3 ms·
> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor. One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I'
by rodgerd 10y ago
> I'm just not going to spend that much of a premium on a what is almost a repackaged phone sensor.
One of the more spectacularly ignorant and stupid things I've read on HN, which is saying a lot.
> but you get deep depth of field.
Oh, right you don't actually know what you're talking about, you're just parroting talking points you read somewhere.
- KaiserPro 10y agoIt is as they say, hyperbole. Of course aps-c isn't a phone sensor, because making a monolith lens thin enough isn't worth it. (a lenticular array, maybe. But then who outside of VFX wants light field pictures?) You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Smaller sensor for the same focal length yields a wider depth of field. Yadda yadda field of view. This is why the stock lens 35 mm, because its about the same field of view as 50mm lens on a 35 mm sensor. (or why medium formats have ~80mm lens) However, of course I'm just parroting that "from else where". Yup, no sir, no first hand experience at all.
- rodgerd 10y ago> It is as they say, hyperbole. Was it a social experiment, as well? > You are of course aware that sensor size and focal length directly affect the depth of field. Yes, but it doesn't make it deeper on larger sensors, which is what you asserted.