[normhead]

The picture is irrelevant.... there's no APS-c version to compare it to. Like all those types of pictures. I don't know how many times I have to say this. You have to have something to compare to. You can post pictures until the cows come home, and all they prove is what kind of picture you can take with that camera. They in no way reflect on what you could have done with another camera.

And I totally understand why Jay to took the picture, and for what it's was taken for, it's a great picture, but as example of a picture that proves FF is better in bad light, it's a waste of time.I'm just saying, to post something like that as an example of something you can do with FF, you threw it out as part of a conversation, it should be open to criticism. My point was , the picture was an example of my point about not taking pictures in bad light as much as the point Jay thought he was making. It was just as much in favour of my argument as Jays. Maybe it came across as a little harsh but there was no intention of doing so. And I generally have a policy of never criticizing anyone's work unless they ask me too, and sometimes I don't do it even then because it's a lot of work, and I'm not being paid. But my feeling is, that is taken advantage of by some individuals. They post pictures as if they've made some kind of point, when the picture doesn't even say anything to the point, then take the resulting polite silence as proof they were right. Half the time the resulting silence is because everyone's jaw dropped and they haven't got a clue how to say anything polite.

My feeling is if you introduce a photo into a discussion of format, it's fair game. The mods don't agree, and I'm quite comfortable with their decision. They do a marvellous job of keeping things civil. But there has to be a way of circumventing this practice of showing how wrong someone is, by interrupting their thread with an irrelevant photo of a member of their family. Effectively removing the element of fair commentary.

The odd thing to me, is that despite repeated requests and thousands of photos, no one has never posted a side by side comparison of the same image shot simultaneously with an APS-c series and an FF camera. Every digital camera I have there is a comparison image, posted in the same thread. side by side, that demonstrates what I think the important differences are. I have a thread that compares my K-3 to my K-5 to my DP2. I simply do not appreciate the commentary of those who refuse to do what I've done. Because for me, that's the minimum standard. I wouldn't say the things they do, if I hadn't done the tests and had the images to back it up. I wouldn't even feel comfortable making that kind of comparison. I was happy to point out my DP2 was sharper than my K-3 with a DA 35, even though some suggested maybe my 35 is out of alignment, I still did the work., I was also happy to point out that Panoguy's SD1 didn't seem as sharp as a K-3 with the same lens. I try and be as bias free as possible. But I do the work to show people what I'm talking about. Sometimes I get corrected. Sometimes I get criticized for the way I did the test. But the thing is, I wouldn't have made the post if I hadn't done the test. And people can look at my work and agree with my conclusions or disagree.



Now we all know that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but I still don't understand, why after I have produced image after image, comparing lenses, comparing cameras, comparing what ever I can think of to compare, no one has ever been able to show this FF DoF advantage with a pair of photos.

Just coming into every thread and saying FF is cheaper, FF is better, blah blah blah, any fool can do that. It's not enlightening it's annoying. It's not informative. Because without images, there is no way to evaluate how much difference APS-c to FF will mean to your photography..or even if it would be worth a dime to you.

The FF proponents seem to be like salesmen. To believe what they say, you have to trust them. No visual examples will be provided, at least not to date. If I ever get an FF camera (and that would require the 645D not dropping to less than 4K before the Pentax FF comes out, because if I can go straight to MF, I'll bypass FF altogether), there probably will be examples posted the next week. The way it was with my K-3 and DP2. But it may take until then until we see anything of note.

The whole pro-FF community seems comfortable with general impression gleaned over a period of time and numerical analysis, that apparently can't be confirmed visually. They seem to have no fear that they may just be exhibiting personal bias, which I find odd. Because before I said something to the effect that APS-c was better based on years of experience, warning lights would go off in my head. I would ask myself, "is that because when there something that really engages you as a photographer, you always take your APS_c camera, or is that because APS-c is better for what you do?" And I would have a dozen similar questions I'd answer for myself, and I'd find ways to test that. Meanwhile many of us who have used every format under the sun, look at this pro-FF nonsense and try not to smirk into our hands. Sometimes it would be that funny, if readers didn't get drawn into it. Some people over-estimate their APS-c equipment, some people over estimate their FF equipment. When people make a choice they often defend that choice right or wrong. What are you going to do?

