[normhead]

Ah, I see what we have here is a reference to an opinion. There are so many holes in this opinion that it doesn't stand up at all. But listen to what the guy says...

APS-C lenses are often heavier, larger, and more expensive than full-frame lenses. APS-C lenses almost never perform as well in some objective measurements like image resolving power.
What system should you buy? If you have an APS-C and rarely shoot wider than F/4, you'd only be giving up the superior resolution if you continued on APS-C. If you're often at F/2.8 or below on APS-C, it might be better to make your next camera purchase a full-frame camera.

The article though seriously flawed, and not at all technical, comes to a valid conclusion which I'd support , even though his methodology really sucks. That's because he's relating his experience with his shooting style, and even though conceptually he lacks a lot, he just puts together an ridiculous argument to illustrate his point,you can still learn from his conclusion. Please don't get caught up in his silly tables and graphs. They don't mean what he thinkins they mean. What you need to do is go through your images and see how often you shoot below F 2.8 .

If I look at my setup... I have an FA* 50mm 1.8 that is half the weight of my 70 mm Sigma 2.8, it's rough equivalent in FF. Both are FF lenses. Both can be used on my APS-c cameras. People in APS-c land can buy any light weight FF lens they want. Not so for FF an APS-c. So on that part of the equation, the man is just dead wrong. As for his assertion about noise, he forgets, that's only an issue, if noise is noticeable. When I'm shooting up to 800 ISO on my K-5, noise isn't an issue, and neither is this argument. The K-5 has excellent noise reduction software built in, which negates the noise argument to a large degree.

So there is a very limited set of circumstances where this article is correct. Like when using the Nikon equipment he used as an example, when assuming that you need the extra resolution an FF may (or may not) because if you aren't using a tripod, talking about which camera will take the the higher resolution picture is going to be determined by who has the steadier hand at the moment in question, not FF or APS-c.

APS-C lenses are often heavier, larger, and more expensive than full-frame lenses.

Then why don't people just buy FF lenses and use them in place for APS-c lenses? They fit on the same cameras. Any lens you can use on FF , you can use on APS-c, they don't get heavier just because you put them on an APS-c camera. If you think about the topic from a different angles, you start realizing how narrow this view point is.

APS-C lenses almost never perform as well in some objective measurements like image resolving power.

The limits of resolving power have been studied to death. Resolving power is an issue only if you need resolution. Resolution is like horse power in a car, you can drive a car with 170 HP or a car with 279 HP and most of the time you won't be using more than 50 or 60 HP in either of them. Whether or not you want to pay for the extra HP for the times you need it is a personal decision, but 99% of the time it doesn't change anything, except maybe your sense of confidence. Resolution doesn't really affect IQ on shots reduced to under 3000 pixels, when talking a D800 and a K-5, based on my research. It may be in the future that everyone will be using 4000 horizontal resolution monitors and your pictures will look better if they were taken with a 645D or Nikon D800, but that's hardly an APS-c vs FF issue. A 16 Mp Merril looks very good compared to a D800 image at large size, there are many other issues besides straight up resolution that go into determining how good a picture looks.

The guy is really bang on in his conclusions despite the limitations of his data. Look at your images exif. If a lot of keepers are f-2.8 or below you probably want FF. In my case less than 1% of my keepers are shot at 2.8 or below. Less than 10% of my keepers are shot at an ISO over 800 and those are all birds in flight. Anyone enamoured with very shallow DoF will want FF. Anyone who shoots mostly for wide DoF is going to be just as happy or possibly happier with APS-c unless they shoot action in low light. Anyone who shoots Hi Res is not going to be happy with FF either. FF is a compromise in the hi-res world.

My favourite lens right now is my A-400 5.6. As a telephoto it's DoF is shallow, I crop the images as much as 50%. On an FF camera I'd be cropping 75% and getting exactly the same image (given equal pixel pitch) with the same lens, exactly the same depth of field, exactly the same noise levels. The fact that the author of the quoted article hasn't used this type of conception in his thought process doesn't mean they aren't valid. It just means he either didn't think of them, or didn't include them, because he wanted to keep it simple. Go with his conclusions based on his use of both systems, and you won't go wrong.

