[lytrytyr]

Yes, but you can never have a FF+ f/1.4 kind of bokeh on an APS-C.

Never say "never":

SLR Magic Hyperprime LM CINE 50mm T/0.95 on Sony NEX - Review / Test Report

"Equiv. aperture f/1.4 (full format equivalent, in terms of depth-of-field)"
"It fulfills its design priorities – according to the manufacturer . . . plus a smooth bokeh."

[Apapukas]

Never say "never":

SLR Magic Hyperprime LM CINE 50mm T/0.95 on Sony NEX - Review / Test Report

"Equiv. aperture f/1.4 (full format equivalent, in terms of depth-of-field)"
"It fulfills its design priorities – according to the manufacturer . . . plus a smooth bokeh."

Well, I guess you are right

But...

For the price of that lens you can get a FF+f/1.2. A little absurd IMO.

[lytrytyr]

A little absurd IMO.

Yep, I "make do" with my A50/1.2 on a K-01 and K-50 (using focus peaking).

[Cannikin]

Telephoto shallow DOF is not of interest to me. The difference between 55/1.4 on APS-C and 85/1.4 on FF is the difference between destroying the background and obliterating the background. When you can no longer tell what you're looking at, any further blur is meaningless IMO.

The real big difference, and the one of most interest to me, is wide angle shallow DOF (and light gathering capability for night landscapes). Take a 24mm f/1.4 on FF. The closest you can get to that on APS-C is either the Samyang 16mm f/2.0 or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. Both have approximately a 2-stop disadvantage compared the the FF 24/1.4, one of which is MF and the other is not quite as wide.

Wide angle environmental shots where the background is subtly, but noticeably, blurred making the subject pop out are difficult on FF. On APS-C or smaller, they're almost impossible.

[Greyser]

I'm not really ready to buy FF. However, I may see how it goes...

[Rondec]

Never thought about the difference in viewfinder?

Honestly, what percentage of folks manual focus at this point? Even most full frame viewfinders of auto focus cameras will not compare to the "glory days" of manual focus viewfinders back in the day. I feel like a penta prism APS-C viewfinder is adequate for what it is -- checking that my camera auto focused correctly. But maybe you are right and what we really need is EVFs on all cameras to get back a truly big and bright viewfinder.

[Mistral75]

I was making an implicit reference to picture framing / composing, not to manual focusing.

As a true amateur, I find it more pleasant to frame a picture with a 24x36 viewfinder, even that of a modern, autofocus camera (Canon EOS 5D MkIII or Nikon D800 for instance) than with an APS-C viewfinder.

Of course a 645D (or any medium format camera for that matter) would be even more pleasant but it plays in another league, price-wise and weight-wise.

And you are right, once they are perfected, electronic viewfinders will suppress the 24x36's advantage as far as viewfinders (and myself) are concerned.

[lytrytyr]

Honestly, what percentage of folks manual focus at this point?

Do we need to run a poll?

But at the very least among macro and video photographers,
the percentage may not be that small.

Look at how focus peaking has become quite the feature.

[Rondec]

Do we need to run a poll?

But at the very least among macro and video photographers,
the percentage may not be that small.

Look at how focus peaking has become quite the feature.

Sure, but for both those situations, I believe that a tilting LCD is probably at least as beneficial, or maybe more so than a full frame viewfinder...

[mrNewt]

80% of my lenses are MF... I love MF... what's wrong with that?
And as far as I know I am not the only one... actually I know a lot of people that prefer MF over AF.

[Zygonyx]

I appreciate to be able to use both AF and MF, depending on circustances...
When taking macros, portraits, landscapes, you actually don't need AF.
That's quite significant, unless you specialise shooting mooving subjects - and even then, MF is noway impossible / often possible.

[bxf]

Those of you who don't care for AF: do you have only fast glass? I certainly remember, in the old days, struggling with a darkening split-image focusing aid with lenses of even F4 sometimes. OK, even this may not be a big deal with inanimate subjects, but otherwise, having the subject wait while you're trying to fight the dark split-image is not always acceptable.

[Rondec]

Camera companies don't just cater to grump old men who can't believe that the young codgers don't learn the basics of photography like using a light meter and manual focusing. I just wish that Nikon would have disabled the auto focus on the Df for a truly immersive, retro experience and see how well it sold.

Honestly, if I manual focus, it is using the back LCD as a guide and not the viewfinder. Particularly with focus peaking being present there, it is just easier and more accurate than using the viewfinder. But auto focus is here to stay, even if there are some forumites who clamor for a digital K1000.

[Zygonyx]

Yep, plus AF is there to help Zeiss-Voigtlander, Leica and Samyang selling their glasses to reluctant AF/resisting MF users !

[normhead]

Do you even understand what an "EV" is? Or how a logarithmic scale works? Do you also think a magnitude 9 earthquake is only 12.5% bigger than a magnitude 8?

No, why don't you explain it to me?
Actually my point is that 93% of what you can do with an FF camera you can do with an APS-c. And 7% of what you can do on an APS-c camera, you can't do on an FF. My point is also, for 93% of the available ƒ-stops for FF, there is an equivalent ƒ-stop in APS-c. The "FF advantage" assumes that you are pushing your APS-c camera to it's limits. For most of us, if we alter our exposure one stop to achieve an equivalent image it's not a problem, because we aren't shooting at the limits of our lenses anyway. I tend to shoot as close to 5.6 as possible. But shooting ƒ4 or ƒ8, I don't really care. Someone needs to keep the propaganda in perspective. A very small number of people with very unique shooting needs, and part of a school of thought that isn't universally accepted in photography for some reason have locked onto this FF is way better than APS_c thing and then promote FF as if it affects every image. That's just wrong. Technically it affects every image, but in terms of can you get the image you want with the equipment you have? Yes you can, APS-c or FF. ANd the difference between APS-c and FF isn't what people make it out to be. It get's boring. You are limited in APS-c only in certain situations, like narrow depth of field. YOu are limited by FF in certain situations, magnification of cropped images and macro. There are trade offs either way. GOing on and on about FF as if there are no trade offs is only presenting one side of the story, propaganda, outright lying… take your pick, I don't care. Believe what you want, but don't think if you put it out in a public forum people aren't going to try and provide a more balanced perspective….

Tell people what they get from FF, tell them what they have to give up to get it, no one has a problem with that. But this endless parade of biased information presented in ways that imply differences that don't exist in the real world, and ignoring differences that do exist in the real world… it's getting old.