Zack Arias Debunks the Full Frame / Crop Sensor Debate
- Thread starter Krs_2007
- Start date
Negligible.
AC016
Senior Member
Sure is, but you can get the same FOV with a DX. You just have to buy a different lens. Example: 35mm DX on a DX body gives more or less the same FOV as a 50mm FX on an FX body (47 degrees). FOV is not really a strong argument to go full frame in my opinion.
The problem with what you are saying is that when you are using a 35mm to equal the FOV of a 50mm. You are not getting the same compression per say..Which makes a difference on how a face and body looks...Im not knocking DX...Just saying why I prefer FX..I got tired of backing way up to compose my shot..This way I can engage with my models better as well.
Nero
Senior Member
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
(since we're battling with single words...)
Hardly
(and don't make me give you a moment of math to prove it!!)
Last edited:
The problem with photography discussions is everything works together and digital just makes the everything more complicated.
There are major differences in the complicated stuff that produces the image, but not in the end result for most photography.
Checked out the moments of math tutorial. Here's a number to add to it. My phone camera has a 1/3.2" sensor with roughly 500,000 pixels per square millimeter. That's more pixels in a square millimeter then the first digital sensors had total. I need to experiment some more, but it seems to handle low light better than the D3200. Now the whole package of the camera phone can't compete with a DSLR.
Point is the technology is passed the point of sensor size meaning much of anything and they are only going to get better.
Still might need an FX or MF or 8x10 for some other reason, but it's not really going to be the sensor if looking at newer cameras.
There are major differences in the complicated stuff that produces the image, but not in the end result for most photography.
Checked out the moments of math tutorial. Here's a number to add to it. My phone camera has a 1/3.2" sensor with roughly 500,000 pixels per square millimeter. That's more pixels in a square millimeter then the first digital sensors had total. I need to experiment some more, but it seems to handle low light better than the D3200. Now the whole package of the camera phone can't compete with a DSLR.
Point is the technology is passed the point of sensor size meaning much of anything and they are only going to get better.
Still might need an FX or MF or 8x10 for some other reason, but it's not really going to be the sensor if looking at newer cameras.
Not battlling, just quoting Zack Arias from the video. Maybe he's wrong.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Regarding field of view, he absolutely is wrong. Not that it can't be overcome with different lenses, but if you're going to say sensors are of the same quality then you need to say that lenses are also, and when you get to the higher quality FX glass you're gonna be hard pressed to find focal equivalent stuff in DX of the same quality level. So he's wrong. But his real point is that it ultimately doesn't matter, and on that point he's correct.