[snake]

People seem to be forgetting that a FF like a D800 has an APS-C crop mode that gives you a 16MP APS-C image with full use of all APS-C lenses. Effectively giving you 2 cameras in one body and the cost of the D800 then becomes very reasonable compared to say someone who used a Canon 5DIII and a 7D for a second body.

A FF body can take advantages of both FF and APS-C lenses if designed properly. I don't want to bust anyone's APS-C fantasy world bubble, but the "advantages" of APS-C are non-existent against properly designed FF body. Since the K-mount is designed around a FF mount and mirrorbox, there will never be a big difference in the size of an APS-C or FF body that uses K-mount.

It does and it doesn't. It still doesn't replace two cams on a torso holster for concert and wedding shooters that have a 24-70 on one and a 70-200 on the other, or something even wider.

[Andi Lo]

I have a feeling of déjà vu...

Sorry, I think I will quit unless there are more specific reponses

Andi Lo: what prevents you from using 200ISO on your APS camera?
I don't understand what you mean by this sentence: "The shutter speed and resulting images from these two setup will be identical, but with FF I just gained 28-74mm and can shoot at f/2.8".

28-75mm/2.8 functions like a 18-50mm/2 on APSC, DOF wise. For me this is very beneficial, as I can forgo carrying many primes and lens changing that I used to have to do with APSC, including the 50mm fast prime I used for comparison. I often have 35 on one body and 50 on the other. Now I can have 28-75 on one and a wide angle or tele on the other.

As for ISO 200 on APS, doing that will gain me nothing. If the shutter is already fast enough, I want to use the lower ISO.

[Pål Jensen]

People seem to be forgetting that a FF like a D800 has an APS-C crop mode that gives you a 16MP APS-C image with full use of all APS-C lenses. Effectively giving you 2 cameras in one body and the cost of the D800 then becomes very reasonable compared to say someone who used a Canon 5DIII and a 7D for a second body..

Thats true but rather pointless if the image quality of APS makes you happy.
It isn't true though for the 24mp FF cameras....
But remember, you can crop APS as well; particularly a 24mp one.

[thibs]

I have a feeling of déjà vu...

... but where?

[ElJamoquio]

No.
F:4 is slower than F:2.8.
F:2.8 is F:2.8 regardless of format.
F:4 and F:2.8 give different exposure.

[thibs]

This takes noise into account which, if I follow correctly Pal's argument is NOT to be taken into account as he perfectly knows that noise will be lower on FF but simply choses not to care.

Personally, I'd say you're both right in your arguments but are both wrong to think the other is wrong e.g. if you don't care about noise, this graph has no purpose. And at the same time it doesn't mean the graph is wrong (of course, duh !).

Now if you could all discuss the K-3 and stop with your APS vs FF bull****, thank you much.

[Rondec]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do think that it is silly. The full frame users who say "you can use cheaper lenses on your full frame camera," assume I guess that people who have a 50-135 f2.8 lens will go out and buy a 70-200 f4 lens, but if you do that, there is absolutely no benefit to getting full frame (assuming that both lenses are decent wide open). The "benefit" of full frame comes when you use faster lenses than are available for APS-C. Many of these lenses are quite expensive.

As to the "narrow depth of field" arguments. Much of this has more to do with the skill (or lack of it) of the photographer. It is plenty easy to get out of focus backgrounds with APS-C and if you can't, it isn't likely that you will be able to do so with a full frame camera.

The biggest benefits to full frame are with regard to high iso capability and ability to print big and these are certainly niche applications that will not apply to everyone.

[Pål Jensen]

This takes noise into account which, if I follow correctly Pal's argument is NOT to be taken into account as he perfectly knows that noise will be lower on FF but simply choses not to care..

The point is that better image quality including lower noise is part of what makes larger format making sense; thats why you buy them. Conversely, people who buy smaller format is presumably happy with the noise level present. What noise level you are happy with is a subjective decision.
Larger format is supposed to be better and display lower noise. It makes no sense trying to equalize them because thats not how people use their cameras. They choose different format due to their differences.
Maybe it is because I come from film. No one in the film days argued that you have to compare bigger formats with smalle ones by using higher ISO on the larger format. It made no sense and still doesn't. We compared format by using the same film. The noise inherent in 35mm vs MF was of no importance to the users of 35mm who prefered that format anyway. If weren't happy with that you chosed a MF camera. End of story. This is a subjective desicion but some try to make it into something objective.

[normhead]

People seem to be forgetting that a FF like a D800 has an APS-C crop mode that gives you a 16MP APS-C image with full use of all APS-C lenses. Effectively giving you 2 cameras in one body and the cost of the D800 then becomes very reasonable compared to say someone who used a Canon 5DIII and a 7D for a second body.

