![]() As the photography enthusiast population ages, size and weight become greater considerations and if you cannot see a difference in image quality, that’s not a bad thing.įor companies like Canon and Nikon who persist in naming their lenses with full frame focal lengths even when they are for APS-C only, it means that when you actually mount a lens built to deliver an image circle appropriate to a full frame sensor, when projected on a smaller sensor, you see less of the image circle and thus get the perspective of more reach from these lenses. ![]() In the case of Fujifilm, this is true, but less so in the case of Canon, although the Nikon Z50 is physically smaller and lighter. In theory, the smaller sensor should mean a smaller lighter camera. ![]() They don’t talk about full frame equivalent either, that is left to pundits who feel the need to treat everything not full frame as its less capable and dumber distant cousin. Panasonic and Olympus leapt into the micro four thirds space and have never looked back. Not a lot of innovation or new models, but also never killed off.įujifilm has used the APS-C sensor since forever and to their enormous credit, never got involved in that whole full frame equivalent bag of bafflegab. Sony does place most of their attention on full frame, but have maintained their APS-C lineup for years. Those who live in the Canon/Nikon worlds may not be aware that there are other brands. Now, the less useful photographic media is all aquiver because Canon has released the R7, an APS-C mirrorless camera as if this is a momentous occasion. Nikon did build an APS-C sensored mirrorless in the Z50, but it’s party was poorly communicated and no one came. Moreover, because the big makers of the day, Canon and Nikon, decided to have two ranges of lenses, confusion reigned as to what focal length numbers actually meant which engendered the entire “full frame equivalent” sack of nonsense.Īs the transition to mirrorless started for those builders, they focused their efforts on full frame sensors. ![]() Pros or those desiring to be Pros spent more for full frame, and APS-C was for amateurs. Then technology improved and consistent full frame sensors could be made at a reasonable cost. That’s the whole reason APS-C, as well as the short lived APS-H existed. Making larger sensors that were of consistent quality was a problem. Remember when DSLRs were most all APS-C sized sensors? The reason was consistency of sensor quality vs cost. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |