On 5/19/2013 10:27 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 20 May 2013 12:22, J.C. O'Connell <hifis...@gate.net> 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.....
The problem is twofold, firstly obviously lens quality falls off
towards the edges so many lenses that were OK on cropped format may
look decidedly less attractive when used on a full frame body.
Secondly people will pixel peep 100%, make judgements and proclaim a
lens good or bad without considering magnification factor or final
print sizes.
--
Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio
The simple physics is that if the FF sensor is 50% longer than the APSC
sensor in both dimensions,
the FF lens only needs to provide 2/3 the resolution of the APSC lens
to match the overall system resolution. If the FF lens approaches the
quality of the APSC lens, then a near doubling of system resolution can
be achieved. What this means in real world terms is that you dont need
"super world class" lenses on FF to get great results, unlike with APCS
sized sensors.
--
J.C. O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
--
--
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.
