Originally posted by johnmflores I'm not debating that there isn't a difference. There is. But if you can't look at a photo hanging at an art gallery and tell with 100% certainty whether it's FF or APS-C, doesn't that say something about how important sensor size is in the overall equation?
The problem with that reasoning is that it doesn't allow for any personal preference, really.
A well-composed, in focus shot taken with the $75 M 50 f/1.4 hanging on a wall could be mistaken for the same shot taken with the 43ltd (yes, it could and has, trust me
) If someone told you it came from the 43, you'd have no real reason to doubt them. However if you yourself shot with both the 43 and the M 50 1.4 for a couple days, week, or months, you'd probably start to prefer the 43, maybe by a great margin. In fact the actual differences would be subtle, but they'd start to mean a lot to you.
It's the same way with FF - talking a shot out of context and
not allowing a choice between similar images to see which is
preferred doesn't really prove much about the relative worth of the two formats.
P&S's, bridge cameras with varying small sensors, even phone cameras - all are represented in galleries now. You'd be hard pressed to 'know' a shot was taken with say a G12 vs a DSLR in many cases. That fact doesn't make the sensor size difference irrelevant, just
not always relevant.
1.3 stops more DOF control at equivalent FOV and aperture, at least a stop better noise peformance (comparing 2008 FF wth 2011 aps-c) is what the sensor size difference brings in this case. Everyone needs to figure out for themselves how much those advantages would matter to their personal enjoyment of the hobby (or make their profession easier.)
For me, it's kind of a big deal to be able to shoot a $110 50 f/1.8 and have it 'look' like a 35 f/1.2 would on aps-c, or have a $300 20mm f/2.8 'look' like a 13mm f/1.8 would (if one existed,) or a 180 f/2.8 look like a 120mm f/1.8 (
below)... etc. It's fun, useful, and when you add in that extra stop of ISO and the performance of the body, it's a rewarding format to shoot.
And I just can't get over my idea that Pentax could do it even better than Nikon in many ways. I'm convinced they could, with Ricoh's eventual blessing.
.
Last edited by jsherman999; 10-16-2011 at 11:36 PM.