[house]

I do think I see a step up in some intangible qualities when moving up from apsc to ff. I'd call it smoothness or spaciousness.

I know nothing about optical design but wonder if focal length has an impact. Does the constraints created by focal length change how the image is perceived (taking into account real manufacturing). The larger the sensor the longer the focal length for the same framing. I say this because I find that short telephoto lenses can start to show some of the FF, MF qualities even on apsc, but naturally with much tighter framing. The tighter framing is not just an aside however as the tighter crop makes the image less immersive and intimate.

[rdenney]

Sure, more pixels will result in more detail. No surprises there, that is pure maths. I never said it would not. I clearly mentioned that a 645D/Z has double the resolution of that 24MP D750 I gave as an example. But my point was more that the "medium format look" - probably a sensitive topic on this forum - could not solely come from "large pixels" if those pixels are not larger or smaller than a semi-pro fullframe camera - a sensor that is not much smaller than those in 645D/Z's. As I stated before, the difference between a digital 645 and fullframe is about the same as that of fullframe and APS-C. Yet, nobody talks about "beter tonality" and "that fullframe look" on a fullframe camera vs crop camera (APS-C). I'm not trying to kill the mood or be a troll, it's just something I find interesting to read.

Perhaps you are missing my point. It’s not just more pixels, it’s more large pixels.

And if you haven’t heard about better tonality in full-frame vs APS-C, then I have to think your aren’t reading the same things I’m reading. Because I’ve sure heard about it, and have for years. But then my first full-frame camera was a Canon 5D, and believe me more large pixels for greater tonality was very much a driving factor in what made that camera a classic of its era.

Rick “not theory” Denney