Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage.
Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as it first appears. Art gary wrote: >I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I >spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. > >Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of >the sensor to save space on the memory card. > >R. Jackson wrote: > > >>Sure, but you "spend" pixels of your total sensor resolution to get >>there. >> >>On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: >> >> >> >>>A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think >>>about >>>it, you could just crop a full size image to get more "reach." >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