But when people start saying FF is, or is going to be cheaper than APS-c, and that people wouldn't buy APS-c if it was more expensive than FF, (because some of us would, not a majority I suspect, but probably as many paying more for APS-c than there are paying more for FF right now.) If everything everyone claimed as the limits of APS_c were true, you could still sell APS-c cameras on some kind of novelty basis, and there are lots of cameras sold just that way as we speak. There's no reason APS-c couldn't be any different.

It's time to bring some sanity back to the conversation.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-07-2014 at 02:45 PM.

[Rondec]

Jay did post a photo taken with a 50mm lens on his D700 and a 35mm on an APS-C camera, showing the difference in depth of field between the two formats. That's probably about the easiest thing to demonstrate at web sizes. A lot of the "full frame look" has more to do with photographers who are skilled at shooting and at post processing, at least that's what I gather from the full frame thread.

I do want to say that with regard to full frame glass being "cheaper," that may be true for Nikon and Canon, but would certainly be a different story for Pentax. If you are going to shoot mainly with Tamron/Sigma lenses anyway, then there is no particular reason to shoot Pentax, but if you want the FA limiteds, the DFA f2.8 zoom lenses that would certainly accompany such a camera, you are talking expensive. Nothing cheap about such glass. Even currently, the Pentax "cheap" prime options (DA 35 f2.4 and DA 50 f1.8) are more expensive and slower than their Nikon/Canon counter parts. Cheap has left the station here in Pentaxville and isn't coming back.

[jsherman999]

The picture is irrelevant.... there's no APS-c version to compare it to. Like all those types of pictures. I don't know how many times I have to say this. You have to have something to compare to. You can post pictures until the cows come home, and all they prove is what kind of picture you can take with that camera. They in no way reflect on what you could have done with another camera.

And I totally understand why Jay to took the picture, and for what it's was taken for, it's a great picture, but as example of a picture that proves FF is better in bad light, it's a waste of time.I'm just saying, to post something like that as an example of something you can do with FF, you threw it out as part of a conversation, it should be open to criticism. My point was , the picture was an example of my point about not taking pictures in bad light as much as the point Jay thought he was making. It was just as much in favour of my argument as Jays. Maybe it came across as a little harsh but there was no intention of doing so.

You continually ask for 'examples', but when there is no corresponding aps-c shot - because people don't walk around with two different-format cameras hanging around their necks, most times - you claim any example is invalid because there's no corresponding shot to show you the difference.

When people try to explain the potential difference using basic physics, you claim that all these physical explanations mean nothing without photographic examples; presumably because you can't envision what stopping down 1.3 stops would look like in that given situation. (an odd limitation coming from someone who claims so much experience, by the way.)

So basically, you will not accept any photographic examples that require imagination and extrapolation on your part, and you will not accept physical explanations that fill in for that photographic example - that enable the extrapolation on the part of the viewer. (ie: simply imagining how that image would look with the same FOV but 1.3 stops more DOF.)

You can't have it both ways, and you can't continue to claim any real photographic insight into these things until you move past these limitations. You can't really learn anything new that way, either. And before you whip out the "I taught for 15 years" platitude, know that every teacher who thinks they know everything and can't learn any more fails their own students first, themselves second.

... The odd thing to me, is that despite repeated requests and thousands of photos, no one has never posted a side by side comparison of the same image shot simultaneously with an APS-c series and an FF camera

.

This ^^ makes me wonder about your memory, because I personally have posted the below for you before, and you've commented on it before:
.

50mm f/2.8 FF vs 35mm f/2.8 APS-C:



.

[jsherman999]

...

