09-26-2016, 12:17 PM
Quote:Why am I not surprised?It actually is not so much about sensor size, remember the equivalence discussions? It is more about equivalent lenses.
At first, Toni-a, Fuji and Hasselblad passed the FF stuff which doesn't bring a lot of advantages compared to APS-C in Fuji's opinion. Historically, both manufacturers didn't fool around a lot with 135 size, so they were free to call an own sensor MF or else. While Nikon and Canon afaik never tried to go MF, at least not digital. So, both of them have 5 dozen lenses each and millions of users who don't wnat to give them up.
Your larger sensor comes roughly at 5Ã— the costs of Hasselblad or Fuji mirrorless and that one includes also the mirror of a Mamiya 645 basis (56 Ã— 42 mm). Lenses not included. It's not about MP, because then you could say from Canon is already a 50 MP sensor available. It's really about sensor size, not MP.
It's about a new concept of mirrorless camera with larger sensor, THAT's what you don't get.
BC, you didn't list the artificial sharpness. Age? Typing in a hurry?
If Sigma could do a back for Mamiya or Hasselblad with only 50...60 MP, each fullcolour pixel would be 7.2 Âµm compared to 4.9 Âµm for 36 MP FF. If Sigma would use the quattro concept, the green and red pixels could be 14 Âµm. Even if this back would not have a higher amplification than 1600 ISO it would leave Bayer sensors in dust. And dust is, what they collect until a Foveon MF picture would be displayed by Sigma's sluggish software <_<
And yes, every sensor with no AA filter will have issues with fake sharpness and false detail. But that is not a small MF versus full frame 135 format, it is about AA filters or not.