« on: November 22, 2014, 04:42:02 PM »
How about the Mikaton 50mm f/0.95 lens to go with your Sony A7II?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm no expert on this, so I'll refer you to: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter and to jrista's various write-ups.Scenario 2: normalize for the field of view (20.0 degrees)
FF sensor - 36x24 mm, 3600x2400 (8.60Mp), 100mm lens
APS-C sensor - 22.2x14.8 mm, 2220x1480 (3.29Mp), 61.7mm lens
4/3 sensor - 17.3x13.3 mm, 1730x1330 (2.30Mp), 48.1mm lens
1/2.3 sensor - 5.76x4.29 mm, 576x429 (0.25Mp), 16.0mm lens
We now have the same field of view from the cameras. Each sensor will have the exact same IQ, the ISO performance and the noise performance will be identical.
In this case, what sensor size buys you is the number of pixels and over the same field of view, the FF camera has far greater resolving power.
To me this is the only case that matters -- the question is irrelevant and misleading unless we're talking about identically-framed shots. With identically framed shots, a larger sensor will collect more light from the overall field of view (and therefore per-unit-area of the scene), even if the smaller sensor has larger pixels. With our hypothetical identical technology, a smaller sensor with larger pixels simply cannot collect the same amount of light as a larger sensor. Compare this to 35mm film vs MF film using identical emulsion. To what degree that's important depends on the lighting of the scene. Higher pixel density may give higher resolution (if the lens allows it).
Actually this conspiracy theory was debunked by Myth Busters.
Of course a couple of movie special effects guys know all about photography and lighting, how silly of us all. Case closed.
Not so fast.
I didn't really give this much thought until I looked in to it and frankly a lot of the photos have been faked using studio lighting. No doubt about it.
However, that does not mean that we didn't land on the moon. It means that NASA wanted some pro-shots for publicity. And some of those shots are beautiful - the colours, framing of subject and lighting are all spot on. Not easily done without a view-finder in such a high contrast environment.
I also like the part about how it was too dangerous so it would not have been done for real....Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.
Imagine sitting on the top of a 363 foot high tube filled with 6,030,000 pounds of high explosives, knowing that someone was going to ignite it and the blast would send you into orbit. That takes real bravery. If they are prepared to accept that, then they were probably ready to accept a bit of radiation... The plan for a solar storm was to shelter behind the heat shield of the re-entry module and if a solar storm happened while on the moon, to abort the landing mission and return to the orbiter.
These people were prepared to die, but hoped that they didn't. They had seen friends die in rockets and they went anyway.... and then someone in their nice comfy chair says it must be faked because it was too dangerous..
Show some respect!
the new Fuji X-T1 all the way+1