Originally posted by Adam It's not the equipment, its the photographer. People who buy fullframes are more likely to be really into photography, and thus you can expect a higher proportion of eye opening photos from users of those cameras than your everyday rebel, k-r, or d3000 snapshots.
While ff also holds a technical advantage, it doesn't necessarily lead to better images
Hi Adam,
Yes I did think much the same (ie a pro is going to have a FF at the end of the day) but I was wondering when people talk about 'larger pixels' as an advantage, e,g when people compared d700 and the 5d mark ii back in the day, is it only an advantage in terms of high iso performance (potentially, though obviously more advanced higher mp sensors of later generation can often match older sensors of lower mp count)? Or does it have some effect on the overall feel of the image.
I understand this sounds extremely stupid... but there is something i cannot put my finger on that just makes a FF image have something 'extra' than a pro looking aps-c one does not. Maybe it's canon's colour rendition that I am finding pleasing (mostly 5d mk iis/iiis used by the people's albums i am using atm).
Charlie
---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 11:24 AM ----------
Originally posted by narual Wonder how that observation would play out if you were shown random photos without having any indication what kind of camera they were taken with. As it sits, confirmation bias seems evident.
May well be, makes absolutely no sense to me, but when I refer to an image as 'pleasing' I just mean more on my eye - as in it's as if I dont have to squint so much (not that I squint, but just to demonstrate it is not an emotional reaction I am referring to but more a physical one).
I understand this makes no sense..hence I am asking the question. Maybe it is a bit like looking at a photo taken with some Leica glass and then comparing it to something with a standard lens and thinking 'wow that image really pops in a way i cannot put my finger on'. So i wouldn't be able to really describe what I mean by 'pop' both might appear very similar in terms of colour and composition. Now here the word isn't 'pop' but I just find them more pleasing - it is as if my brain does not have to do as much processing.
Do FF cameras tend to produce 'sharper' images? Are they better at recording subtleties in lighting? Or am I just mad?
I am not trolling.
Charlie