>>3262959>>>3262720 (You)>Sharpening is for offsetting the cfa, not making up for shit gear.Sharpness differences between formats has nothing to do with "shit gear". Rhetorical bullshit from you does not change the fact that at low and mid ISOs the sharpness difference between crop and FF...given sensors with the same MP (same sampling frequency)...is easily eliminated in post.
>No, you can't buy new, similar function lenses that resolve twice as much detail, LOL you don't need a lens to resolve "twice as much detail" on crop. See
>>3262713>I do have the data, >proceeds to provide anecdotes based on lenses in clearly different classeskek
>Blur does change with fl, longer fl on ff for the same shot, smoother bokeh. No, it changes with physical aperture size. Crop shooter can shoot the same lens or another lens with a wider fl but same physical aperture size.
>Crop uwa's were ok because we've only just started accurately modelling lenses in cad, CAD lenses are not new, and crop UWAs are cheaper for the same level of quality. It's simply easier to design and manufacture a lens to cover a smaller imaging circle.
>>>3262729 (You)>Lines per height means, lines, per, height. And what's taller, a crop or ff sensor? I am laughing my ass off right now. The term is Lines per PICTURE Height. Not "sensor height". In LPH the P = Picture.
Note the attached screenshot from:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/27Note the terminology (PICTURE height) and note that DPReview outright states that since the numbers are equal, the smaller sensor camera out right matches the larger sensor one in this case.
>Digi sensors are the same as film, compare the pixel pitch from a 24mp crop to 36mp ff sensor, they're the same. No one is denying that a 36mp sensor can out resolve a 24mp sensor. But when crop and ff sensors are both 24mp, they're both going to resolve the same detail at low/mid ISO.
>I have all of this shit dead right.Obviously not. "Sensor height" LOL