Actually I think the crop on a D800 is 15 something and the K-5 is 16 something, so close but no cigar... and since there are already 3 Nikon 24 MP cameras and apparently one coming from Pentax, the D800 days as king of the APS-c heap are over. Guys like Joe.Penn and other wildlife shooters have already realized that advantage and gone D7100 instead of D800. Soon, Pentax guys will be doing the same thing.

[snake]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do think that it is silly. The full frame users who say "you can use cheaper lenses on your full frame camera," assume I guess that people who have a 50-135 f2.8 lens will go out and buy a 70-200 f4 lens, but if you do that, there is absolutely no benefit to getting full frame (assuming that both lenses are decent wide open). The "benefit" of full frame comes when you use faster lenses than are available for APS-C. Many of these lenses are quite expensive.

As to the "narrow depth of field" arguments. Much of this has more to do with the skill (or lack of it) of the photographer. It is plenty easy to get out of focus backgrounds with APS-C and if you can't, it isn't likely that you will be able to do so with a full frame camera.

The biggest benefits to full frame are with regard to high iso capability and ability to print big and these are certainly niche applications that will not apply to everyone.

In the case of Pentax, it allows us to finally get fast, good quality wide lenses, as we don't have to deal with crop factors anymore. This is startlingly lacking in Pentax. No fast 35 equivalent is losing them customers, no doubt.

[IchabodCrane]

I still think Ricoh/Pentax should outflank Nikon and do a variable crop factor on a FF camera, should they ever develop one. It's been reported many times that most Pentax APS-C lenses are not all that far away from being FF capable. The camera would "know" via some database what the allowable crop is for each Pentax lens and would adjust accordingly. This rumored special viewfinder plays right into this concept. Imagine putting that DA 15 Ltd on a Pentax FF camera and it presents you the option to shoot with a 1.2 crop mode (or whatever)? That would be interesting, IMHO.

[normhead]

Any chance you could post a picture or two to show us what the theory means in real life? The question is not, is FF better at something, at 50% to 300% of the price, it should be a lot better, at a lot of things. The question is for a given shot how much chance is there I won't be able to get the shot I want on APS-c that I can get on FF. And examples of a few pictures would enable us to see if the images are images we'd take, and if the above graph actually has any meaning to us, as more than a theoretical concept. The difference would seem to be about one stop. So when I shoot multiple exposures at different stops, I usually shoot 2.8, 5.6, 8, 16.... a one stop difference to me is not worth worrying about. There's just not that much difference. I shoot 8 and 5.6 because those two are usually the sharpest with acceptable DoF. Although sometimes I have to go to F11 to get acceptable DoF.

IMHO one stop of noise is insignificant, unless you're shooting at 3200 ISO or above. That would be a very small percentage of my shooting.

[ElJamoquio]

there is absolutely no benefit to getting full frame (assuming that both lenses are decent wide open).

That's really not true, though. There's a 1.5x sharper image, which might not matter to you but does to some.

In general the same lenses are some combination of wider, longer, faster, and cheaper, but in 99.999% of the cases they're sharper by a wide margin. In addition they're almost always more flexible as you have more room to crop, so in general less lens changes or lens purchases all around.

[Aristophanes]

No kidding, not to mention that on APS-c you have the use of all those APS-c lens that can't be used on FF systems, and all the FF lenses. There's way more lens selection on APS-c.

The whole Pentax marketing campaign now is based on the fact that APS-C really needs purpose built lenses for the smaller format. Yet Canon and Nikon are pumping out 2-3x more FF optimized lenses than APS-C. Plus the legacy glass. Add in Sony, Zeiss, Leica.

The bane of APS-C is a dearth of dedicate lenses. And as Falk has demonstrated FF lenses can even be made cheaper and not substantially larger. It's all about sensor size to price point. All else follows.

[Rondec]

That's really not true, though. There's a 1.5x sharper image, which might not matter to you but does to some.

In general the same lenses are some combination of wider, longer, faster, and cheaper, but in 99.999% of the cases they're sharper by a wide margin. In addition they're almost always more flexible as you have more room to crop, so in general less lens changes or lens purchases all around.

Assuming (a) that most lenses are sharpest stopped down one stop, regardless of format and (b) you are not printing 48 inches on a side, you won't notice the difference in formats in the situation where you are shooting with a 70-200 f4 lens on a 5D MK III and a DA *50-135 on a K5 II.

Differences in format will become evident in two situations and I repeat -- printing very large (or really aggressive cropping) or, in really high iso situations.