I do want to say that with regard to full frame glass being "cheaper," that may be true for Nikon and Canon, but would certainly be a different story for Pentax. If you are going to shoot mainly with Tamron/Sigma lenses anyway, then there is no particular reason to shoot Pentax, but if you want the FA limiteds, the DFA f2.8 zoom lenses that would certainly accompany such a camera, you are talking expensive. Nothing cheap about such glass. Even currently, the Pentax "cheap" prime options (DA 35 f2.4 and DA 50 f1.8) are more expensive and slower than their Nikon/Canon counter parts. Cheap has left the station here in Pentaxville and isn't coming back.

I still think that for what you get, the FA Limiteds are not expensive, though. They are unique, small and have truly beautiful rendering.

.

[normhead]

SO this image works really well for FF, but could I take a picture which would be the functionally and artistically equivalent with APS-c. Say , back up, use a longer lens, maybe even the 50. As a photographer, i would go for this look with the my DA 35 because I know what the bokeh would look like. I can't achieve the exact same picture but could I achieve the same look? I suspect I could. Now if you'd used the 31 at ƒ2, and made use of equivalency, you probably would have proved my point.

And I've seen a similar set of images posted on the forum where the APS-c images were comparable. So, while I've added this set of photos to the inventory of images viewed, I have seen other images. I never said you couldn't set up a test where APS-c couldn't lose. If you'd told me when you took this, you were using a 35 at 2.8 I would have cringed and thought "ewwww horrible bokeh.", not the right lens for the comparison. So the lack of fairness in your selection is an issue with these images. I would have gone with "what is the best way I can take this image with APS-c, and the best way I can take this image with an FF camera." I suspect you could have done better with that mindset. But I don't know. Maybe that's the best you can do with APS-c.

To me the image on the right, the bokeh in the second shot is way to busy, and you could have done better, which ever format you used. I'm not interested in propaganda, I'm interested in what can be accomplished with two slightly different systems.

OK, so try the reverse, set the image up so it looks good on APS-c and then take the equivalent image on an FF. See how bad you can make the FF look. I'm sure I could do this either way.

I know in your own mind it's a fair test, but as a mainly APS_c shooter, I would have gone to my 70mm 2.8 for that image, I never would have even taken my 35 out of the bag, because as a portrait lens, 35 mm sucks on both APs-c and FF.

[Rondec]

I still think that for what you get, the FA Limiteds are not expensive, though. They are unique, small and have truly beautiful rendering.

.

Oh, I own the FA 31, FA 77 (and the DFA 100, DA *55, and DA *200) which would be a usable prime set on full frame. I would still need something wider and zooms. I just don't foresee Pentax coming out with an 85mm f1.8 for a couple of hundred dollars (although they would likely release a DFA * 85 for 1800 dollars).

[nomadkng]

so let me ask this of anyone who cares to answer:

if the claim is FF gives better resolution, color etc (I don't feel like quoting the post)

is a 24MP FF image better than a 24MP APS-C image taken with say the SAME FF lens at the same aperture of maybe f6.3?

I saw the example of FF versus APS-C at f2.8 and there was a discernible difference, ok. So FF wins for better subject isolation at shallow DOF, but even that argument isn't relative, because you have used a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens. They will automatically produce DOF discrepancies because of the physics involved. the only TRUE comparison would be to shoot both images with SAME lens, so 50mm and CROP the FF lens to APS-C size. THEN compare DOF. They might possibly be the same.

And how can one claim better IQ such as color resolution etc? Isn't that more of a lens factor? with the lens being the limiting variable?

We have the advantage of putting full frame lenses on our APS-C Pentaxes to compare. Does a 24MP FF sensor outresolve a 24MP APS-C sensor? How does it produce better color? How does a FF lens at f6.3 on a APS-C camera transmit more light? I don't think it does- there's just a larger surface area on a FF sensor to react to the light, but the light over the APS-C covered area is the same? That's like saying a wall mirror reflects more light than a handheld mirror. Of course it does, its bigger!

