Do not be fooled by the exhaustiveness

Oct - 11
2017
exhaustiveness

Do not be fooled by the exhaustiveness

Do not be fooled by the exhaustiveness

Exhaustiveness: When I arrived in Italy for a two-week photo shoot, I’m not going to have a full image sensor, and I do not carry an APS-C camera. I changed for a long time. I will have however, it is a system of four-thirds micro and a thorough knowledge of how to use it to my advantage. If true; I think it’s possible to take better landscape photos with a smaller sensor. There, I said; But before putting in the comment box, let me explain why I make this request.

1. Bigger is not better
When there is a large depth of field, a larger sensor is not better. In fact, it is easier to get a great depth of field with a smaller sensor. For example, an aperture F5.6 in a 4/3 micro camera provides the depth of field equivalent to f8 in an APS-C and f11 in an integral frame model. This provides the user with 4/3 micro 1-2 additional light stops, while creating a specific focus tightly the moment. Since the target does not stop completely, the image does not suffer from diffraction. If this theory of equivalence in depth of field is new to you, you will want to read this educational article.

2. A head-to-head comparison in
For the same exposure and the equivalent depth of field, an example of how sensor size affects parameters.

Micro 4/3: 1/125, F5.6, ISO 200
APS-C: 1/125, f8, ISO 400
Full Frame: 1/125, f11, ISO 800

This is summed up nicely by Cambridge in color notes that: “… if you want to maintain the same depth of field, larger sensor sizes do not necessarily have a lead resolution.”

3. In practice, there is no ISO
When you reach deeper depth of field with larger openings, you can use a lower ISO. This is important to understand as it means that your image quality improves. This essentially avoids any benefit offered by the full frame sensor with respect to noise levels. When micro 4/3 user can shoot ISO 800 and f4, the complete user frame should shoot ISO 3200 and f8. Combine it with image stabilization in the camera and the advantage is even greater.

4. You can not see the difference
If it’s good enough for the most demanding stock brokers, it looks great on large prints, and it shows up on the Web, it’s good enough for me. A larger sensor will not improve your photos because the expensive golf clubs will not make you a professional golfer. This simple fact does not stop the cameras from companies trying to sell the idea better. Now, pixel users, and those based graphics, may be able to state otherwise. In reality, however, the results are clear. We have reached a point where the image quality is excellent on all types of sensors. Go to my website and try to see what images were taken with any camera. It is impossible to tell the difference despite having used a large amount of camera body and sensor size.

5. They are less portable
With a full-frame camera, the lens must be large to cover the sensor. This means that lenses are heavier and more difficult to carry around the day. Portability is what made smartphones the most popular cameras in the world. They are with you all the time. The same is true with a smaller sensor. It saves about half the weight, which helps you walk more and take more time. This can be the difference between getting the shot and getting lost altogether.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *