Originally posted by Emacs Wrong
I meant:
1) Smaller pictures looks sharper than largers
2) When printed at the same format common part of the image taken with FF is lesser than on taken with APS-C. Thus it looks sharper. Edges problem is not particularly significant: it's avoided with composition and, on the other hand, the edges on FF most probably aren't worse than on APS-C, but the central part is much better with FF, so the edges are noticeable due to the difference. The excellent example of this is 31Ltd: it's not good enough wide open on APS-C. But I taken many film shots with it at @f1.8, and the results were more than satisfactory.
1. 40 MP 645D's or 37.5 MP Leica S2's pictures look sharper than APS-C pictures...
2. By the way - You use really WRONG English words and WRONG grammar for your explanation sometimes
...Not the problem, but it grates on the ears of English-speaking men...
IMO. Really hard to understand what you mean.
You are myth-maker...Show us, please, the comparision of the same picture which made from colour film and by K10D, for example.
FA31 is GOOD at APS-C.
As for 135 film - it's rather hard to compare 135 film shots with shots from DSLR...It seems to me - good colour film + good development + good scanner + good soft are just the level of 6 MP APS-C in terms of sharpness...Not above. B&W film is better.
Edges problem, chromatic aberrations, vignetting and distortion are significant -
just for review - please, compare
Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM DG II - APS-C Format Review / Lab Test Report Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM DG II - Review / Test Report