Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray
Another thing it would do, unless badly designed, is increase by nearly a factor of two the spatial resolution for equal MTF. Yay! Which is not to say you'll get better sharpness in the final photo of course (twice the magnification, etc.), just that you won't get much worse sharpness (as is the case when using legacy 35 mm lenses on small Micro Four Thirds sensors now).
Though we should be clear that it doesn't solve the problem of noise/dynamic range caused by small sensors at base ISO. But in light-limited and depth-of-field-limited scenarios it would equal a full-frame setup, in terms of noise - assuming equal sensor efficiency (still not achieved by Micro Four Thirds).
|
This is so interesting. I guess it depends on how close the sensor can get. Sony's new APSC sensor is very quiet and has great DR at base ISO, so running that an ISO or two lower than a FF would be a viable option. f/2.8 ISO 400 on APSC+0.67x reducer (net f/2 speed) vs f/2.8 ISO 800 on Full frame. Nothing available in 4/3rds is really as good, yet, but on a 4/3rds+.5x combination the comparison would be f/2.8 ISO 200 +0.5x reducer (net f/1.4 speed) vs f/2.8 ISO 800.
What does the dynamic range of a good 4/3rds sensor look like at ISO 200 vs a full frame sensor at 800? Of course you reserve the option to shoot the FF at lower ISO as well.
Perhaps everyone is really looking at the wrong end of the spectrum. Using a reducer could make for an interesting path to a unique and more affordable "medium format" option. If it turns out a bit too pricey, then that's the perfect niche within which to work out the kinks - turning 35mm full frame cameras into ersatz medium format ones...