[jsherman999]

There is absolutely no way, ƒ2.8 on one system is equivalent to ƒ4 on another.

The law of physics say otherwise.

Tried that. ^^

Norm don't need no stinkin' physics!

.

[bossa]

This is where I say, if I took those images with APS-c could you tell the difference, and you've got nothing. Same old same old. Don't make me start criticizing the images you post. I don't do it because I'm polite, not because I can't. For example, the kid with the phone, the lighting makes it look like his face is puffy. If that's what I'm missing, ya, I don't want that.

A lot of the time you post these images , and quite often they are very nice images, but that doesn't mean they mean what you think they mean, or that they demonstrate anything but you can take a nice picture with that camera. IN terms of arguing format, one picture means nothing. Only two images can present both sides of the issue.

And that's just one situation. If you want to examine the utility of one system as compared to another, it's going to take a lot of images and a lot of analysis. For myself, I'm going to leave it that in the grand scheme of things APS-c and FF are pretty close, FF is a little more flexible with unlimited funds, and APS-c is a little more flexible with limited funds... but you'd expect that FF would have a higher top end, because it costs more.

It all seems quite reasonable to me. What's your beef?

I don't like your attitude Norm or your APS-C apologist rants.

As far as "the kid with the phone" having a puffy face goes; what has that got to do with "art" or anything at all? Art doesn't have to be about perfection, glamour, 16-18th century portrait concepts or even 19th century landscape tradition - "serious artists" moved on from those sensibilities over 100 years ago - but like most Photographers, you appear to be confusing Craft with Art.

I'm pretty sure that had APS-C come along after digital FF you'd be trashing the format in favour of FF right now, trying to justify to yourself that you made the right choice. Your evangelism is beyond reform and I don't know why people waste their time trying to open your mind.

You continually see the overlap of the formats as the vindication of your choices without recognizing the fact that what exists inside that overlap is different - Jay attempted, one more time, to explain it to you but you didn't want to know. You don't have to continually justify your own choices by finding ways to get people into arguments so you can end up playing ad hominem when they shoot down your logic.

Earlier on in this thread you were calling out a forum contributor for not posting pictures and tried to use that as justification for not accepting his rational argument. Did Einstein have to be a Watch-Making-Astronaut before anyone took on his ideas re' Time and Space?