3 ms·
Totally agree that huge prints are the historical reason for MF and higher. These days a high-resolution LCD is the most common medium of display, and most peop
by astrostl 10y ago
Totally agree that huge prints are the historical reason for MF and higher. These days a high-resolution LCD is the most common medium of display, and most people with serious gear can't help but pixel-peep their images at 100%. I think that, shallow depth of field, and lower noise are the biggest drivers for bigger sensors at this point.
- contingencies 10y agoI'm not sure about the DOF argument; however I would say that any advantage offered by larger formats is largely countered by the significantly broader and cheaper lens selection on 35mm FF. Noise may increase based upon sensor density, however it is pretty much irrelevant in sensor selection given that mass market stuff is so much more advanced in high sensitivities (through hardware and software). My personal impression is that unless you plan to shoot >3600ISO shots with medium format (which nobody does: probably it's not even offered on those sensors), you are going to get superior quality for 1/10th of the price (or less) with the prosumer 35mm/FF stuff (not to mention the other benefits such as lens selection). Noise that is significant at standard output formats (HD, screen resolutions, normal sized prints) really only kicks in at super high ISOs (easily ISO1000+). This wasn't the case a few years back, but certainly is now. Pixel peeping is almost completely pointless for standard output formats, regardless of consumer enthusiasm. With currently offered resolutions, it's frequently pointless even with heavy cropping.