>>3795629That's my point, it's really close because if it were a person for example then the DoF would be too deep and you wouldn't get much subject separation. DoF increases with distance. I can get bokeh with my phone if I fill the frame with a small object.
>>3795661>implying infinite resolution is a thingCropping FF that much looks like shit the moment you need to print, if anything your posh proves what equivalence is about. You'd need a much longer lens to not lose detail with that framing in that picture.
If all we had to do was to crop, no one would buy telephoto lenses or zoom cameras. People would just use the largest sensor and the widest lens, and then apply digital zoom (which is just the same as cropping, or sometimes cropping and resizing to native resolution which degrades the picture even more). On some cameras it involves sharpening too. Olympus has both the traditional one and a "high resolution zoom" which is sharpened. They tell people there's no IQ loss, lol. To be fair it looks pretty decent for what it is, but no IQ loss is a bold lie.
>>3795660You're just proving the idea of equivalence. If instead of cropping you try getting the same size of the subject with no loss of detail (the "zooming with your feet" meme) you get a different composition because you change perspective. What you're doing here is embarrassing sensorlet cope. If cropping were the solution I'd just use my 28mm equivalent phone camera and wouldn't own a DSLR. The thing is, even the kit lens is wider than the phone thanks to the bigger sensor.
