Originally posted by enoeske Cropping it enlarges the noise/image ratio.
I call "bull" on that statement. If the K1 is cropped to the same res as a lower res sensor (which is the Apsc equal of the FF crop), in post processing, how can that possibly introduce noise. It doesn't.
---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 07:35 PM ----------
Originally posted by christiandre "Cropping it enlarge the noise/ image ratio"
....Even with a software crop ?
Exactly, it's just a crop, no modification of the image whatsoever.
---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 07:39 PM ----------
Originally posted by audiobomber Same.
It won't be the same. If the new K-1 sensor has blistering high ISO performance, which it can be expected to have, it will be better than the K5. Same pixels, same size crop, better technical advancement.
---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 07:41 PM ----------
Originally posted by amoringello Exactly!
People keep trying to sneak in their understanding (or misunderstanding) of "equivalence" and moving the camera or changing focal length, pixel density, print size, etc...
With all things being equal, cutting that cropped square out of the middle of the larger sensor will not change a thing. Physics of light does not change simply because it is hitting a larger or smaller screen.
You are right, a crop is just a crop, it doesn't change a thing about the pixels, if the FF sensor is equal to the scaled up version of the Apsc sensor.
---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 07:42 PM ----------
Originally posted by derekkite [/COLOR]A quick quiz, without checking. Which has a larger depth of field.
100mm at 200cm distance 2.8 on full frame.
100mm at 200cm distance 2.8 on apsc.
Same DOF there, no difference.