Originally posted by Jodokast96 Jay, that is one seriously f****d up post, but I agree, lol.
I'm one seriously f****d up dude.
Originally posted by falconeye But ...
For shorter focal lengths, it becomes harder (and at some point impossible) to build a lens of similiar size (i.e., sharp below f/2). And smaller sensor needs shorter focal length.
That's the only sacrifice. But it is there.
Damn, falconeye -- you always get me with your "science."
That's why you're one of my favorite members on the forum.
That is totally true. I took an optics class last semester, and it's interesting to look at optical design from a broader perspective than just still photography. If we didn't have to worry about a uniform mount or focus, it would be so much easier to design lenses. Haha.
But, yes, in particular, wide angle lenses are very difficult to make fast and sharp -- this is mainly because of the retrofocal designs they require. If we could only get rid of that f***ing mirror, we'd be able to make gorgeous wide-angle lenses. (That's one reason the Samsung NX is particularly interesting to me)
So, in that sense, you can look at full-frame versus crop-frame, and see their advantages and disadvantages:
Full-frame has bigger, longer glass to get the same telephoto perspective as crop-frame -- while crop-frame has bigger, more expensive glass to get the same wide angle perspective as full-frame.
So, it depends what you shoot, I suppose.
But, I will say this -- the Tokina 11-17 f/2.8 is a gorgeous wide-angle lens, and I don't think many shooters would need to go much wider than that on APS-C.
Compare its weight and price tag to full-frame lenses of the same perspective, field-of-view and depth-of-field, and I think APS-C still wins out.
Originally posted by mabelsound But I do very much want a metal body, because it feels good to hold.
It's funny -- when the advanced plastics started finding their way into lenses and bodies in the 80s, it was heralded as a feature -- plastics offered superior thermal-resistant designs that didn't expand and contract with temperature changes as much as metals did -- and they were much stronger than metal. And lighter, too.
But people still have a weird association between "heavy" and "quality" -- they think a camera, to be built like a tank, must weigh the same as one, too.
My friend's carbon fiber bike cost more than $8000 USD, and it feels REALLY cheap. Why? it's so light. It feels like I could break it if i sat on it. But, in reality, it's a far superior material.
I'd rather have a better-quality material in my camera and focus on re-training my brain than have an outdated, old material (magnesium alloy), which is heavy and inferior to PVCs -- even if it feels intuitively stronger.
The only reason magnesium alloy construction is still seen is because people perceive it to be superior to plastic construction -- it's the marketing department telling the product engineers what to do. The product engineers role their eyes, knowing that a solid PVC body (even without a magnesium skeleton) is far superior.
Heh... oh photographers. They're an odd bunch.
Last edited by jay; 05-03-2009 at 06:02 PM.