[Ash]

No, it is not ogl. Or a vast majority of enthusiast and professional photographers wouldn't be shooting with FF cameras.

[filorp]

FF is marketing trick

APSC is.... they talk us to the small viewfinder, shollow almost compact DOF, and smaller size that can be usefull during the sunday walk... everything i remember from using Zenit E, TTL just vanished its not there.....

[Pål Jensen]

No, it is not ogl. Or a vast majority of enthusiast and professional photographers wouldn't be shooting with FF cameras.

Actually the vast majority of the above are shooting with APS cameras....

[Pål Jensen]

APSC is.... they talk us to the small viewfinder, shollow almost compact DOF, and smaller size that can be usefull during the sunday walk... everything i remember from using Zenit E, TTL just vanished its not there.....

THe DOF difference is one stop. You can phrase it in another way; FF give one stop slower shutterspeed (sometimes ensuring blurred images) at the same DOF as APS...

[cali92rs]

Actually the vast majority of the above are shooting with APS cameras....

Really, can you provide data that shows that?
Most of the wedding photogs I know use full frame. I've never seen an APS on the sideline of a major sporting event.

[Paul Ewins]

No, it is not ogl. Or a vast majority of enthusiast and professional photographers wouldn't be shooting with FF cameras.

While a lot of pros might be using FF the vast majority of enthusiasts use APSC or smaller, otherwise FF would have a much greater market share than it does. The pros can be assumed to know what they need but it is the enthusiast who might be persuaded by clever marketing to buy a camera that they don't really need. FF is aspirational to enthusiasts the way Leicas used to be in film days. You become worried that the shortcomings in your photography might be due to your equipment, completely missing the fact that almost all of the great photographs ever made were made on equipment greatly inferior to any DSLR currently on sale. So while the differences between APSC and FF are real, for most enthusiasts what matters most is calming their insecurities.

[ElJamoquio]

THe DOF difference is one stop. You can phrase it in another way; FF give one stop slower shutterspeed (sometimes ensuring blurred images) at the same DOF as APS...

You forgot to mention that, under the conditions you describe (same ISO for the two types), FF would give twice as good of SNR.

[tromboads]

Hey look a photo!

Good one guys. You've gone and scared all the girls away with such a silly thread.


Go and Take Photos!

[ogl]

No, it is not ogl. Or a vast majority of enthusiast and professional photographers wouldn't be shooting with FF cameras.

The future is forgotten past
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography-industry/203028-popul...ff-camera.html

[Alizarine]

So while the differences between APSC and FF are real, for most enthusiasts what matters most is calming their insecurities.

True. And well, so do a lot of clients (by that I mean not just companies, even couples looking for wedding 'togs! At least in my area) lately (asking if one uses an FF camera, if not, chances of getting accepted are lower). Even they got carried away by FF marketing.

[illdefined]

Really, can you provide data that shows that?
Most of the wedding photogs I know use full frame. I've never seen an APS on the sideline of a major sporting event.

Pal apparently only likes to make statements not responses.

[Fontan]

True. And well, so do a lot of clients (by that I mean not just companies, even couples looking for wedding 'togs! At least in my area) lately (asking if one uses an FF camera, if not, chances of getting accepted are lower). Even they got carried away by FF marketing.

I recently attended a wedding last weekend here in Southern California, and this camera crew of 8 had 2 REDs, 2 645ds, 3 D800s, and the big boss was walking around with Leica MM.

The cost of shooting the event was 25K.

I was impressed.

[Alizarine]

I recently attended a wedding last weekend here in Southern California, and this camera crew of 8 had 2 REDs, 2 645ds, 3 D800s, and the big boss was walking around with Leica MM. The cost of shooting the event was 25K.

Wow, that's a little overkill I think. Impressive, I agree. TWO 645D's even...

[RobA_Oz]

I recently attended a wedding last weekend here in Southern California, and this camera crew of 8 had 2 REDs, 2 645ds, 3 D800s, and the big boss was walking around with Leica MM.

The cost of shooting the event was 25K.

I was impressed.

You've got to be impressed by the hardware, but you have to wonder about the cranial software involved. What are they going to do with the images, when they break up in four years?

[Ash]

Hey look a photo!

Good one guys. You've gone and scared all the girls away with such a silly thread.


Go and Take Photos!

Yes, but the DoF is not shallow enough and it's not a FF shot.
We know APS-C will always outsell FF in absolute sales but that isn't the only aspect determining viability for a photographic manufacturer. It's also a lifestyle option, or the FF cameras nowadays wouldn't be as successful as they are. We don't have to look too far from what Pentax is offering in the smaller dMF niche market and how that's faring for the company financially.