Originally posted by normhead Are you going to show us you're right, or are you expecting us to take your word for it? I've never seen such a lot of work put into speculation and supposition. It is impressive, only in that you're really struggling to show make a point and at a causal glance, you aren't even proving your own point.
Do you really think the enjoyment of images of IQ is in anyway related to the kinds of comparison's you're making. How hard do you have to look to see a difference? Can you enjoy an image by looking that hard? I can't maybe you can, I don't know. Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me. Nitpicking to the nth degree.
“Nitpicking to the nth degree” <----- this can be so easily applied to the great advantage that you seem to think that the 24mp aps-c image would have over what a 36mp cropped to 15mp.
If you take a look below you would have to squint to see any real world difference as seen between the K5 and K3 image.
But according to you this 24mp revolutionary increase in resolution for reach cannot be made up unless FF has the same FOV as a cropped sensor . Now have a look at the D4 you see a far great increase in resolution than you can see between going from the K5 to the K3. I will remind you this is the very site you referenced to showing how there is no resolution advantage when going to a larger format, if we use your site clearly the K3 struggles against the D4S @16mp. Could it be that cropping the image by a factor of 1.5 does decrease the resolution that the sensor can capture?
If you don’t like this site how about we look over at photozone and see what happens to resolution when using a smaller image circle.
Let’s take 4 prime lenses on a 16mp cropped sensor
da 40mm 2620 lw/ph
da 70 2706 lw/ph
Fa 43 2627 lw/ph
DA 35 2723 lw/ph
Average 2637 lw/ph so we see a very even resolution that the aps-c has
How about we compare it to a 16mp APS H with prime lenses
When we crop the D3X to 16mp it works out to be a camera with a 1.225 crop factor close to (aps h), this works out rather well as I have the same scaling when using a 36mpFF and crop it to 24mp it would work out to also a 1.225 crop.
24mm G 3933lw/ph cropped by 1.225 gives us 3210lw/ph
85mm 1.8 G 3872lw/ph ---------- 3160 lw/ph
50mm F1.8 G 3926lw/ph --------- 3234 lw/ph
28mm 1.8 G 3920lw/ph ---------- 3200 lw/ph
Average 3201 lw/ph so as you can see there is clearly an advantage to using a larger sensor( with only a aps h not a FF size sensor) with regard to resolution. For the most part that’s a resolution increase far greater than we see going from apsc kit zoom to many of the primes available for apsc and we see many folk that would consider it a worthwhile upgrade going from a kit zoom to prime (no squinting required)
Now how does this play out to what I have been saying all along
that one would not have to use the equivalent FL on FF to match the same reach factor that you think apsc has. If I was to use a lens with the same FOV (1.225 crop factor) on aps h 16mp camera I clearly have a resolution advantage over a 16mp apsc with the same FOV so please tell me which system would give me better resolution for printing larger or cropping more the 3201lw/ph or 2637lw/ph image ?
How much do I have to adjust the FL of aps h sensor to have the same reach as aps c sensor ? Let’s have a go at it, If I only use 13mp of that sensor the final resolution for that 13mp image would be 2849lw/ph On a aps H sensor with a 220mm lens I would have the same reach as 200mm on apsc and would not need the aps h ( CF 1.225) equivalent of 244mm for the same reach.
This jives with what I see going from the D800 cropping it to 24mp and then comparing it to apsc 24mp camera, for me to achieve the same reach as the 24mp apsc all I need to adjust the FL by much less than the crop factor.
Now if you like I could find another site that to yet again shows you that larger sensors holds a resolution advantage, or maybe we should go to the 645 group and let you
tell them that having a larger sensor holds NO resolution advantage. Or better yet lets have someone shoot a resolution chart with the 645d crop it to 24mp and then use the same lens on the k3 frame the chart the same see which has the greater recorded resolution. You might learn something if someone did.
---------- Post added 09-13-2015 at 01:57 PM ----------
“
Originally posted by normhead Do you really think the enjoyment of images of IQ is in anyway related to the kinds of comparison's you're making. How hard do you have to look to see a difference? Can you enjoy an image by looking that hard? I can't maybe you can, I don't know.” Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me
There is a difference to me but the greatest advantage of using FF it greatly increasing the versatility of your lenses as long as you’re not FL limited.
Like
You can substitute a zoom on FF and have the resolution of primes that zoom cover ( that’s a fair tradeoff in my book’s)
For the times when a TC is needed it has less of an effect to the final IQ when you are trying to increase the reach of your expensive lens
If it is going to cost me $2000-7000 on a long FL lenses I am sure going to look at what format is going to give the greatest mileage out of that FL and now that FF cameras are dropping it gives you a rather cheap way to maximize IQ and versatility of expensive FL lenses
Now if I was to base my decision solely on what your IQ requirements I would see no need for myself going with the K3 I would have stayed with the DS K10d or K7 and picked up a single lens like the sigma 50-500 or even the FAJ 70-300 this would have met those needs much better at a lot less money but that’s just me.
But thankfully I am not bound by what other people want out of their photographic equipment or what they think the standard IQ everyone else needs. I photographs for myself ( enjoyment ) and I am always up for the challenge to get the best out of my equipment.
“Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me”
Not when all the evidence points to a resolution increase when going to a larger format. I am at this time waiting for some evidence from your side showing the opposite from what I have stated, You saying otherwise sounds much more like a bunch of nonsense to me than people who use FF and witness this increase.