Hacker News Reader

Comment by onion2k | Hacker News Reader

Making the sensor smaller and cheaper also enables larger sensors at the equivalent cost and form factor of a current sensor though, which would change photos (if you think higher output resolution is a change to an image). The benefit doesn't have to be taken as making things cheaper.

View on HN

Full-frame at APS-C prices would be great. It would lose one of the perks of APS-C: crop factor. Getting 450mm out of a 70-300mm lens is nice.

edit: since it's apparently not clear and I'm getting downvoted for sharing how this benefits a harmless personal preference, I will emphasize that I'm speaking to my needs. The 70-300 lens is what I use, not some abstract construct meant to represent all purposes.

The crop factor is generally a perk for people who shoot at the ranges I shoot at even if it comes with compromises for other needs.

Crop factor is only an advantage for APS-C cameras where the pixel density is higher than the comparable FF camera. That's not always true, eg I have a Sony a7Riv, which has 26MP in crop mode (more than APS-C cameras).

The "croppability" of the image is not really a function of the sensor size, it's a function of pixel density. APS-C cameras used to have higher pixel density than FF cameras, but that hasn't been universally true recently.

Or where you are willing to sacrifice pixels to get the longer length.

Isn't this usually thought of as a disadvantage? E.g. You have to buy more glass ($$) to get smaller mm equivalents?

I am only speaking for my use cases. Nikon crop sensors can use DX lenses, and those are always cheaper for more or less the same reach and features.

this is essentially zoom though as you're not using the full output of the lens

That's okay. I usually shoot things that are further away. Other people will have different needs. Only speaking for myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com