>>2981245Actually I am all about dat large sensor size. I just wanted to point out tony is misrepresenting what is going on.
If Tony was right, I want to see him compare the ISO performance of leaf aptus 5-II. 22mp, 48x36mm sensor, base ISO is 25. Try shooting it at iso 200 and it looks like total garbage, despite the "large" sensor and gigantic 9 micron pixels. A fucking smartphone camera probably has better low light performance.
The lesson from this is, differences in sensor architecture and processing have far more affect on ISO performance then sensor size, its really per pixel performance that matters. Lets say you had a aps-c sized sensor that had 13 stops of DR and looked good at 100% up to iso 3200, then you "scaled" the sensor to medium format size. The DR would not improve, the ISO/Noise performance would not look any better when viewed at 100% like tony is suggesting. You would gain a shit load of resolution though.
Also, I actually do believe larger formats have a different look then smaller ones, even with aperture and focal length equivalences taken into account. There is one thing that does not remain constant between format changes, its magnification in relation to the types of things people normally photograph.
On 8x10 a 300mm is a "normal" lens and looks similar to 50mm on full frame. However, to get a normal head and shoulders portrait, ut would bring you very close to 1:1 magnification, where a 50mm would not be anywhere close to that on full frame.
I think that, and a few other things is mainly what is responsible for the MF look.
