Originally posted by RobA_Oz It seems that the main advantage of increased size for sensors is reduced noise at higher ISO settings. The main disadvantage, apart from cost, seems to be the reduced depth of field that arises from the increased diameter of the image circle. Of course, that's also an advantage in those situations where discrimination is required, to isolate a subject from its background. Generally speaking, though, wider field of view shots, where large depth of field is almost always desirable, are probably advantaged by smaller sensors, and telephoto portraits are probably advantaged by larger ones.
Yes and no... the increased high iso performance is definitely one advantage.
But there are others too.
I have not found the DOF limitations in terms of lack of DOF to be an issue and wide angle work in partiular is an area where I really appreciate the 35mm format.
The one exception is macro work. I actually would prefer APS-C if that was my main thing.
Now for most other applications 35mm is definitely preferred.
The main disadvantage is price, bulk and weight, 35mm bodies are larger and heavier.
QUOTE=RobA_Oz;434037]It also seems from the little reading I've done on the subject, that a very high lens resolving power can be a problem for larger sensors than smaller ones with the same pixel count, so, when I hear people talk about full-frame sensors taking "better" pictures than smaller ones, I wonder what they're really talking about. Are they comparing like with like, or are they just impressed by the pixel count?[/QUOTE]
the resolving power thing is an issue equal to both format and a function of pixen density. Given equal MP count the 35mm digtial chip will not stress a lens as much as an APS-C one in terms of resolving power, but require the resoving power to be delivered covering a larger Image circle.
I am not sure 12MP sounds very impressive these days, but the 12MP currently available in the D3/D700 is from my experience some of the finest MP available.
Lens problems are lens problems and I think equal for both formats. I recall vignette and soft cornes being an issue with APS-C too.
if you are willing to pay the price for the top of the line 35mm lenses then such issues will be similar to what you will find in APS-C specific lenses IMHO.
Originally posted by nostatic Why is it that people are totally unrealistic? They want Pentax to have great AF, FF sensor, Flux Capacitor, and "they better keep it under $1K."
Where are the free lunches all these people must be enjoying regularly to have such expectations? I feel left out...
That has been one of my main points on this subject too, peoples price expectations.
A 35mm digital body below 3000USD would be a market first, I am quite confident that Pentax would be able to produce an ecellent 35mm digital body, but how many of us are ready to hand over 3K to get it?
My guess is there would be few of us.
It is kind of like expecting to see a 645D priced around 5000 USD, it would be great if it happened, but I just have a really hard time seeing it happen.
Originally posted by roentarre FF cameras do not take good pictures. It is the lighting, the composition and the effort to capture or create images that count.
So very true Roentarre.