Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I'd have thought this was done to death, but then there's always the new people to the table.If you think of this as equivalent print sizes for a given resolution, then one realises how small the difference really is.
Hi ThereI'd have thought this was done to death, but then there's always the new people to the table.
Personally I'm more interested in:
- size of photosite (to minimise noise)
- size of format to change bokeh and DoF
from where I sit the difference to APS is negligible, the steps are more like doubling before you see substantial changes. So:
- 4/3
- 35mm
- 645
- 6x9
- 4x5
- 8x10
The only real jump is from APS to FF or larger. The only APS sensor that is better than the Olympus m4/3rds sensor is the one in the Fuji X-Pro1 and that has to do with design, not size. If Fuji releases a FF sensor, that'll be it for Nikon-Canon dominance in image quality.Well, not really!
I just found an interesting website - I think that in most comparisons you only see 1/4 of the sensor, which makes the difference look bigger.
There is a common feeling that APSc is much bigger than m4/3, but, when you look at it like this:
all the best
thats the case,>so the APS-C is 163% of the size of the micro 4/3
Maybe a linear comparison is more realistic? 128% linear and the diff sounds less.