bigger format always smokes the very best lens on the next smaller format. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- 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.
