FYI only... A Zack Arias presentation.

[ameerat42]

I am not endorsing any of the views expressed in the following video, - except perhaps one!
(Zack Arias? Really?) (Well, there's about 11 min of info in this video.)
(There's a lot of arm-waving on his part, but that may stop a lot of arm-waving on our part, when it comes to it.)

You will probably agree about that one view, though.

Anyway, CLICK HERE TO WATCH.

Am.

[arthurking83]

I know Zack Arias is respected by many folks(here and elsewhere) .. but I have to say what a crock of ship.

Is he really trying to convince us that the difference in size between 4/3rds and APS-C and 135 format really is insignificant compared to the much bigger difference between 135 format and medium format!!

Lost all respect there from me (at least) .. dunno about you guys but this concept seems completely idiotic!

While I understand that there are many sizes of medium format sensors .. the most logical example to use is the Pentax choice as it's about the only real option any super enthusiastic (and super rich) enthusiast would probably consider.
(well if you were super duper rich .. you could opt for a $50K hassleicamamayawhatever .. but that's just showing off!)

Anyhow for HIS information, as well as yours if you're interested (in boring math) ...

the difference between APS-C and 135 is about a 1.5x crop difference which translates to an overall 2.33 x areal difference for the 135 format sensor over the APS-C sensor(more if you compare Canon's crop sensor .. but this is insignificant as a point).

the difference between a 135 format sensor and the Sony MF sensor in the Pentax(as well as other MF cameras) is 1.3x .. which translates into a 1.69x areal difference in favour of the MF sensor compared to the 135 format.

areal difference is the size difference of the overall area between each type of sensor .. so an Fx sensor is 2.33 x bigger than the largest APS-C sensor, where the MF sensor is only 1.69x larger than the average 135 sensor.

I dunno, about you .. maybe it's my Greek heritage and the fact that we invented maths .... but to me the difference between APS-C and Fx is a much bigger deal than the the less significant difference between Fx and MF.
nett effect will be (hypothetically speaking) .. if you see a difference between formats, it will be more obvious going from APS-C to Fx than it will going from Fx to MF(and reverse).

yet he looks at the pretty pictures and goes .. oh wow look at the size of that huuge MF sensor.
... note that MF film is indeed larger than 135 format .. but most (easily accessible) MF digital sensors are smaller than MF films.

He sees big pictures and thinks like KR!!

Makes no sense and maybe he needs to eat more souvlakis or something.

I've seen this vid a few weeks ago and just laughed and shook my head.

something to note too tho. because those hassymamalianleicaflex's are so out of this world in terms of price ranges, I never really look into them in any meaningful manner, but I only know the basics that they have larger sensors than the Pentax 645 .. not so much on the actual numbers of these high end MF sensors.
But is this vid really relevant to the average consumer if his examples are of platinum plated solid gold diamond encrusted rare earth camera gear vs common sense camera gear!

And that's the point of my reply .. are his views actually relevant when he claims that the difference between cameras similar in price is insignificant, and that the difference between cameras with price factors that hover in the 10x to 20x bracket are so much greater!

Really .. a $50K camera is so much better than $2-3K camera, compared to the difference between a $2-3K camera and a $1-2K camera ... I would never have expected that! :rolleeys:

[Zandri]

Normally I quite like Zack's videos and in general his teaching method .... but what on earth did I just watch!?
Think this was worse than the forum rants and arguments he's obviously sick off.