[badsykes]

I have very small number of pics at 2.8...I like to shoot in low light without blitz.Maintain the natural light as much as possible..I still think that an APS-C is enough for me especially with the new -3EV low light sensor...At 1000$ is kinda bargain.For the forthcoming future on APS-C i don't see the 24mp doing much better in low light than 16mp..

[ElJamoquio]

They don't mean what he thinkins they mean.

Is it possible that the facts he presents (there's no opinion in those tables or graphs) don't mean what you think they mean?

[normhead]

Is it possible that the facts he presents (there's no opinion in those tables or graphs) don't mean what you think they mean?

The facts he presents, are facts, but they are not the whole story, and there are different and equally valid ways of looking at the data presented. To use the vehicle analogy, it's like looking at the cost of running a vehicle by looking at the mileage. You can look at all the mileage charts you want, but they don't include frequency of repair, average cost of repair or original purchase price. Looking at those charts is like looking at the mileage only. It's part of the picture, it's scientific, it's accurate. But it leaves out a lot of relevant data if you are looking at the overall picture, and especially when you get to looking at specific lenses etc.

That's why I used a couple of specific examples to illustrate my point.

My FA 50 1.8 is a fraction of the weight of my Sigma 70-2.8 given a roughly equivalent DoF and FoV. For approximately the same FoV and DoF on APS-c and FF the APS-c lens is much lighter. This is not the way the author or you article defines the issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't just as valid. Mine is a real world comparison with real lenses I will use in real situations should I purchase a Pentax FF. The Pentax FF will have the Sigma 70 and the K-5 will have the 50, to be used in exactly the same situation. The lens on the FF will be considerably heavier, and it's very likely the camera body will be heavier as well. It's not that I mis-understand what he wrote and the tables he presents. It's just for the reasons explained above, I question their relevance in real world situations. As I said, if you read his conclusions and not his data analysis, you can't go wrong. If you go beyond his conclusions and start believing you're going to have a lighter kit using an FF body, you're going to be badly disappointed. All his arguments will continue to be true, and your final weight total is going to be more, to get the same functionality, if you don't shoot most of your shots under F 2.8 or over 800 ISO. If you shoot most of your shots under F 2.8 and over 800 ISO, then you should take his advice very seriously, because you're going to decide if FF is worth it to you. That's a cost benefit analysis, that is an individual decision, and not globally applicable. Many forum members have already gone FF and are happy having done so. Others continue to use APS-c and are happy doing that. There is no right or wrong. One group is not smarter than the other. They are just people who understand their own needs and have made decisions based on their own shooting style. The sooner you understand that FF may or may not improve your IQ, depending on your shooting style the sooner you'll understand my objections to these blanket types of statements.

I just finished shooting a snake that is razor sharp at 1:1, at F2.8 and F8 on an APS-c K-5. There is nothing better than razor sharp...you can't improve on it. You can't say one is more razor sharp than the other. The only issue is resolution. If you want bigger output you need a bigger sensor and 24 MP APS-c is about 8% less resolution than 24 MP FF based on the Nikon D3200 and D600. The D3200 is under $500, the D600 is over $1500. As I said, it's a cost/benefit analysis, where you don't get a lot for your money, but it still might be worth it to you. it's up to you to decide. You might want to give a little more credit to people who decide differently and concede that for the way they shoot, FF won't do anything for them. There are a lot more people like that than there are people who honestly would benefit from shooting FF in more than 2% of their images.

[badsykes]

D3200 and D5200 have 24mp APS-C sensors...From this phrases below i get that the D3200 have FF and is just cheaper than D600..

"If you want bigger output you need a bigger sensor and 24 MP APS-c is about 8% less resolution than 24 MP FF based on the Nikon D3200 and D600. The D3200 is under $500, the D600 is over $1500. "

[Ash]

There is nothing better than razor sharp...you can't improve on it. You can't say one is more razor sharp than the other. The only issue is resolution.

Objective measures of lens sharpness as tested on cameras do show there are degrees of sharpness (see Photozone.de test results) - what some call razor sharp may not be as sharp as sharp can be for 100% magnification on even a 16-24Mp camera. Hence the virtue of the IIs over the II or classic with lenses such as the Limited series and DA* variety at those solid apertures of f/5.6 to f/8 - their measures of sharpness do make a difference. But I do realise it is more than that in the majority of real life situations.

