View Single Post
  #12  
Old 15-09-2017, 10:56 AM
sil's Avatar
sil (Steve)
Not even a speck of dust

sil is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin66 View Post
OK, a 24 x 36mm is the same coverage as the old historic "35mm Full Frame"
but it really doesn't mean much - there's no 35mm film to compare it with and all the current generation of digital cameras use different lenses etc.
I contend for astronomy, there is no such thing as a 35mm Full frame, just a large 24 x 36mm sensor and I don't think "crop factors" are useful at all. ;-)
yep totally useless, maybe pixel size is useful but not to the plebs. besides you're mostly stacking and processing so the end result is whats important.

Too many idiots pick up on a little detail and extrapolate that to a rule, 5-10yr ago nobody would bother with a full frame dslr as a first camera now its required for some stupid reason because its better. better for who and for what they can't answer, their brains stop at the word better. just like many people claim astrophotos can ONLY be captured using a Canon camera, the stupidity lingers.
Reply With Quote