We all know aperture is a mathematical formula that takes into account each specific lens construction, so by using the same FF image circle LENS at the same aperture we should get the EXACT same EV over the equivalent area. Therefore this equivalency argument loses a little luster when you start saying FF has better light transmission.

---

Last edited by nomadkng; 01-07-2014 at 04:00 PM.

[Rondec]

so let me ask this of anyone who cares to answer:

if the claim is FF gives better resolution, color etc (I don't feel like quoting the post)

is a 24MP FF image better than a 24MP APS-C image taken with say the SAME FF lens at the same aperture of maybe f6.3?

I saw the example of FF versus APS-C at f2.8 and there was a discernible difference, ok. So FF wins for better subject isolation at shallow DOF, but even that argument isn't relative, because you have used a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens. They will automatically produce DOF discrepancies because of the physics involved. the only TRUE comparison would be to shoot both images with SAME lens, so 50mm and CROP the FF lens to APS-C size. THEN compare DOF. They might possibly be the same.

And how can one claim better IQ such as color resolution etc? Isn't that more of a lens factor? with the lens being the limiting variable?

We have the advantage of putting full frame lenses on our APS-C Pentaxes to compare. Does a 24MP FF sensor outresolve a 24MP APS-C sensor? How does it produce better color? How does a FF lens at f6.3 on a APS-C camera transmit more light? I don't think it does- there's just a larger surface area on a FF sensor to react to the light, but the light over the APS-C covered area is the same? That's like saying a wall mirror reflects more light than a handheld mirror. Of course it does, its bigger!

We all know aperture is a mathematical formula that takes into account each specific lens construction, so by using the same FF image circle LENS at the same aperture we should get the EXACT same EV over the equivalent area. Therefore this equivalency argument loses a little luster when you start saying FF has better light transmission.

So, a full frame sensor will not need as much enlargement to make the same size print (or be projected on the same viewing area), so it is not as hard on lenses as APS-C of a higher pixel density (but the same megapixels). I think the assumption in these discussions is usually that you want to maintain a certain framing of a subject, so if you want a 55mm view on APS-C, you would choose an 85mm view on full frame; if you want a 16mm view on APS-C, you would choose a 24mm lens for full frame.

If both images are shot at low iso, stopped down at f5.6 on APS-C and f8 on full frame, I very much doubt you could tell the difference in any normal print size between a D600 and a K3. What you would be seeing would be more differences in lenses. A K3 sensor does not out resolve nice lenses like the DA limiteds or DA * lenses.

Hope that helps.

[ElJamoquio]

so let me ask this of anyone who cares to answer:

if the claim is FF gives better resolution, color etc (I don't feel like quoting the post)

is a 24MP FF image better than a 24MP APS-C image taken with say the SAME FF lens at the same aperture of maybe f6.3?

So, just to frame the discussion, the picture would be very different...

I saw the example of FF versus APS-C at f2.8 and there was a discernible difference, ok. So FF wins for better subject isolation at shallow DOF, but even that argument isn't relative, because you have used a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens. They will automatically produce DOF discrepancies because of the physics involved. the only TRUE comparison would be to shoot both images with SAME lens, so 50mm and CROP the FF lens to APS-C size. THEN compare DOF. They might possibly be the same.

First off, I'm not sure what 'wins' means. The FF has shallower DOF at the same aperture and same FOV, as your quote says.

I don't think what you've said is the 'true' comparison. If you use a DOF calculator, though, you'd see that the APS-C with the same lens and a FF lens cropped would be exactly, exactly, exactly the same.

And how can one claim better IQ such as color resolution etc? Isn't that more of a lens factor? with the lens being the limiting variable?

No, it's a property of the sensor just like noise is a property of the sensor. FF has bigger buckets to collect. the smaller buckets of the APS-C are more affected by small errors. It's actually one of the 'measurements' on DxOMark, try comparing the D7000 and the D800 if you want to see two 'same' sensors at just different sensor areas.

