You can not compare sensor size to film resolving power. You can only compare pixel density. So total area means nothing to resolving power until electric noise is an issue from circuit density. It only affects field of view.
Aps-c (not all aps-c are same)is the same size as motion picture super 35. So it is the size of halfish a frame of vertical 35mm still frame.
So basically the contrast is not related to sensor size. Iso3200 on a D300 under that lighting does.
Also I viewed it on a monitor that had been set up for a film job which made it look even more contrasty then it really is. So it looks a lot better now Roy. Oops. It is contrasty but not as extreme as I thought.
I appreciate how hard it is to shoot wildlife, even the deer and such that track through my back yard.
Randy S. Little
VFX Supervisor - Gotham on Fox
VFX Supervisor - Gotham on Fox
On Apr 12, 2017 19:26, <PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim,I knew you had shot it on a D300. The sizes in these DSLR actually vary a bit in size from camera maker to camera maker so I refer to them all as half frame 35mm. To be accurate the D300 has an APS-C size sensor which is 23.6 x 15.8 mm = 372.88 mm². 35mm is 24 x 36 mm = 864 mm²RoyIn a message dated 4/11/2017 3:42:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, flyboy@xxxxxxxxx writes:as for being shot on a "35 half frame camera", not so...this was taken with a Nikon D300, a DX format DSLR...DX format for those who don't know is 2/3 of a 35mm frame...the ISO 3200 is correct, that's what Auto ISO came up with in the relatively dark portion of the woods behind my house...
