[johnmflores]

I wish I could jump in a time machine and travel 100 years into the future. Hopefully by then all of those the believe that "Full Frame" is The One True Sensor Size will be dead.

[normhead]

I wish I could jump in a time machine and travel 100 years into the future. Hopefully by then all of those the believe that "Full Frame" is The One True Sensor Size will be dead.

I could make the same wish for 5 minutes in the future.

Made more difficult by the fact that FF is probably the most flexible digital sensor size. It's not that it has nothing to offer.... just some folks go overboard.

[Sagitta]

I wish I could jump in a time machine and travel 100 years into the future. Hopefully by then all of those the believe that "Full Frame" is The One True Sensor Size will be dead.

I'm thinking 100 years in the future they'll have sort of newer, cheaper, more advanced technology that would allow for digital large format again - and beyond.

[normhead]

I'm thinking 100 years in the future they'll have sort of newer, cheaper, more advanced technology that would allow for digital large format again - and beyond.

I think you could run tilt shift on a 6x7 with a 4x5 back display, and probably do 150 Mp... maybe in 10 years? And maybe another 10 years to be cheap enough to afford?

[MD Optofonik]

I feel like the aperture business is nonsense. If a scene meters 1/60 at f2.8 and I shoot it with an APS-C body then shoot the same scene using the same lens on a FF body I won't end up with one image under or over-exposed. I will end up with a different FOF and DOF for each image (and possible vignetting on the FF body if the lens is designed for APS-C).

If I'm wrong, someone clue me in.

[Digitalis]

wish I could jump in a time machine and travel 100 years into the future. Hopefully by then all of those the believe that "Full Frame" is The One True Sensor Size will be dead.

By then they will probably have something equally trivial to argue about. People who forget the mistakes of the past frequently end up repeating them.

[biz-engineer]

There's no lens for APS-C. APS-C is a deisgn with full frame geometry but a smaller sensor to save cost. For example, u4/3 is a true design, registration distance lens mount size and sensor size are consistent. APS-C DSLRs have larger bodies than if the system would be completely redesigned for the APS-C sensor size. And if you have a Pentax or Nikon or Sony, you should not complain because you have 1.5 ratio, but if you have a canon and like most canon users bought a canon because your friend has one , I'm sorry for you because all canon APS DSLR have smaller sensor (1.6 ratio).

[PJ1]

I feel like the aperture business is nonsense. If a scene meters 1/60 at f2.8 and I shoot it with an APS-C body then shoot the same scene using the same lens on a FF body I won't end up with one image under or over-exposed. I will end up with a different FOF and DOF for each image (and possible vignetting on the FF body if the lens is designed for APS-C).

If I'm wrong, someone clue me in.

You have it exactly right. Go to the top of the class!

[Rondec]

I feel like the aperture business is nonsense. If a scene meters 1/60 at f2.8 and I shoot it with an APS-C body then shoot the same scene using the same lens on a FF body I won't end up with one image under or over-exposed. I will end up with a different FOF and DOF for each image (and possible vignetting on the FF body if the lens is designed for APS-C).

If I'm wrong, someone clue me in.

What folks arguing about equivalency say is that if you want to take the same image on APS-C on full frame, you would shoot 1/60 second f2 and iso 100 on APS-C and 1/60 second f2.8 and iso 200 on full frame. Since your full frame camera is one stop better in noise and dynamic range, your images would look almost exactly the same.

This sort of brings up an interesting fact, which is that full frame cameras aren't really better with regard to high iso, unless you are able to deal with less depth of field than with APS-C. If you need your depth of field for some reason, then you have to push your iso up to the point that there is no particular benefit.

The biggest problem I have with equivalency is that it doesn't really speak to the way I shoot. If I have a 30mm lens on my camera, I am not artificially trying to recreate a photo that I have made with a full frame camera or, some other format for that matter. I am just framing based on what I see through the viewfinder and stopping down enough that I have enough of the scene in focus. It isn't rocket science and understanding how it relates to the Q or to full frame cameras won't help me do it better.

