• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

In Perspective, Planet: Crop or Crap

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,

Thank you to that link to a very interesting and worthwhile essay.

Zack echos my point that, in digital cameras, we somehow decided that a format size of 36 mm × 24 mm is the ne plus ultra, the whole enchilada of sensor sizes, and we must think that anything smaller is an unfortunate, sad compromise. What about sensors larger than the ne plus ultra? Well, they are wonderful, but too big, and too expensive.

Of course in the matter of sensor sizes, as with many other things, there is a spectrum over which various properties vary (sometimes predictably, sometimes not). I mostly shoot today with a camera with a 3/3 ("one inch") sensor. And with that I enjoy, even at a large aperture, a great depth of field.

One's mileage may vary.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fahim,

I could only get half way. He made his point within the first 30 seconds!

It is a beautiful video. A little secret: movies don't depend so much as on detail intensity as on shapes and great sound.

Sensor or film size just depends on end use, habit and convenience. But in truth, wedding albums can be of Pro quality using 4/3 sizes sensors.

Obviously, larger sensors provide more leeway.

Asher
 
Top