>> |
Anonymous
>>60527 >I like big sensors. So does everyone, but I don't think you'd want to lug a Hasselblad around to do documentary style photography.
>While yeah, limiting yourself to a 2x crop sensor brings down the weight And size. Both which are key factors in how the camera handles, which (in part) determines how one shoots.
>it also gives you a corresponding drop in image quality It gives some more noise, sure, but noise isn't a real issue, at least not as much as people treat it as. Old film emulsions often had equal to or more grain than point and shoots have noise at the same ISO. People produced images stunning enough that some specks of silver didn't matter. People do it today with digital cameras and noise at high ISOs.
And as far as general image quality, people said the same thing when photographers outside of the studio and landscape applications moved to 35mm.
>there's no way to grow if someone ever comes up with a really cheap way to make full-frame sensors. But see, you're assuming that full frame is what everyone would go for if it wasn't for the cost. I don't think that's the case. Smaller sensors have definate advantages (smaller physical size bodies and lenses, more depth of field) over larger sensors, and vice versa. Different applications.
I see sub-APS-C and APS-C sensors becoming the new standard, regardless of cost; full-frame cameras partially filling in the role of Medium Format film camera for landscape and studio work, and digital Medium Format cameras being for when people really want the best image quality and are willing to send $30,000 to Sweden. I don't know of too many people working in digital large format, but I imagine they do it more for the view cameras than for the size. I'm not the only one who has this analysis; I've heard it several different places.
Your Rebel provides perfectly acceptable images at any ISO, doesn't it? Especially after running Noiseware or something, right?
|