Originally posted by Pål Jensen If you go as large as large format (LF) you need to add tilt and shift to get control over DOF
That's because of how those cameras are made and operated...and i do not grasp why it's a disadvantage, it's called a technical camera for a reason and the degree of control it gives is just awesome. Been playing lately with a Sinar and man i want one of those!
I don't see how a larger format gives you "less" DOF control... It gives you complete control! at the cost of having to set up and operate a monster-like device.
Originally posted by Pål Jensen Hardly anyone buy lenses for a specific DOF wide open but for exposure freedom
I don't know if that is true...i try to buy my lenses with the larger aperture, for the application i need i try to get them with wide apertures because i appreciate having the capacity to use DOF for certain effects. Till now my resources have limited me to get the two zooms i work with but i am planning on buying some fast primes to get those crazy shallow DOF pictures (almost picked a Canon FF just for it's 50 1,2). With today's High ISO capabilities the "exposure freedom" derived from fast lenses becomes less crucial. So maybe the DOF factor is becoming more important.
Originally posted by Pål Jensen They will not give the same exposure at the same DOF when used at the formats they are designed for
People ain't out there shooting on guesses, the cameras have light meters, so i do not see how this is relevant.
Originally posted by Pål Jensen APS has a definitive advantage as the wide open DOF of, say, a 400/2.8 is a problem not a solution
In those situations you can use 2,8 and crop, or on a Nikon use a crop mode directly (getting a convenient sized NEF)...that "advantage" of aps-c is a limitation on Field of view that may be convenient on some occasions, but it's still a limitation. On FF yo can do the same thing for those occasion where it's convenient while retaining the ability of taking photos with bigger FOV and shallower DOF when you want to.
Maybe, as you say, the equivalence reasoning ain't the right one to use...maybe you're right there. Then the question is do people want a larger format that enables them to do some things aps-c format isn't capable of doing? i'm pretty sure that lots of people don't get into FF because it's bodies price...it's the same reason that has pushed to shrink MF in digital age. I would undoubtely own a digital MF, manual focus, and with a rudimentary light meter if it was available at a reasonable price. If FF drops below 2000$ i'm sure we'll start to see more FF users.
And all the equivalence reasoning is done because manufacturers keep talking about equivalent FOV, they keep linking Aps-c to FF...and if we reason on those terms to manufacture an Aps-c system with the same capacities than a FF system is more expensive because of the lenses involved (i would like to know the cost of the equivalent 50 f1,4).
The only reason MF has shrinked in digital age is it's prohibitive price, on film days having a MF camera wasn't so rare as today...if a MF camera was affordable i would buy one because it can do some things and has a shooting style that ain't the same in a smaller format.