Originally posted by Winder If both sensors have the same pixel density then there is no advantage. I can crop a 32MP FF down to a 16MP APS-C and get the exact same result. All APS-C is is a cropped FF. With equal pixel density you can do the exact same thing in post.
While it is true you would have to stop down with a FF to get the same DoF, most of the time you will find that you are trying to go wider to keep the ISO down on APS-C. I shoot a lot with my K-7 at F/2.0 with my Sigma 50mm to keep the ISO down and shutter speed up. With a My 5D I can use a higher ISO and stop down to get the same result. Even if noise were identical you have to enlarge the APS-C 1.5x as much to match the output size of FF which means that it will look "noisier".
You're right but if we look at the current sensors and older ones you will see that smaller sensors are often the ones that have higher density and are using newer technology to boost performance.
I agree that bigger sensors are better but that's because they are better by nature and not technology wise. Compacts and cellphone sensors are often the most advance ones, APS-C lags behind that with about 1/2 to a year and FF lags behind APS-C with the same amount.
MF sensors are technology wise even more ancient.
Originally posted by Winder You are right.... APS-C needs faster/sharper lenses to match FF IQ. That means the lenses are more expensive for equal results. There is no real price advantage for APS-C lenses except for the consumer grade product.
But the complete camera system doesn't have to be more expensive, FF camera often cost $1000 more so if you are comparing there is more money available for APS-C lenses.
And like I said lenses last longer then the camera and hold their money better, so even if you spend $2000 more on APS-C lenses to get the roughly the same performance it still is the better investment in the long run.
Certainly if you plan to buy one or two camera's every 4 or 6 years.
Originally posted by Winder I have a Contax 645 which I use for B&W film work. I still develop my own negatives and scan them in. I would love to have the 645D, but I will wait for the second generation. People over state the DoF advantage/disadvantage.
I agree with the 645D, i would use it for portraits the most but I find it to sluggish for that, it's however very capable for landscape which is where the camera was aimed at from what i read.
I'm now looking at 4x5 and 5x7 cameras for the experience.