On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:34:42 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


The best way to answer this question is to actually work with both
combinations and see what works best for you. It is the same sort of
questions about using 4x5 or 2¼ and using a faster film speed in the 4x5 or
not etc. Much of the difference is very difficult to describe or quantify.


It's not really all that mystical, except maybe to
Ilya. It's a good question and worth debating,
because it's so fundamental.

As photographers, we're gatherers of light.
Big cameras gather more light than small ones,
and it almost always shows in the end, if you
care enough to look closely. This applies in a
totally fair, just, equitable and non-discriminatory
manner to both film and digital cameras.

[A serious question to the OP: do you care
enough to look closely?]

It goes without saying that "bigness" is a mixed
blessing. Think about it. It's not about f-stops
after all, is it? It's about how much glass you're
willing to carry to get the shot.

In the specific context of digicam sensors, what
reallly matters most is the size of the individual
sensels. If you cram more sensels into the same
area, each one then gets smaller and thus collects
less light. Better to use more silicon, but that gets
expensive, etc.

Ilya thinks we can make sensels infinitesimally
small. Methinks he's been hitting a bit heavy
on Ye Olde Cracke Rock.

Some of the best minds on this NG have tried
argue with him, but he persists. Ilya knows that
light is the thing, but he thinks we can just harvest
less and use it more efficiently. Or something.

The only way around this is to address the
underlying physics and technology. That
doesn't happen from one product cycle to
the next.

Back to the OP. Full frame sensors have
the advantage of working "as designed"
with existing 35 mm lenses. Which, amazingly,
is also hotly debated around here.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com