Re: Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
denoir wrote:
Furthermore it puts much more strain on a lens. Smaller pixels = higher spatial frequency required to resolve a given image which in turn means lower (micro)contrast.
So while you do get a boost on the tele end when using a crop sensor (your 100mm becomes the equivalent of 150mm and so on), you get this at a very high price - a significant drop in quality as you are asking much more from the lens.
This is becoming OT but...
Interesting, I\'ve heard this before, but have never seen any evidence of the supposed lower quality you mention. Do you have a link comparing the same lens on a cropped FF image and an APS-C image, showing this drop in quality? Because what you are actually saying is that for a future FF 38 megapixel camera (same density as the NEX you are comparing), you would have a \"significant drop in quality\" compared to the current 5DII with its 21 megapixels with the same lens.
Again, I could be wrong, would love to see a comparison. Would do it myself if I had a 5DII.
Edit: Found this test which shows the complete opposite of what you are saying. APS-C has the advantage for tele precisley because of better sensor resolution. Makes sense.
Re: Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
denoir wrote:
Furthermore it puts much more strain on a lens. Smaller pixels = higher spatial frequency required to resolve a given image which in turn means lower (micro)contrast.
So while you do get a boost on the tele end when using a crop sensor (your 100mm becomes the equivalent of 150mm and so on), you get this at a very high price - a significant drop in quality as you are asking much more from the lens.
This is becoming OT but...
Interesting, I\'ve heard this before, but have never seen any evidence of the supposed lower quality you mention. Do you have a link comparing the same lens on a cropped FF image and an APS-C image, showing this drop in quality? Because what you are actually saying is that for a future FF 38 megapixel camera (same density as the NEX you are comparing), you would have a \"significant drop in quality\" compared to the current 5DII with its 21 megapixels with the same lens.
Again, I could be wrong, would love to see a comparison. Would do it myself if I had a 5DII.
Re: Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan
denoir wrote:
Furthermore it puts much more strain on a lens. Smaller pixels = higher spatial frequency required to resolve a given image which in turn means lower (micro)contrast.
So while you do get a boost on the tele end when using a crop sensor (your 100mm becomes the equivalent of 150mm and so on), you get this at a very high price - a significant drop in quality as you are asking much more from the lens.
This is becoming OT but...
Interesting, I\'ve heard this before, but have never seen any evidence of the supposed lower quality you mention. Do you have a link comparing the same lens on a cropped FF image and an APS-C image, showing this drop in quality? Because what you are actually saying is that for a future FF 38 megapixel camera (same density as the NEX you are comparing), you would have a \"significant drop in quality\" compared to the current 5DII with its 21 megapixels with the same lens.
I belive that a high quality lens can\'t be a bottle neck when it comes to resolution, after all, all it does is let throgh clean, concentrated light. It\'s the sensor receiveing and interpreting that light which must perform well.
Again, I could be wrong, would love to see a comparison. Would do it myself if I had a 5DII.
Nov 15, 2011 at 06:40 AM
Previous versions of briantho's message #10086300 « Giving up 5D II for NEX? My experience in Japan »
