Full Frame Advantage

[cichlid]

Article by KRW

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full...-advantage.htm

[Cheesecake]

Originally Posted by cichlid Article by KRW http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full...-advantage.htm

woooooo *** strikes again.

[giantcanopy]

marketting strategy ?

[advrider]

full frame.

[arpinkor]

I think it wasn't too long ago when KRW called Full Frame "oversized". Now he changed tune and says Full Frame is good. (reminds me of Animal Farm "Four legs good, two legs bad").

[Frijj]

Well, KRW is not the most objective person around... but I still root for FF.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by arpinkor I think it wasn't too long ago when KRW called Full Frame "oversized". Now he changed tune and says Full Frame is good. (reminds me of Animal Farm "Four legs good, two legs bad").

I think after having a kid, he's not thinking right anymore.

1) Canon 5D has a more aggressive sharpening algorithm, of course it's sharper, ,I think if I processed the images from D200, I could probably get close to that kind of resolution. Yes, I'll have to agree that, the resolving power of lenses play a big part.

If you want to use a smaller sensor, then you'll have to redesign lenses to have a higher resolving power at a wider aperture. Testing at f/8 puts the lens closer to diffraction limits. The sharpest aperture for DX sized sensor beyond 10MP is around f/5.6, even though the sharpest aperture for the lens may be f/8. He did mention about this is the later part of his article, but this is not any new knowledge. This is a problem with packing more megapixels on a smaller size sensor, not a problem of the format size.

2) Colour has NOTHING to do with format. Comparing the colour of a Canon with that of a Nikon is not a fair thing to do because they render the colours differently.

The other real problem of a smaller sized sensor is noise, again, associated with trying to pack more pixels over a smaller area.

3) Using a cheap lens on FF vs an expensive lens on DX, I think he forgot to look at the corners. Cheaper lenses do not have good correction of coma and this will be more evident with wide angle lenses on full frame.

So bottomline is, if the wideangles available for DX are good enough for you, and you do not need images more than 6MP, then DX is cheaper and good enough. Otherwise, if you really need >12MP images or extreme wideangles, FF is the way to go, but there will be other problems also, eg price, storage capacity, processing time...

[sammy888]

Originally Posted by Frijj Well, KRW is not the most objective person around... but I still root for FF.

He is getting more commercialised and you can't fault him entirely and one should read his site with a pinch of salt lah. Also being human he is also looking after his ricebowl if he is begining to depend more and more on his site as a means of income. He is right most of the time but when there is a need to "bend" it abit or maybe he did honestly misread his stuff...he could be wrong. I for one read his site but I also double or triple check other sites too to get a consensus as how reliable any info is.

[CT 3833]

He mentioned in his article,
>>> "Cheap lens on full-frame vs. my best lens on DX. (roll your mouse over) " , appended with photo comparison..."<<<

there are significant difference in sharpness and color bewteen the DX anf FX format photo, is this true?

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by CT 3833 He mentioned in his article, >>> "Cheap lens on full-frame vs. my best lens on DX. (roll your mouse over) " , appended with photo comparison..."<<< there are significant difference in sharpness and color bewteen the DX anf FX format photo, is this true?

You can check out the comparison of D3 and D300. I think it would be a fairer evaluation since the processing engine/methodology are the same. Then again, they are supposed to be colour matched across models and ISO.