[ThorSanchez]

That is moving the goalposts to a different stadium.

---------- Post added 03-23-19 at 08:36 AM ----------


Aps-c will always be cheaper than full frame. Thor has made a false argument by comparing usefulness with money. One does not follow the other.

Sure, in the same vein that a BMW 8-Series is more useful than a Subaru Legacy. Or that a 5000 square foot house has more utility than a 1500 square foot house. In all three of these cases the much more expensive product is better, by some degree. But that's completely irrelevant if you don't have or don't wish to spend the money for the expensive option.

[Wheatfield]

Sure, in the same vein that a BMW 8-Series is more useful than a Subaru Legacy. Or that a 5000 square foot house has more utility than a 1500 square foot house. In all three of these cases the much more expensive product is better, by some degree. But that's completely irrelevant if you don't have or don't wish to spend the money for the expensive option.

Oh please. It's more like saying a Volkswagen Jetta is more useful than a Ford F350 on moving day because you can't afford the truck.
An unwillingness or inability to afford something does not change the usability equation.
The Ford us still the better vehicle for moving a load of furniture whether one can afford it it not.

[ThorSanchez]

Oh please. It's more like saying a Volkswagen Jetta is more useful than a Ford F350 on moving day because you can't afford the truck.

An unwillingness or inability to afford something does not change the usability equation.

The Ford us still the better vehicle for moving a load of furniture whether one can afford it it not.

If the price and size of FF gear gets you the images and experience you want and you have the disposable income to afford it, that's great.

[c.a.m]

In all three of these cases the much more expensive product is better, by some degree.

Interesting comparisons.

In general in these types of comparisons, I think the metric "better" needs to be qualified to relate to specific needs or requirements. For example, in the case of the house comparison, the 5000 sq. ft. house might be "better" if one has a very large family and really needs the space. On the other hand, one could also be comfortable and raise a happy (smaller) family in a 1,500 sq. ft. home. Either sized house could bring satisfaction and happiness, depending on the situation.

It's more like saying a Volkswagen Jetta is more useful than a Ford F350 on moving day because you can't afford the truck.

I'm not sure that this comparison fits here. The Jetta would not be able to carry furniture or other large items. Maybe compare an F150 and F350. The F350 has roughly three times the carry payload, but the 150 would probably work, albeit with more trips between the two houses.

Similarly, one could be satisfied with either an APS-C camera, say a K-3 II, or a full frame K-1 II. Either one could work well in most circumstances and provide satisfying images.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 03-23-2019 at 10:27 AM.

[Alex645]

Pentaxians really are the people who buy a thousand dollar camera purely to mount 50 year old, 50 dollar lenses on.

LOL. Not really. I've known Nikonians and Canonites putting all their budget on a high end camera but then using the cheapest Vivitar (film) or Yongnuo (digital) lens. (Yes, I know that some Vivitar Series 1 and Yongnuo are excellent values....but IMO, it's not the place to cut costs.)

No doubt, PF members are more savvy, but I've only known one photographer that did the reverse when he bought a Yashica SLR instead of Contax so that he could use a Zeiss prime on his camera.

[ThorSanchez]

I'm not sure that this comparison fits here. The Jetta would not be able to carry furniture or other large items. Maybe compare an F150 and F350. The F350 has roughly three times the carry payload, but the 150 would probably work, albeit with more trips between the two houses.

I'd just buy the Jetta and rent a Penske truck for the one day every few decades where I need to move. I don't see the point in commuting 275 days a year in a 6000 lb dually that gets 13 mpg.

[Wheatfield]

If the price and size of FF gear gets you the images and experience you want and you have the disposable income to afford it, that's great.

The camera you have with you may be the best one you have, it just might not be the best one that's for sale.
Bringing money in is changing the discussion from product and image quality to economics.
Saying something is the best there is because it is the best you can afford is an incredibly false statement.

[ThorSanchez]

The camera you have with you may be the best one you have, it just might not be the best one that's for sale.
Bringing money in is changing the discussion from product and image quality to economics.
Saying something is the best there is because it is the best you can afford is an incredibly false statement.

I didn't say my camera is the best, only that it's the best for me, and that for many people APS-C is a better choice than FF. If FF is best for you, that's great.

[Wheatfield]

Interesting comparisons.

