>> |
Anonymous
>>70029 I'm on a photography board because I spend my time taking photographs, not staring at 100% crops, and because I spend my print money on actual prints, not making test shots and duplicate test prints, and then staring at them for inconsequential differences in shadow detail. Comparing different shots shot with full-frame cameras and crop sensor cameras, I can't see any flaws in the crop sensor camera output or find any particular identifying marks between the two.
I don't own any of them, but the shots I've seen from the Sigma DG series wide lenses look awesome: sharp, nice bokeh, etc. Don't just dismiss Sigma: they've made bad lenses and good lenses.
And from what I've heard, the Canon full-frame DSLRs are superior to Kodak's in ever way, by the way. I'm not sure, though: everything I've heard has been third-hand.
The whole point of this is that you're very silly if you think that only a full-frame (a totally arbitrary sensor size, chosen just because that's the size of the most commonly used film) camera can produce good results.
Of course a full-frame camera, all other things being equal, will best a crop sensor. The point, however, is three-fold:
1. All other things aren't equal. Ergonomic considerations might dictate a different body for one person over another. If someone hates the way the 5D feels, and loves the feel of an Olympus E-410, should he get the latter just because of a larger sensor. (Hypothetical; the 5D feels fine to me and I've never held a 410.)
2. Cost. A better, more noticable increase in sensor quality will come from having better lenses than a slightly larger sensor. Given a choice between a crop sensor camera with an L series lens and a full-frmae camera with a cheaper lens, which do you think is going to turn out better quality?
3. It isn't half as hard to get wide angle on a crop sensor as people make it out to be, unless you're going for something absurdly wide, like a 10mm equivalent.
|