[normhead]

D3200 and D5200 have 24mp APS-C sensors...From this phrases below i get that the D3200 have FF and is just cheaper than D600..

"If you want bigger output you need a bigger sensor and 24 MP APS-c is about 8% less resolution than 24 MP FF based on the Nikon D3200 and D600. The D3200 is under $500, the D600 is over $1500. "

That was more an illustration of the D3200 which is 24 MP compared to the D600 which is also 24 Mp but full frame. There is a bit of advantage to an FF sensor, but it isn't as much as you might think.

[rawr]

Is it possible that the facts he presents (there's no opinion in those tables or graphs)

A pedantic correction: those charts or tables aren't 'facts' - they are a mere presentation of data he has chosen to select, assemble and process.

[ElJamoquio]

Ah, I see what we have here is a reference to an opinion. There are so many holes in this opinion that it doesn't stand up at all. But listen to what the guy says...



The article though seriously flawed, and not at all technical, comes to a valid conclusion which I'd support , even though his methodology really sucks. That's because he's relating his experience with his shooting style, and even though conceptually he lacks a lot, he just puts together an ridiculous argument to illustrate his point,

Would you mind expanding on this? How is his methodology wrong? What is so ridiculous about comparing the best lens on APS-C nikon to the second-best lens on FF nikon (that is actually more capable in every way, save F/32, than the APS-C lens)?

What you need to do is go through your images and see how often you shoot below F 2.8 .

It's really F/4, though, right?

If I look at my setup... I have an FA* 50mm 1.8 that is half the weight of my 70 mm Sigma 2.8, it's rough equivalent in FF. Both are FF lenses. Both can be used on my APS-c cameras. People in APS-c land can buy any light weight FF lens they want. Not so for FF an APS-c. So on that part of the equation, the man is just dead wrong.

Huh? What part is wrong? Could you quote some of his article and say why it's wrong?

As for his assertion about noise, he forgets, that's only an issue, if noise is noticeable.

There's more to it than just noise. Color's also better. It basically comes down to... would you like another stop lower ISO?

if you aren't using a tripod, talking about which camera will take the the higher resolution picture is going to be determined by who has the steadier hand at the moment in question, not FF or APS-c.

And who makes the prettier picture will be determined by the photographer. Nevertheless many people want the best tool they can get for a given amount of cash.

Then why don't people just buy FF lenses and use them in place for APS-c lenses? They fit on the same cameras. Any lens you can use on FF , you can use on APS-c, they don't get heavier just because you put them on an APS-c camera. If you think about the topic from a different angles, you start realizing how narrow this view point is.

You can certainly use an F/4 lens on an APS-C camera rather than a F/2.8 APS-C lens. I don't see how saying that helps anyone who is considering a new purchase, though. I think most people see a real or apparent 'hole' in their lens lineup and buy something to fill that hole. Depending on whether you have APS-C or FF, you pick different lenses to fill that hole. I don't see how talking about two different pictures would help anyone make up their minds, though.

It may be in the future that everyone will be using 4000 horizontal resolution monitors and your pictures will look better if they were taken with a 645D or Nikon D800, but that's hardly an APS-c vs FF issue.

That's really an APS-C vs FF issue IMO. FF has about 50% better resolution baked in, in an average comparison.

Anyone who shoots mostly for wide DoF is going to be just as happy or possibly happier with APS-c unless they shoot action in low light.

Assuming they don't care about the viewfinder or the resolution, either.

My favourite lens right now is my A-400 5.6. As a telephoto it's DoF is shallow, I crop the images as much as 50%. On an FF camera I'd be cropping 75% and getting exactly the same image (given equal pixel pitch) with the same lens, exactly the same depth of field, exactly the same noise levels.

He did talk about cropping, FWIW.

[ElJamoquio]

My FA 50 1.8 is a fraction of the weight of my Sigma 70-2.8 given a roughly equivalent DoF and FoV. For approximately the same FoV and DoF on APS-c and FF the APS-c lens is much lighter.

You're talking about the 70mm Macro lens from Sigma?

[ElJamoquio]

A pedantic correction: those charts or tables aren't 'facts' - they are a mere presentation of data he has chosen to select, assemble and process.

I'm not sure what a fact is, then, unless you're disputing the data.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+fact

[Ash]

You're talking about the 70mm Macro lens from Sigma?

