Originally posted by jsherman999 Aps-c doesn't give you "the best shot" there, because if it's more DOF you're after, you can simply stop down the FF shot and it gives you the same shot. There's absolutely no DOF-related reason why apsc would give you s better shot there. And shutter speed can be matched at any time by bumping ISO. There's no "shutter speed" advantage in any scenario there. (This is basic stuff?!)
Jay, concentrate on this, this is the whole basis of your misunderstanding, this statement is absolutely false.
Quote: And shutter speed can be matched at any time by bumping ISO.
This is what you always say, and you always forget about the effect of what you do. When you have an equation like this, every action has other consequences. If you "just change" the ISO you'll have more noise. There is no free ride, every action has a consequence.
If you match the shutter speed by bumping the ISO, you've lost your noise advantage, so now you have the same DoF, you have the same shutter speed, and with the higher ISO, you have the same noise. There is no advantage to using an FF. You get the same image. If you use 300mm lens instead of the 210mm lens I used. Equivalence, remember? So why would you pay thousands of dollars more for your body? The above image was shot with a $35 F-70-210 and it's an image I can sell. Not only that you're going to need a 300mm lens instead of a 210mm lens. Notice that I don't have to use a more expensive lens as you have often claimed on APS-c. This 30 year old FF lens does just fine. There's no evidence at all that the APS-c sensor out resolves it. All the stuff you constantly preach is just wrong.
---------- Post added 04-03-15 at 11:47 AM ----------
Originally posted by mecrox that a sensor one-half or two-thirds smaller than the top dogs is just as good in all and every situation. It simply isn't.
It's not, the only question you need to address is how often are you in those situations where FF has an edge. If you need more resolution for large prints, like over 40 inches by 30 inches, FF and MF are you options.
If you shoot narrow DoF in low light FF is your only option, even MF gets tossed from that one.
But it's not as generic as you make it. It's not like FF can improve every image. There are also many circumstances where APS-c will give you the same image and FF is no advantage at all. And there are many circumstances where given the current MP limitations of FF, APS-c will give you a better image. It's always a trade off. If FF gives you more of what you want, you trade off the advantages APS_c gives you. And you won't care, because it wasn't stuff you used anyway. But the other way around is also true. People seem to think that there is some camera format that is everything the others are, and more. That's just wrong. Every format has it's unique strengths and weaknesses.
If you are a real enthusiast, you should be hiring a porter to pull around a cart with Micro 4/3, APS-c, FF and MF (and maybe a 4x5 scanning back as well) cameras in it, (or maybe have a mule to carry your gear like Ansel Adams).so you can use each to it's strength. Most of us compromise.
Quote: I look at images taken using a 36 pmx Nikon or an MF on sites like Luminous Landscape and elsewhere and I think, well, if I could replicate that with my APS-C camera then it would requite one heck of a lot of PP.
So your assumption is that those images didn't have a heck of a lot of PP? I look at the APS-c images on Photo Extract and say the same thing. I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Art Photography | PhotoExtract Photography Magazine