In addtion if you 'relax' the DOF/equivalence argument (you tolerate or desire shallower DOF), ISO will go down for FF which also improves color.

[jsherman999]

SO this image works really well for FF, but could I take a picture which would be the functionally and artistically equivalent with APS-c. Say , back up, use a longer lens, maybe even the 50.

If you could take a picture through a physical wall, backing up would have worked. Unfortunately my walls are not transparent, and they are hard to casually crash through.

The same situation in the kid/phone shot - it was snapped quickly from across a table I was sitting at while we all were frosting Christmas cookies. Standing up, moving back with a longer lens on aps-c to try to recreate the DOF would have done two things - changed the perspective, and missed the shot - he only had the phone up there for a second. It also would have been noisier.

35mm on aps-c is my 'indoor snapping' focal length, as it is for a lot of folks. 50mm is it for FF. I've taken 1000's of shots with 35mm on aps-c, and I 'see' the difference at the same apertures with 50mm on FF. My subjects pop a bit more, I'm free to stop down if light allows it to gain some sharpness and contrast without losing subject isolation very much... it's the kind of thing you notice with iterations, and really applies to my f/2.8 zooms as well.

How important stuff like that is to you is a personal question, and any answer is valid. What's not valid is to claim that you can recreate any shot with a smaller sensor with available lenses under the same shooting conditions. You can't always do that. FF just makes it easier, gives you a few more choices.

By the way, here are a few more 'looks', same subject. Just because photographers like to see images, not to prove anything here. Our visual cortexes are always asking for equal time in the middle of long narratives.

50mm f/2 FF, in much closer (equiv to 33mm f/1.1 apsc)



180mm f/2.8 FF from original position (equiv to 120mm f/1.8 on aps-c)


50mm f/1.8 FF from up close (equiv to 33mm f/1.1 apsc, wide-open the 5o starts showing some softness but I still like the look here from close-in)


180mm f/4 FF from slightly closer than original position


.

[Clavius]

I don't think the wide-angle advantage of FF has been mentioned here yet. Though it is mandatory in any and all FF-threads of course. There is much less distrotion when using WA's and UWA's on FF. Which should be considered kinda nice. (Understatement XL) More on the topic though: And the FF WA lenses are very cheap, compared to their APS-C equivalents. So, in some styles of shooting, the total ownage cost of FF systems may now already be cheaper then a total APS-C system. If I myself had to do it all over again, I'd go for FF camera with high quality UWA, WA and normal straight away. And then get some dinged up 200 and 300 mm's for that once-in-a-year-event that I get really crazy and want to experiment with tele. Of course, it never happens that way. Nobody starts out with the most expensive gear and then learns what they prefer. Normally people learn what they prefer with entry level gear.

But bigger sensors becoming cheaper then smaller sensors defies all logic.

[Class A]

Like many others I'm not in the business of selling FF to anyone and I am very happy for everyone feeling that APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, or whatever is all they need.

I do not start "FF is great" or similar threads.

However, again like many others, if I see FF being misinterpreted, I often comment.

For instance,

shooting in low light 2.8 on APS-c is better than 3.5 to 3.5 on FF

is a factually wrong statement.

Also,

For exposure,ƒ 2.8 on FF is the same as ƒ2.8 on APS-c.

misses the point because "exposure" is not the deciding factor for image quality. The amount of total light captured is relevant, not the per-unit-square measure of exposure.

A Q with an f/1.8 lens can achieve the same exposure as a D800 with an f/1.8. Yet the latter captures 28 times the amount of light which is almost a 5 stop advantage in terms of noise. Stating that in both cases the exposure is the same, is not helpful.

As a former teacher, you should be keen to make sure that any information / advice you publish is correct. So I suggest that you read up on the topic before you misinform more readers and invite more comments from those who have a hard time seeing wrong information being spread.

