09-04-2016, 09:36 PM
Exactly. 
I just don't believe it's possible to equvalent each involved parameter - which has also to be print size and watching distance and still see - no only calculate - the pictures will be different. Sensors in general react differently to put 1.5× light or ISO on them and it shifts the whole range of dynamics, too. You always calculate, as if an APS-C sensor behaves exactly like a m medium format sensor, just 2.5 smaller and that's totally unreal, simply not happening in real world.
No one would get bigger sensors, if a smartphone sensor could do exactly the same like a medium format one - and just don't start to point out where's the difference, because all that differeences are there throughout the whole range of sensors. One is not like another. There's a reason for bigger and for smaller sensors and you can calculate as long as you want, they never will bring you the same results. And I'm not talking about tiny little jpg samples.
I just don't believe it's possible to equvalent each involved parameter - which has also to be print size and watching distance and still see - no only calculate - the pictures will be different. Sensors in general react differently to put 1.5× light or ISO on them and it shifts the whole range of dynamics, too. You always calculate, as if an APS-C sensor behaves exactly like a m medium format sensor, just 2.5 smaller and that's totally unreal, simply not happening in real world.
No one would get bigger sensors, if a smartphone sensor could do exactly the same like a medium format one - and just don't start to point out where's the difference, because all that differeences are there throughout the whole range of sensors. One is not like another. There's a reason for bigger and for smaller sensors and you can calculate as long as you want, they never will bring you the same results. And I'm not talking about tiny little jpg samples.