(01-26-2019, 11:14 AM)Skillividden Wrote: Claiming that 44x33 mm sensor is "nearly just full frame" shows total misunderstanding of this format. It is 1,7 times larger than "full frame". And the IQ diference is astonishing.
The IQ difference is mostly imagined.
(01-26-2019, 12:19 PM)obican Wrote: I just love how the defenders of the GFX always quite the area difference vs 35mm and say "it's 1.7 times larger". Every other system compares the length. 35mm is 1.5 times larger than APS-C if you compare the length of an edge. It's 2.25 times larger if you compare the area. 44x33 is closer to 35mm than APS-H is.
Even if you compare the shorter edges, where GFX has an advantage because it's 4:3 ratio, not 3:2, the difference is still tiny at 1.375.
And the IQ difference is not that great. Yes it's there, but it's not night and day. Again, the jump in IQ from APS-C to 35mm is greater than 35mm to 44x33.
It's just a good sensor. Leave it at that, you don't have to write poems and songs and create legends about how much better it is than 35mm digital sensors. Especially when the lens support is nowhere as close to what most 35mm systems have (even though the existing lenses are quite good).
For MFT has a 17.3x13mm image sensor size. It is a 4x3 aspect ratio format. It is said to be 2x crop compared to 135 format. The 2x crop round figure stems from the diagonal comparison. Pretty weird and quite wrong, I know, but this is just to illustrate that not "every other system compares the length".
The digital crop medium format has a crop factor of 36 / 44 = 0.82x compared to 135 format. Or, if you want to compare the diagonal like with MFT (pretty silly, I know) 0.79x.
The biggest drawback for the digital crop medium format is the lack of AA-filter, and the limited shallow DOF ability (due to the lack of large aperture options) compared to what is available for 135 format.