A good explanation of what is relevant for image quality and how to compare different formats is the "Equivalence" essay by Joseph James.

Please also know that larger formats are not just about achieving a shallow DOF aesthetic. While I have to admit that I'm keen on a Pentax FF because it will make it easier to achieve subject-background separation at larger distances there are many other reasons why FF isn't just addressing an alleged 2% of photos you cannot take with APS-C.

For one, larger sensors have higher dynamic range, everything else being equal. As a landscape shooter, you may be interested in that aspect.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out before, lenses can operate much nearer their sweet spot (e.g., f/4) while collecting the same amount of light that a lens on APS-C collects wide open (e.g., f/2.8). Clearly, a lens at f/4 has less trouble projecting a quality image than a lens at f/2.8 (which often is wide open on APS-C).

Moreover, to that you need to add that the image from the lens at f/2.8 will receive higher magnification by a factor of 1.5. Hence, lens aberrations (which are higher to begin with) and/or the inevitable tolerances of the AF system will be magnified by a factor of 1.5.

Although it is not always light reading, I highly recommend the "True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper" by Falk Lumo.

Here's a quote:

"In theory, every image quality can be made with every sensor size by making an equivalent camera.
...
However, with a sensor too small, this becomes increasingly expensive such that for each given image quality, there is a sweet spot of best sensor size."

In other words, at a certain level of image quality, FF does become the cheaper choice. It would just become prohibitively expensive to achieve the same quality with a smaller format. Note how pricey the Zuiko lenses from Olympus are. To the best of my knowledge these are not "rip-off" prices, it is just so expensive to manufacture lenses with such a level of precision that they deliver high image quality despite the small sensor size they are designed for.

Again, I don't think anyone wants to convert you to an FF fan. I'm personally very happy with anyone being fully contend with APS-C. For many, there is no reason not to be fully contend with a smaller than FF sensor size. However, that does not mean that one should spread wrong information regarding larger sensor sizes.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't think the wide-angle advantage of FF has been mentioned here yet. Though it is mandatory in any and all FF-threads of course. There is much less distrotion when using WA's and UWA's on FF. Which should be considered kinda nice. (Understatement XL) More on the topic though: And the FF WA lenses are very cheap, compared to their APS-C equivalents. So, in some styles of shooting, the total ownage cost of FF systems may now already be cheaper then a total APS-C system. If I myself had to do it all over again, I'd go for FF camera with high quality UWA, WA and normal straight away. And then get some dinged up 200 and 300 mm's for that once-in-a-year-event that I get really crazy and want to experiment with tele. Of course, it never happens that way. Nobody starts out with the most expensive gear and then learns what they prefer. Normally people learn what they prefer with entry level gear.

But bigger sensors becoming cheaper then smaller sensors defies all logic.

Good post all around. FYI we're not even sure anybody's ever said 'bigger sensors will be cheaper than smaller sensors'.

[Rondec]

Like many others I'm not in the business of selling FF to anyone and I am very happy for everyone feeling that APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, or whatever is all they need.

I do not start "FF is great" or similar threads.

However, again like many others, if I see FF being misinterpreted, I often comment.

For instance,

is a factually wrong statement.

Also,

misses the point because "exposure" is not the deciding factor for image quality. The amount of total light captured is relevant, not the per-unit-square measure of exposure.

A Q with an f/1.8 lens can achieve the same exposure as a D800 with an f/1.8. Yet the latter captures 28 times the amount of light which is almost a 5 stop advantage in terms of noise. Stating that in both cases the exposure is the same, is not helpful.

As a former teacher, you should be keen to make sure that any information / advice you publish is correct. So I suggest that you read up on the topic before you misinform more readers and invite more comments from those who have a hard time seeing wrong information being spread.

A good explanation of what is relevant for image quality and how to compare different formats is the "Equivalence" essay by Joseph James.