And I've not ever seen an FA* 50 lens either. Unless it's the FA 50 f/2.8 macro you're really talking about, Norm. Otherwise the comparison is an unfair one.

[badsykes]

Another problem with FF..For the moment Pentax Aps-C is more or less supported by third party (Sigma and Tamron) ... If for some reasons you invested in this kind of lenses they will not compatible with FF because of APS-C only design..Of course both manufacturers may release new lenses for Pentax FF if it will apear..Of course you can sell them but you will lose some money because the target audience for those lenses will buy an FF too and they don't really need them...The second hand market will be rich and low prices with APS-C lenses...For example then i may afford to buy a pentax 16-50mm 2.8 or Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS for cheap..I still think pretty much that i remain on APS-C.. Pentax FF will ultimately shake grounds imo on the market and will make unusual oportunities arise from nowhere ...

[normhead]

Would you mind expanding on this? How is his methodology wrong? What is so ridiculous about comparing the best lens on APS-C nikon to the second-best lens on FF nikon (that is actually more capable in every way, save F/32, than the APS-C lens)?

His methodology is wrong in that he is generalizing from two lenses. He is assuming that the properties of those two lenses are representative of all lenses. In my example I used the SIgma 70 macro and FA 50. It's easy to understand that the differences between those lenses are because of different design and construction. Pentax could have made the FA 50 bigger and heavier, and possibly even macro. Sigma could have made the 70 lighter with fewer elements. The difference in weight between them has nothing to do with APS-c or FF. You can point out the difference in wieght, but it doesn't mean anything. There are more important considerations than format.

And I've not ever seen an FA* 50 lens either. Unless it's the FA 50 f/2.8 macro you're really talking about, Norm. Otherwise the comparison is an unfair one.

Exactly my point Ash. All comparisons of this type are unfair, because you never have two lenses design , on version for APS-c one for FF. The focal lengths may be the same but there are many other elements that go into designing a lens that are more relevant than the mount it's design for. However it's completely fair in that those two lenses are both in my camera bag, and for landscapes would get used for the same type of shots. Most things are like that they aren't one dimensional, and there's more than one way of thinking about them.

It's really F/4, though, right?

I was quoting the article you post a link to, if that's wrong, take it up with the author, not me. And no I mean F/2.8. AN F-stop is an indication of light transmission, depth of field is incidental.

There's more to it than just noise. Color's also better. It basically comes down to... would you like another stop lower ISO?

Reference?

And who makes the prettier picture will be determined by the photographer. Nevertheless many people want the best tool they can get for a given amount of cash.

And many want the best compromise of value and performance, most just want something they can afford without breaking the bank, a few demand the best, but a lot of them can't make use of the best because they haven't developed the skills they need to make use of it. It's pretty pointless speculating on what people want.

That's really an APS-C vs FF issue IMO. FF has about 50% better resolution baked in, in an average comparison.

My figures would put that number somewhere between 8% and 12% based on real world MTF charts.

Assuming they don't care about the viewfinder or the resolution, either.

The resolution gain is minimal and for the most part only relevant when using 1:1 pixel peeping or large scale printing. The viewfinder is more problematic. All my A-400 shots are manual focused with the stock viewfinder on a K-5. I have the 1.2 eyepiece to help with focusing, but I don't find the viewfinder restrictive or un-useable. It isn't essential to have an FF viewfinder to take great pictures, and I doubt it helps you take better picture. It's nice, but it's a frill.

Hey I'm not saying you shouldn't be an FF guy, I'm just saying, you're selling APS-c short, inventing problems that aren't there and arguing points from a narrow perspective rather than seeing the whole picture. The lens weight thing just makes me shake my head. It's ridiculous. The two systems use the same lenses. The same lenses on the different formats produce exactly the same DoF. Just on one the image is smaller. If all you want is the smaller image the fact that you could do the same thing 50% bigger ( or 100%) on a larger format camera irrelevant.

The other part is that while APS-c can use FF lenses, there are many APS-c lenses that are not FF, so you actually have a lot more selection in lenses with APS-c.

[ElJamoquio]

Pentax FF is supported by third parties, too. Lens prices on APS-C lenses will drop with the announcement of a Pentax FF, though, that's for sure.