12-28-2014, 04:03 PM
And out of this two choices it IS the better tool, of course. ^_^ Compared to an APS-C (Bayer-pattern) Sensor and given the max. possible resolution, the full frame provides more details at the same printing size. Which should be a bit more than 8×10"...
But then, a Medium Format sensor provides more detail and color depth than the Full Frame. And if you have a very quiet and not moving at all landscape, you could stitch a couple of frames together and so on…
That's valid, if "landscape" means "lots of details". To get a characteristically impression of a landscape, I can use much less details. But then I prefer to reduce the (maybe distracting) details later on and still benefit more from a higher resolving sensor. Which, by the way, I'm happy to use for tele shots and crop them afterwards. A current Nikon D8x0 is always a decent APS-C, too - and all in one body.
I mentioned "Bayer-pattern" before, because if the light conditions are not too much of a contrast and I don't need the FoV of an ultra wide lens, I still prefer using Foveon sensors - lots of details, incredible sharpness. If Sigma ever manages to make a FF Foveon, together with fast enough CPU to save ~ 120MB RAW data per picture, not much people would care for Otus lenses in front of Bayer-sensors -_- well, one can dream...
But then, a Medium Format sensor provides more detail and color depth than the Full Frame. And if you have a very quiet and not moving at all landscape, you could stitch a couple of frames together and so on…
That's valid, if "landscape" means "lots of details". To get a characteristically impression of a landscape, I can use much less details. But then I prefer to reduce the (maybe distracting) details later on and still benefit more from a higher resolving sensor. Which, by the way, I'm happy to use for tele shots and crop them afterwards. A current Nikon D8x0 is always a decent APS-C, too - and all in one body.
I mentioned "Bayer-pattern" before, because if the light conditions are not too much of a contrast and I don't need the FoV of an ultra wide lens, I still prefer using Foveon sensors - lots of details, incredible sharpness. If Sigma ever manages to make a FF Foveon, together with fast enough CPU to save ~ 120MB RAW data per picture, not much people would care for Otus lenses in front of Bayer-sensors -_- well, one can dream...