Originally posted by zplus Its not only about the depth of field, its about the perspective of the image.
It is impossible for an aps-c to recreate the same perspective as a full frame camera.
If someone says that all you would have to do is use a focal length on the aps-c thats 2/3 that of the focal length used on the ff camera, they clearly don't understand.
Perspective is not the same as FOV.
Come on, it seems you presume it is a necessity to "recreate" the perspective of every single image ever taken with the old film-format. What is photography about?
Choose an "interesting" perspective, show me things in ways i haven't looked at them, draw my attention to an image by composing it in your mind and choosing the right combination of different parameters to achieve your goal.
Claiming the correlation to a specific sensor format is a limiting factor for you sounds weird, at best this can be explained by long-year routine.
There may be sweet spots for different senzor sizes, true.
But if taking the DOF as an example, the potential shallowness should not be a problem with lenses like 1,4 85 and longer, right? And quite a useful amount can be achieved by 1,2, 1,4 or 1,8 lenses down to 20 mm. They exist or can be built for this purpose, if someone wants to spare the money on having this potential.
It's harder with wider angles, to be honest, you might get limited here if this was your preferred way of shooting, but for most people, as me, more DOF in WA was a plus. As the additional f-stop is, you get shorter times with the same DOF, i find it very useful for AL, landscape and architecture, general snapshots.
And it's true, perspective does change, but is there a "true" one, which is the only valid and possible for good composed images?
It's cheap to say: this shot wouldn't have been possible with another sensor size. It's like saying, my creativity and my ability to compose are related to the old film-size alone
Best regards, dan