[normhead]

What folks arguing about equivalency say is that if you want to take the same image on APS-C on full frame, you would shoot 1/60 second f2 and iso 100 on APS-C and 1/60 second f2.8 and iso 200 on full frame. Since your full frame camera is one stop better in noise and dynamic range, your images would look almost exactly the same.

And even that's a lie. There's functionally no difference between 100 ISO, 200 ISO and 400 ISO, so functionally you'd have no difference between noise and dynamic range. Normally one would not argue something as a rule unless if it were true in every case. This one needs to be predicated, "Between 100 ISO and 400 ISO the noise and Dynamic range differences between APS-c and 35mm are minimal, after that point one may start to notice the difference in noise and Dynamic range, although both systems will be much worse for both noise and dynamic range than they were at 100 ISO.

[Sagitta]

And even that's a lie. There's functionally no difference between 100 ISO, 200 ISO and 400 ISO, so functionally you'd have no difference between noise and dynamic range. Normally one would not argue something as a rule unless if it were true in every case. This one needs to be predicated, "Between 100 ISO and 400 ISO the noise and Dynamic range differences between APS-c and 35mm are minimal, after that point one may start to notice the difference in noise and Dynamic range, although both systems will be much worse for both noise and dynamic range than they were at 100 ISO.

Hell, just going from the K-30 to the K-3 I've noticed noise issues, and that's solely because of the jump in pixel density. I think the limiting factor between APS-C and 35mm (and onwards) isn't the size of the lens or the size of the sensor, its how dense that sensor is. I suspect we've possibly started to hit a technological wall as it stands for APS-C sensor size - which could be why the time is right for Pentax to be releasing that full frame camera.

I'm sure someone will come out with a better, denser sensor of course which will result in less noise and the like so said wall is most likely temporary.

[VoiceOfReason]

One sensor to rule them all, one sensor to find them, one sensor to focus well and in the darkness take pics. In full frame, where shadows have no noise.

[normhead]

One sensor to rule them all, one sensor to find them, one sensor to focus well and in the darkness take pics. In full frame, where shadows have no noise.

Until they do.....

[Rondec]

And even that's a lie. There's functionally no difference between 100 ISO, 200 ISO and 400 ISO, so functionally you'd have no difference between noise and dynamic range. Normally one would not argue something as a rule unless if it were true in every case. This one needs to be predicated, "Between 100 ISO and 400 ISO the noise and Dynamic range differences between APS-c and 35mm are minimal, after that point one may start to notice the difference in noise and Dynamic range, although both systems will be much worse for both noise and dynamic range than they were at 100 ISO.

Sure.

I have argued that no end. Differences are measurable at low iso, but they aren't significant. It isn't till you above iso 800 that you really start seeing the difference. But that is the thing that equivalency advocates beat the drum about all of the time.

Honestly, even if you are shooting a D810, you are still going to be better shooting at low iso on a stable tripod. Folks who use the 645z may have iso to burn, but they still attempt to shoot low isos whenever possible.

[jsherman999]

The biggest problem I have with equivalency is that it doesn't really speak to the way I shoot. If I have a 30mm lens on my camera, I am not artificially trying to recreate a photo that I have made with a full frame camera or, some other format for that matter.

If you're only shooting one format, why would you worry about equivalence at all?

Where it's useful is when trying to plan another system based on a second format, where you may be trying to get something 'extra' from the format addition or change. You'll need to know about equivalence if you want to not waste your money in one way or another.

---------- Post added 02-19-15 at 12:42 PM ----------

Honestly, even if you are shooting a D810, you are still going to be better shooting at low iso on a stable tripod..

This ^ is obvious, but unless I get X-men powers in which I can freeze the world and everyone in it, I'll need to depend on the special capabilities a large-sensored DSLR gives me.

"Use low ISO and a tripod" works in landscape shooting and controlled portrait shooting. Not so well anywhere else. (neither does flash, really.)