Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    1,291
    Default
    Basically I think the difference is that "you will notice it but it won't ruin your day". I am much more concerned about aliasing and moire than the loss of the multi-aspect ratio sensor.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Default
    Facinating to see basic camera discussions unfold. Old School here. Life begins with an image circle and a sensor dimension. I'd think everyone knew that but not everyone goes to 'photo school'.
    Camera companies' marketing people ought to be shot for failing to properly educate their customers, but I've seen this before in other domains.
    The Bjorn Utpott diagram tells the whole story in a single snapshot.

    One observation of mine if I may....
    While it is a fact that the angle of view is the same in all ratios except 1:1, the perceptual visualizer in me wishes to remind that perceived angle is different from absolute angle of view with respect to the optics on the sensor. In other words, the 16:9 crop will appear comparably WIDER and camera reoriented for a vertical, TALLER than 3:2 and that, wider and taller than 4:3.
    The significance of this is tremendous when one is seeking to convey expansiveness or 'height' (in the case of stills.)
    I simply never bother with anything other than 16:9, unless I'm shooting for a square layout.
    Last edited by Zephyrnoid; 10-04-2012 at 03:05 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Default
    If my math is correct that is 17-18% more sensor surface area for the GH2 in 16:9 mode than the GH3 - that seems significant no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shenan View Post
    ...A loss of 1.75mm, or ~8.1% diagonal frame size.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    El Cerrito CA
    Posts
    920
    Default
    Yes, it is about 16 percent less surface area. You have 199.28 surface area compared to 167.81, estimated, of course. But since the sensors are of a different design, it is hard to compare them. For example, m43 is smaller than APSC, but it still has good IQ. What's important is the IQ, and we shall see.
    HD Video: GH5, G85, ax700
    Microphones: Sennheiser MKH 80 MKH20 MKH40
    Neumann 11-pattern dual capsule main pair by Rens Heijnis
    Schoeps MK2, MK2H, MK21, MK41
    own design ribbon mics




    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Orleans, La
    Posts
    577
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Shenan View Post
    7D and D3100: 26.8mm (crop factor 1.54x)
    This is incorrect. Nikon and Canon have slightly different APS-C's. Worse, they've given you Canon's diagonal but Nikon's typical FLM. Even worse, they've cited a Nikon with somewhat a-typical FLM. I applaud Abel for building a great app but do not trust the numbers they've fed it (although I feel the problem is precision rather than accuracy [ie rounding errors]).

    D7000 - 23.6 x 15.6 (28.29 diagonal, 1.529x FLM)
    D3100 - 23.1 x 15.4 (27.76 diagonal, 1.56x FLM)
    7D - 22.9 x 14.9 (26.82 diagonal, 1.61x FLM)
    Last edited by Lee Saxon; 10-09-2012 at 07:14 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Orleans, La
    Posts
    577
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DrDave View Post
    For example, m43 is smaller than APSC, but it still has good IQ. What's important is the IQ, and we shall see.
    m4/3 is mildly smaller than APS-C and generally has mildly lower IQ. I think there's definitely at least a loose size/IQ correlation.

    However, your broader point ("just because it's a little smaller doesn't mean it sucks") is absolutely true.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida
    Posts
    783
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Saxon View Post
    m4/3 is mildly smaller than APS-C and generally has mildly lower IQ. I think there's definitely at least a loose size/IQ correlation.

    However, your broader point ("just because it's a little smaller doesn't mean it sucks") is absolutely true.

    ??

    Show me an aps-c camera with nicer Video quality than a GH2.......


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member Hidef1080's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    684
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Saxon View Post
    m4/3 is mildly smaller than APS-C and generally has mildly lower IQ. I think there's definitely at least a loose size/IQ correlation.
    For stills... Yes in most cases.
    Not for video.
    The small GH2 hacked or not has better IQ than most full frame and APS dslr's.

    There is so much more than size when IQ is viewed.
    An UNPURE D800, Canon 7D | Dell M6500 - MSI GS70 | Windows 7 Pro 64bit - 8 Pro 64bit


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •