5/17/2023 0 Comments Apsc vs full frame![]() ![]() Some output systems may let you see the difference but once you compress it down to a jpeg the differences start to disappear. I think so but it depends on how you process the image. ![]() I know dynamic range would be better and noise performance as well with the full frame camera, but if under good conditions (shooting low iso with minimal shadows and highlights) would a large print look the same with an a6500 versus the a7 iii? The A7iii with the 24-105 looks much better than an A6XXX with the 18-135. For primes this is less of an issue but for zooms the difference is evident. The main issue is that sony has made better lenses for FE than E. The full frame will give you more a little better tonal transition but for most media you can not tell the difference. With lenses that are about the same then yes. Am I correct in assuming the detail should be the same with a file from the a6500 vs the a7 iii? I have already had a thread asking about being able to print that large with 24 megapixels. My goal is to be able to occasionally produce a large canvas print up to 60"x40" to display in my home. If I would be hard pressed to tell the difference with the 4.0 version when shooting stopped down, which would normally be the case for landscapes, then the 16-35 4.0 lens may be the wiser choice. I know the GM version is exceptionally sharp but also heavy and pricey. I am not planning on producing prints that size to sell or enter in any contest, just want to display in my home with viewing at a normal home viewing distance.Īnother debate I am having is what 16-35 Sony lens to buy. I probably just need to spend the $300 needed to make a 60"x40" canvas print to see for myself. As I said, my purpose would be for a rare large canvas print, and I know canvas is much more forgiving when it comes to detail. What I really am debating is if I should add an a7r ii for landscapes. The a6500 can do well but the a7 iii would be better at 6400 iso, which I would need when shooting in gyms. I will use it to shoot some sports as well and much will be in low light. I am thinking of adding the a7 iii because of the dynamic range challenges of shooting in bright sunlight, which is normally the case in the US southwest. For travel I am convinced my a6500 with the 18-135 and a63000 with the 10-18 will be fine. My main emphasis will be displaying photos for my website (see link below). ![]() Am I correct in assuming the detail should be the same with a file from the a6500 vs the a7 iii? I know dynamic range would be better and noise performance as well with the full frame camera, but if under good conditions (shooting low iso with minimal shadows and highlights) would a large print look the same with an a6500 versus the a7 iii? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |