johnctharp Online Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sold: WANDRD PRVKE 31 Photography backpack | |
I'll point out that depth of field isn't an advantage for small sensors. Equivalence discussion follows.
Basically, you can get the same DOF by stopping down on larger sensors- and the amount of ISO increase to keep the same exposure at the narrower apertures, will result in similar final noise levels, varying by exact cameras being compared. I actually consider this to be a benefit to the smaller sensor, as you're not really losing too much for the same resulting depth of field, but you do have a smaller camera!
Further, remember that diffraction is related to absolute pixel size. The larger the pixels, the further the lens can be stopped down into diffraction, which means that you don't lose acuity on the larger sensor by stopping down the lens on the larger sensor more than the lens on the smaller sensor to match depth of field.
The real kicker here is the lenses, and the native ISO setting. On the best full-frame cameras, you have access to a wider range of better corrected lenses which allows you to extract more detail, and with the lower native ISO, you can get a lower noise single shot with longer exposures.
But the lenses- yeah. For the smaller system, you simply must have wider apertures available, and if you don't, the larger system is going to give you better final image quality.
**To the OP: I think, with planning and care, you could get very excellent results out of an RX100 III for landscape shooting. Just be careful not to stop down too far, as diffraction will set in quick!
|