In general in these types of comparisons, I think the metric "better" needs to be qualified to relate to specific needs or requirements. For example, in the case of the house comparison, the 5000 sq. ft. house might be "better" if one has a very large family and really needs the space. On the other hand, one could also be comfortable and raise a happy (smaller) family in a 1,500 sq. ft. home. Either sized house could bring satisfaction and happiness, depending on the situation.




I'm not sure that this comparison fits here. The Jetta would not be able to carry furniture or other large items. Maybe compare an F150 and F350. The F350 has roughly three times the carry payload, but the 150 would probably work, albeit with more trips between the two houses.

Similarly, one could be satisfied with either an APS-C camera, say a K-3 II, or a full frame K-1 II. Either one could work well in most circumstances and provide satisfying images.

- Craig

I could have used a Passat and a Silverado in my comparison. It doesn't change the equation. Sure, you can strap a couch to the roof of your car and move it across town but the truck is still the better tool.
Likewise, a full frame camera is a better imaging tool than an APS-C camera in virtually every situation. The major exception is when the extra reach the smaller format gives per focal length is advantageous, and even then the FF can be cropped.
I've seen this myself, with my own eyes.

---------- Post added 03-23-19 at 01:49 PM ----------

I didn't say my camera is the best, only that it's the best for me, and that for many people APS-C is a better choice than FF. If FF is best for you, that's great.

And as long as we aren't bringing image quality to the table you are correct.
However, if that is a consideration, then there are other factors outside of image quality that are being weighted more heavily.
And that's fine.

[ThorSanchez]

And as long as we aren't bringing image quality to the table you are correct.
However, if that is a consideration, then there are other factors outside of image quality that are being weighted more heavily.
And that's fine.

Absolutely, the bolded is what I'm doing, and I have to think that's what most people do. If image quality was all that mattered then Hasselblad 100MP medium formats would outsell everything else.

[Zooland]

Advantages:
* All my wide angle lenses are wide again

Best advantage

[Merv-O]

Aps-c will always be cheaper than full frame

Not true...How about the new $3,000 Olympus 4/3rds body? Costs more than any Pentax b body FF or APS-c....How about the $2,800 Leica APS-c CL body? The MP, sensor and feature set, along with build quality will make the differential.

For example, in the case of the house comparison, the 5000 sq. ft. house might be "better" if one has a very large family and really needs the space. On the other hand, one could also be comfortable and raise a happy (smaller) family in a 1,500 sq. ft. home. Either sized house could bring satisfaction and happiness, depending on the situation.

This is also a poor analogy. A crappy Full frame sensor will not be as good as an excellent top of the line APS-c or even 4/3rds....A KIA and a BMW look the same out of the showroom. The key is what is the value 5 years later? Is there a better inherent build quality? These compares are inane at best and just ridiculous at worst. Everyone is a critic. Any 14 year old with a blog can diss a product and actually hurt sales if it goes viral.
Love the one your'e with......until you replace it

[stillshot2]

I used to want a full frame until I realized it would be a downgrade to me in relation to pixel density. I'd need 50+ on full frame so for now I will stick with my K3 which has been and still is an excellent camera

[Wheatfield]

I used to want a full frame until I realized it would be a downgrade to me in relation to pixel density. I'd need 50+ on full frame so for now I will stick with my K3 which has been and still is an excellent camera

You still get a better image with the K1. There is also pixel pitch to consider. No matter how you do math, the K1 has 50% more pixels than the K3, and bigger, less noisy ones at that.
Take the same picture on both cameras and the K1 has 50% more pixels.

[stillshot2]

You still get a better image with the K1. There is also pixel pitch to consider. No matter how you do math, the K1 has 50% more pixels than the K3, and bigger, less noisy ones at that.
Take the same picture on both cameras and the K1 has 50% more pixels.

For wide angle shots, yes, the K-1 is superior with more total megapixels and when at high iso, but for macro and tele shots, the K3 has more density for heavy crops and will pull more detail using the same lenses. I find I'm not willing to pay 3-4 times the money for a K-1 and give up the better ability for cropping macro and wildlife shots. And 24mp shooting at 15mm is quite amazing; not sure 36mp at 22mm would make much a discernible difference unless you are printing billboards to be viewed at close viewing distances, and even harder to tell a difference at base iso 100 (which I mostly shoot).