Jump to content

S2 vs M 240


sheikhrafiq79

Recommended Posts

The difference is not 6x9 but 6x36 + 9x30; Or 6x45 + 9x24; equals 486 square millimeters. Which means the surface of the S's sensor is 56.25% larger than the M's; or the M's is 36% smaller than the S's. That's quite a difference in my view.

 

Best,

Norbert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which means the surface of the S's sensor is 56.25% larger than the M's; or the M's is 36% smaller than the S's. That's quite a difference in my view.

 

The extra size (and other factors including the very well corrected S lenses) clearly does make a difference but to put that 56% in perspective, the jump in size from M8 to M9 was 78% (and I tend to view both those cameras as being in the same ballpark when it comes to image 'quality'). Of course, with film the difference in size between 35mm and 120 film is far more marked – 6x7 having about 4½ times the surface area of a 35mm neg.:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the jump in size from M8 to M9 was 78%

 

 

You're right, put in this perspective the difference between the M and the S2 is a small step. In comparison, my much anticipated ~140% pixel count jump from M8 to M feels like a giant leap :cool:. O.k. ... the increase of sensor surface remains at 78% ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...