Originally posted by ElJamoquio FF will give you 1.5x better resolution, give or take.
ahem? how's that? perhaps you could say, with the same pixel count on the sensor, the lens needs to resolve roughly 1.5 less on fullframe (linearly) in order to achieve about the same level of detail. that's not really the same thing (meaning, you won't magically get "more resolution" just because the size of the sensor)
Quote: FF will give you 1 stop less DOF with the same lens.
that's probably a misunderstanding: 35mm will give you more dof with the same lens at same aperture (compared to aps-c), it will give you less dof for the same angle of view at the same aperture (so not same lens, but rather "equivalent lens")
Quote: If you're happy with the DOF you have now on APS-C, you could do the same on FF with a smaller, lighter, and much cheaper lens.
that's a purely academical statement, unless you price the lenses in question and decide. in theory, designing a lens for the same aperture and same field of view for a smaller format is cheaper (and building it is too), mainly because it's easier to correct it (briefly put: the natural shape of the "field of image" of a lens is spherical, not plane, the wider the plane you need to cover, the more trouble you're getting into, that's probably in part why prices for larger format lenses are heart-stopping, even though they don't need to resolve nearly as much as the smaller format ones, lens resolving power is "cheap", especially these days), but if you want one stop faster aperture for the "one stop smaller format" (aps-c in this case), i don't know how it scales (probably badly, though i'm not sure: note how most medium format "normal" lenses (50mm equivalent) are 2.8
), but i think this "cost" is not liner with the diagonal of the frame (maybe roughly with it's sqaure?), and this perhaps works to reduce the cost difference between 35mm and aps-c, as compared to 35mm to mf.
The real point is: are you happy with the dof from aps-c, or do you want 35mm, or maybe medium format, or even bigger(less dof)? That is the question, because this "disadvantage" also means that i can do with a 50/1.4 what you won't find easy doing with an 80/1.4 on 35mm: shoot in low light and have "some" dof, while you.. ahem.. don't
(though you do have arguably better iso performance, so could stop down and arrive in the same place), so it's a simple case of "what you really want"; for instance, i used to shoot film, and never liked the 50mm, i used to say 85mm would be my standard lens... if i could only afford one. now i own a 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 which i misuse on my aps-c, so i have an 80/1.4 and 135/1.4 equivalent (dof aside), am i happy? hell yeah. now if i could get my hands on one of those 135/1.8 pentax used to make... :P
Quote: All currently sold FF cameras come with bigger viewfinders than any APS-C viewfinders.
true, that's mainly down to physics. i take out my old pentacon six from time to time, and contemplate what "big viewfinder" really means
. view camera users will laugh at us both. that's life
Quote: Doing this on medium format would cost quite a bit more - about 3x more for the body. The bodies that are available right now are much larger and heavier than a APS-C/FF body. A FF body technically doesn't have to be much larger than an APS-C body.
the mf to 35mm gap is technically (roughly) as big as the 35mm to aps-c (the cost gap however is not, and has never been iirc), so price aside, comparing 35mm and aps-c is about as absurd as comparing 35mm to medium format. is it not? (i do know "the cameras look the same", but i think we're all past that
)