>> |
Anonymous
>you can't stop down a lens lol?
Yes, and when you do so, you get diffraction. Every lens is soft, you stop it down some, it gets sharper, it hits its sharpest aperture, you stop it down some more, it gets progressively softer again.
The difference is minor, so the advantage of crop is minor, but so are the advantages full frame has.
> full frame resolves more detail than your shitty crop sensor
Resolution != sharpness, although they are related. Resolution also doesn't really matter to the final picture except at huge prints. Resolution also comes from the number of megapixels; a ten megapixel full frame chip resolves as much as a ten megapixel crop chip, they'll just be more noise, etc. on the smaller one.
>see any modern lens compared to an old one on the same camera
Sage covered the issue at hand in this debate, but just for the record I fucking hate modern lens freaks. Lenses of all ages are good, including both the lenses you mentioned.
> if you're buying your gear for the size, we shouldn't be having this discussion
So Cartier-Bresson, using a little Leica and a collapsible Summicron, was doing it wrong and should've been toting around a big Hasselblad?
So you think a subject is going to be equally at ease with a small body and lens versus a big pro body with a gigantic f/2.8 zoom in their face?
So you think bigger is always better in handling?
|