Post by paulhofseth on Sept 13, 2013 9:03:26 GMT -5
As stated on FF above: ".... drag a camera bag.......", the FFs have to have the disadvantage of weight and size. Smaller formats can have disproportionally smaller lenses serving the same purposes, so even two or three lenses will fit in various pockets. Assuming equally advanced sensor technology, the losses entailed by lightveight equipment relate to the need for enlargement. No crops, A5 formats, not much (zero?) practical difference. With heavy cropping instead of carrying more than one lens it is a different matter.
On the theoretical side, one might reason that if smaller sensor elements were used in order to keep the pixel count equal,there will be a smaller area for catching the photons. There hasa been quite a lot of net-discussions of this , but it would still be nice to be enlightened as to whether with equal technology,the same basic signal to noise and same output per photon, the larger sensor-element would win. Not all signal pollution is independent of input levels, and if a sensor is saturated by x photons, x times two photons and signal might not make for better dynamic range.
For immovable subjects HDR will give whichever dynamic range the output media can handle, while stitching images by computing power will provide wideangle or exceedingly detailed views.
The conclusion would seem to be that if weight and room are limiting factors and time is on your side, an M4\3 or smaller would do. If subjects are moving or if you do not wish to spend lots of time processing results and big enlargements or crops are needed, the larger format wins. The price paid is to drag heavier and larger gear.
p.
On the theoretical side, one might reason that if smaller sensor elements were used in order to keep the pixel count equal,there will be a smaller area for catching the photons. There hasa been quite a lot of net-discussions of this , but it would still be nice to be enlightened as to whether with equal technology,the same basic signal to noise and same output per photon, the larger sensor-element would win. Not all signal pollution is independent of input levels, and if a sensor is saturated by x photons, x times two photons and signal might not make for better dynamic range.
For immovable subjects HDR will give whichever dynamic range the output media can handle, while stitching images by computing power will provide wideangle or exceedingly detailed views.
The conclusion would seem to be that if weight and room are limiting factors and time is on your side, an M4\3 or smaller would do. If subjects are moving or if you do not wish to spend lots of time processing results and big enlargements or crops are needed, the larger format wins. The price paid is to drag heavier and larger gear.
p.