>> |
Anonymous
>>181380 Con't. -Smaller lenses. -If one does use a lens from a larger format, the best area of the lens is being used. -The same depth of field at a wider aperture. This is important on digital, because it's more sensitive to diffraction. If you have a 28mm lens, you can shoot it at f/11 on a DX sensor and get the same depth of field as at f/16.8 (according to a calculator I'll put a link to at the end of the post) with the equivalent focal length on an FX sensor. I chose 28mm because it's the "perfect normal," a nice neutral figure, and f/11 because many modern lenses hit their best around f/8 or f/11. (Pic related.)
The argument that stopping down for more depth of field on FX sensors will get the same image quality re: noise is potentially true, but this assumes that the increased depth of field and the increased noise on the smaller sensor increase by the same amount. This may or may not be true; I don't know. However, diffraction would mean that, if you're going for depth of field, overall you should get better quality with a slightly smaller sensor. OTOH, if you like shooting wide open with a shallow depth of field, a 36x24mm sensor would be a better choice. Different priorities, different formats. Just like always.
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm
(The calculator I used is at the very bottom of this page.)
And someone else is dealing with the whole Moore's Law and economic issues quite capably, so I'll let him handle that.
|