cropped image = enlarged pixels in the case of serious cropping. On a Full Frame, a telephoto 70-200 seems kinda wasted but thats my opinion.but why cant u just crop for example :
a 70-200 f/2.8 mounted on a ff dslr than go home crop the image by 1/2?
cropped image = enlarged pixels in the case of serious cropping. On a Full Frame, a telephoto 70-200 seems kinda wasted but thats my opinion.
If use a 70-200 f/2.8 that would mean 400mm at f/2.8 which is pretty cost effective.
Because you don't get the DoF control of a 400/2.8 nor do you get the noise performance of a FF.
You do, of course, as you point out, save a bucketload of ££.
Add a further 2x teleconverter for a maximum 35mm equivalent focal length of 280-800mm.If use a 70-200 f/2.8 that would mean 400mm at f/2.8 which is pretty cost effective.
If use a 70-200 f/2.8 that would mean 400mm at f/2.8 which is pretty cost effective.
If use a 70-200 f/2.8 that would mean 400mm at f/2.8 which is pretty cost effective.
There is a vertical scrollbar at the side of a browser for a reason and I did said Sigma.but that is a 35-100mm, equivalent to 70-200 f2.8 on FF nia, TS is talking about a focal length equivalent to 140-400mm.. :bsmilie:
cropped image = enlarged pixels in the case of serious cropping. On a Full Frame, a telephoto 70-200 seems kinda wasted but thats my opinion.
crop the image by half,
the 35mm sensor area is 3.5x larger than the micro 4/3 sensor, need to crop more than half ..