+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Tamron SP 150-600mm mk I vs mk II (/showthread.php?tid=635)
Tamron SP 150-600mm mk I vs mk II - davidmanze - 09-08-2016
Quote:Or just 1.5-1.6x.The FF sensor has 2.25X more area than Aps-c!
APS-c sensor 24X16= 384 square milimeters
FF sensor 24X36 = 864 " " 2.25X more area.
FL is one dimensional, area is two dimensional, therefore for area 1.5X 1.5 = 2.25!
Tamron SP 150-600mm mk I vs mk II - Brightcolours - 09-08-2016
I know, it just makes no sense to talk about magnification measuring area size. So, just 1.5x instead of 2.25x area size.
Tamron SP 150-600mm mk I vs mk II - davidmanze - 09-08-2016
Hmmm...I think it's created more misunderstandings than explanations,
I know you know how it works BC but,
many people "do" think that the FF sensor is 1.5X bigger than APS-c and it isn't, and it isn't a 1.5X magnification either, in fact it has become a common error... which is exactly why I wrote in the manner that I did!
So the supposed sweet spot is not so sweet as it seems, DXO's perceived sharpness ratings from FF to APS-c show that for the most part, FF scores are significantly better on FF than APS-c, often double (2.25 less a little) that caused DXO to take a lot a unmerited flack, many "still" think DXO have it wrong, the Angry Photographer fro one!
IMHO it should not be called the "sweet spot" but the "bitter-sweet spot."