> From: Bob Benson <bob.benson91@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> If the two sensors have the same pixel count (e.g., 16 meg) ... and all
> other factors are managed for creating the same image with each sensor
> (e.g., f stop) ... is there a basis for asserting the FF would render a
> sharper image ?
The answer to all questions of moderate or greater complexity is, “It depends.”
Which one do you *like* better?
For me, it’s a no-brainer. An image I have is sharper than one I think I can
get by spending more money.
I’m happy as a clam with my OM-D. I don’t want to carry FF.
Simple physics dictates that IBIS cannot be as good with FF than 4/3rds, too.
So add a tripod to the mix, if you REALLY want to get the most sharpness out of
FF. If want the ultimate sharpness, the old 1/f rule doesn’t work for
hand-holding; you need at least two to four times as fast an exposure. So the
sharpness you get hand-held at 200mm with 4/3rds can only be had hand-held at
50mm with FF.
I don’t want to carry a tripod in order to shoot tack-sharp images at 1/8th. I
don’t care if FF is theoretically capable of more sharpness, if you have to use
a tripod to get said sharpness.
For 90% of my photography, my tripod is either a copy stand, or a motorized
equatorial mount.
(For shot-to-shot consistency, I’m using a tripod for product photography for
websites, but WHO CARES about minor sharpness differences when the image will
be 256 pixels wide? A photo of soap in a box is not going to be blown up to 36”
and shown in a gallery. :-)
Here’s some soap for you, to wash that evil “specmanship” taste out of your
mouth. (BTW: this shot is not possible in 4/3rds, which has too much DOF for
such things... :-)
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/adapted-lens-image-thread.302/page-162#post-1073271
Jan Steinman
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|