« on: January 22, 2013, 02:16:11 PM »
The original post talks about "sharpness". A few posts are comparing DR, noise between the two formats. These are "picture quality", not sharpness only. Some poster throw in "post production", that is not a valid arguement either. My take on this subject are:
1. For the same pixel count on both formats, both can be as sharp as each other, assuming that the lens can out resolve both sensor in the imaging area. That will put a lot of stress on the lens for APS-C sensor. The lens need 1.6 time reolving power compare to the FF.
2. There are isolated incident that the APS-C can actually sharper than the FF if the lens use for FF have a severe problem in curvature of field or severe unsharp conrners. Since APS-C snesor only using the center part of the FOV of the lens. These problem may not exist. Therefore the APS-C is actually sharper.
3. FF will be sharper if the lens cannot out resolve the APS-C sensor but it will out resolve the FF.
4. There is no doubt that FF will have better picture quality than thre APS-C, due to less noise, better DR.
5. The above piont is assuming that the lens is not being diffraction limited. The DOF is not affecting the sharpness either
6. In print, most of the difference will not be obvious due to the printing process.
7. How many people can tell the difference in music between amplifier with 0.01% distotion and amplifier with 0.005 % distortion??