Originally posted by normhead bossa, this is what you need to understand , try and get it this time
We're still waiting for you to get it, Norm.
Quote: there is no such thing as equvalent DoF.
There is a concept of
equivalence, which simply describes a relationship between the two formats, and allows you to predict what a given lens will look like on both formats, or decide what lens to use that would give you the same FOV on both formats, or same DOF on both formats, or same FOV
and DOF on both formats, etc, etc.
Saying that this relationship doesn't exist is like saying the equation (3 x 4) = (2 x 6) is untrue and a
dirty lie !!
Quote: You get the exact same DoF with each lens on each system, but one is smaller than the other.
One FOV will be smaller than the other if the same lens was used on both systems, if that's what you meant. I'm assuming that you also realize this means the images are radically different then as well.
Quote: This lame theoretical construct of "Equivalent DoF " is a red herring. The only question is, is each lens useful on each system. And the answer is yes. SInce each lens is just as useful on each system, there is no advantage between one system to the next.
There are several advantages to using larger sensors - more DOF control with the available lenses is one advantage to FF, many find.
Quote: They all have utility on the system, especially since they share the same mounts and are exactly the same lenses. Therefor one system is not in any way "more useful" on one system than the other. The utility is exactly the same.
Most folks would disagree. For example, a fast-50 is much, much more useful on FF than on aps-c, in my opinion, for my uses. I also think that a 300mm lens is at least as useful on aps-c as FF, perhaps more useful on aps-c if the pixel densities are not favoring the FF body.
Quote: As an APS-c user, you don't even think about what you could do with an FF. There is no equivalency.
(3 x 4) != (2 x 6) - that's a
dirty lie!
Quote: But there are an increasing number of lenses for APS-c that cannot effectively be used on FF systems. So in terms of overall utility APS-c comes out ahead.
Only for those who have chosen to invest in those particular lenses.
Quote: You can argue that FF comes out ahead in it's ability to capture extremely narrow depth of field. If that's a strong element of your photography, then FF is for you.
Or if you like to stop down to gain some additional sharpness and contrast while retaining a nice subject isolation.
Quote: PS the fact that you don't understand what we were saying talking about your flower shot in no way makes them moronic, it just means you didn't see the point/ we were making.
Also, I'm not sure you're trying to understand the point he was making, because it's easier to get pedantic about the flowers.
Quote: The 20 MP Canon 6D looks on paper like it's going to outperform both the D800 and the D600 in low light capability, so once again there's a caveat.
Highly unlikely, if the 5DIII vs. D600 is any indication.
Quote: LL performance is a function of pixel size,
Mostly wrong, it's about sensor area and basically, pixel QE.
Quote: so when you've gone to a high density sensor, like the D800, you've probably lost that edge.
D800 'low light score' on DxOmark is among the highest there, higher than any Canon made, almost as high as the D3s.
Quote: There simply is no system that does it all. You have to understand you're shooting style and decide what's best for you.
Correct.
Quote:
Do I often shoot wide open in an attempt to narrow my depth of field?
If the answer is no, APS-c is fine for you.
If the answer is yes go FF or MF.
That would be a very incomplete and misleading set of questions to ask if you were thinking about a major decision about a camera. Wrong questions lead to irrelevant answers and dumb conclusions.
.