Please also know that larger formats are not just about achieving a shallow DOF aesthetic. While I have to admit that I'm keen on a Pentax FF because it will make it easier to achieve subject-background separation at larger distances there are many other reasons why FF isn't just addressing an alleged 2% of photos you cannot take with APS-C.

For one, larger sensors have higher dynamic range, everything else being equal. As a landscape shooter, you may be interested in that aspect.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out before, lenses can operate much nearer their sweet spot (e.g., f/4) while collecting the same amount of light that a lens on APS-C collects wide open (e.g., f/2.8). Clearly, a lens at f/4 has less trouble projecting a quality image than a lens at f/2.8 (which often is wide open on APS-C).

Moreover, to that you need to add that the image from the lens at f/2.8 will receive higher magnification by a factor of 1.5. Hence, lens aberrations (which are higher to begin with) and/or the inevitable tolerances of the AF system will be magnified by a factor of 1.5.

Although it is not always light reading, I highly recommend the "True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper" by Falk Lumo.

Here's a quote:

"In theory, every image quality can be made with every sensor size by making an equivalent camera.
...
However, with a sensor too small, this becomes increasingly expensive such that for each given image quality, there is a sweet spot of best sensor size."

In other words, at a certain level of image quality, FF does become the cheaper choice. It would just become prohibitively expensive to achieve the same quality with a smaller format. Note how pricey the Zuiko lenses from Olympus are. To the best of my knowledge these are not "rip-off" prices, it is just so expensive to manufacture lenses with such a level of precision that they deliver high image quality despite the small sensor size they are designed for.

Again, I don't think anyone wants to convert you to an FF fan. I'm personally very happy with anyone being fully contend with APS-C. For many, there is no reason not to be fully contend with a smaller than FF sensor size. However, that does not mean that one should spread wrong information regarding larger sensor sizes.

I think that f2.8 on APS-C may actually look better than f2.8 on full frame because often having too narrow a depth of field leads to a sense that an image is not sharp. This is often commented on in comparisons between the two formats. At lower iso levels (say, below 800), you just won't see huge differences between the two formats, assuming that you are shooting with lenses that are sharp at the apertures you are using.

[normhead]

Good post all around. FYI we're not even sure anybody's ever said 'bigger sensors will be cheaper than smaller sensors'.

You did say FF cameras a cheaper than APS-c cameras, lets no get all righteous. How does an FF camera get to be cheaper, then except by cutting features?

This derailing into the typical examination of minute that only tell part of the story.

For every one of these assertions, that APS-c is in some way inferior at producing images,

APS-c can't do subject isolation through narrow DoF.. this image taken at ƒ8. I had lots of room to go narrower.







APS-c has a noise disadvantage... these are very low light, where's the noise?





APS-c has no Dynamic Range.. back lit ridge in heavy evening shadows, only a few Ffs could match this.



FF colour is better...



FF is better at landscape...



FF is better at wide angle... this is 8mm


I don't know what you people are smoking.

None of these pictures is FF.

What you can and can't so with a system depends more on you as a photographer than with the system you use. I don't know exactly why you guys experience such horrible limitations with APS-c. All can think is, you want to.

I'd certainly like to think it's not a lack of technical proficiency with your cameras, but I'm starting to wonder.

And don't even get me started on the areas where APS-c is stronger than FF

The person beside me shooting with the Cannon 70-200, and FF, had much smaller bird images than I did.



The person beside me with his Nikon 70-200 while I was using my A_400 and 60-250, both of which I can carry with me at the same time, didn't get an image anything like this...


My wolf pictures look almost identical to my friend Jerry's, taken with a Canon 200mm prime, on FF.



Some things are more difficult on APS-c, somethings are about the same, some things are better. Live with it. Very little is impossible on either system. If you're only going to carry one system, it should probably be APS-c. at least from my perspective. And it's cheaper. If you don't have to carry it, or you can have a studio full of cameras for every occasion, APS-c probably isn't best at anything technically, but then neither is FF.