Hi Robert,
> > I would agree that all other things being equal, the larger the > > photosite the better (lower noise, etc). However, it is still > > (unfortunately) difficult to spend 2-3-4X as much for MF as opposed > > to the DX/full frame cameras (Canon, Nikon). The MF may give a > > better image, but I doubt it is 2-3-4X "bettter".
Oh, well...I'm an engineer. I just design them. What it costs, does not concern me ;-)
All joking aside, I completely agree. It makes little to no sense for a person who is not rather well off to buy into MF digital. The exception is of course for professional use, where it makes economic sense with respect to ROI.
Regards,
Austin
> > I would agree that all other things being equal, the larger the > > photosite the better (lower noise, etc). However, it is still > > (unfortunately) difficult to spend 2-3-4X as much for MF as opposed > > to the DX/full frame cameras (Canon, Nikon). The MF may give a > > better image, but I doubt it is 2-3-4X "bettter".
Oh, well...I'm an engineer. I just design them. What it costs, does not concern me ;-)
All joking aside, I completely agree. It makes little to no sense for a person who is not rather well off to buy into MF digital. The exception is of course for professional use, where it makes economic sense with respect to ROI.
Regards,
Austin