douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.14 #19 · Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan | |
I shoot square and other ratios all of the time. Pixel count influences the ease of doing this more than sensor size, for the most part, when you're talking a relatively modest sensor size increase from aps-c to 135.
Again, with 135 cameras being on an approximately 3x longer refresh rate than aps-c cameras, there are times such as now when the best aps-c cameras' IQ starts bumping up against 135 cameras that are a few years old, and that will especially be the case with the upcoming NEX-7. I don't think 2002 cameras are particularly relevant to the discussion, because those resolutions were struggling to make even modest sized prints at that time. Now we are at resolutions where even 20x30 prints look good, so basing IQ decisions on some incredibly large, potential or imaginary print that may never happen is misplacing priorities a bit. In fact, if it wasn't for size and ergonomic advantages, why were so many choosing 35mm over medium format film in the past? HCB chose Leica 35mm over medium format for the same reasons, and Leica wasn't even held in the same regard as Ikon at that point. He was really slumming it. 
If this discussion was about sensors that were further apart in size, I think it would be a little more sticky, but as someone who's shot a ton of both the most recent 135 technology and aps-c technology, the differences are subtle. I'm very happy with the CV 15/4.5 on the NEX-5N, and it competes rather well with my 20mm prime on my A900. Sure, I didn't have the BEST wide angle lens for my a900, the Zeiss 21/2.8, so I can't compare to that specifically, but I'm comparing the CV 15 to a perfectly capable full frame lens.
The massive adoption of m4/3s in the last few years has shown that, despite having a much wider IQ discrepancy with 135 when compared to aps-c, many have been willing to work within realistic print size bounds if it means a more ergonomic and/or enjoyable experience, or if it means the camera being in hand at the right time. Buying a car because it goes 200mph in case you may need it if you're in a random car chase probably isn't worth it if the car is uncomfortable to drive and costs a fortune, or if you never actually drive the car.
That being said, an unbloated, 135 DSLR would make waves and be great, as would an even smaller 135 mirror less camera. As of right now, we've only got one 135 camera that's a reasonable size, so I'm not really interested in sacrificing size for modest IQ gains, anymore. Of course, it's all a sliding scale, so YMMV.
p.s. while I respect preferring different lens looks, stating that there's an advantage to using 135 glass on 135 cameras because of more vignetting, corner softness and other types of "character" is a bit dubious. I'd imagine that most would praise any company that built lenses for their 135 cameras that exhibit none of the aberrations that our current 135 lenses exhibit, but cost and size is what is limiting manufacturers from doing so.
|
