Originally posted by rparmar Quote: Originally posted by jsherman999
price out what it would take to get near those FOV/DOF combos with aps-c, and FF starts to look cheap.
True, but the comparison is false because no pro actually needs apertures that fast. Lenses at f/0.95 and f/1.2 inevitably produce significantly poor images.
That list was illustrating what the equivalent DOF would be if the FOV was maintained on aps-c - the lenses themselves are still f/2.8 and f/2 lenses, not some optically-compromised f/.95 lens. You can shoot an f/2.8 lens on FF and it has the FOV 1.5 times 'wider' with about 1.3 stops less DOF at the same aperture. Thus, a 50mm f/1.4 lens on aps-c gives you the same FOV/DOF a 35mm f/.95 lens would have on that same aps-c camera.
As I wrote in another post in this thread, you don't have to shoot wide open to get a benefit from that, the effects are seen down the aperture range. For example I like the subject isolation my f/2.8 lenses give me wide-open on aps-c, but I like the sharpness/contrast at f/4, so I'm torn. On FF, f/4 would give you about f/2.5 subject isolation while maintaining the f/4 sharpness and contrast.
Quote: It's only amateurs obsessed with bokeh as subject matter that want them. Pros are quite happy with f/2.8 on 35mm. And so am I.
I'm not sure how this moved to a 'what pros want' comparison
, but it's interesting to note that most 'pros' shoot FF cameras at least part of the time - must be something they like there.
Quote: Which is why you will see, over my thousands of posts, I never call for a new APS-C lens faster than f/2. Because I do not expect anything else to have more than the tiniest niche market.
I find that odd, I'm often scrounging for every bit of light I can get in a lot of indoor situations. f/1.8, 1.7, 1.4 and even 1.2 are welcome to me, with regards to both shutter speed and subject isolation.
Quote: I've got two f/1.2 lenses and I cannot image needing even narrower DOF than what is already provided by these on APS-C. Care to give me a use case that requires something faster?
What's the focal length, 50 or 55mm? Would you like something wider occasionally ? A regular 50mm f/1.4 on FF shot at f/1.8 would be about a 35mm f/1.2 lens. A 35mm f/2 shot wide-open on FF would be about a 23mm f/1.3 on aps-c. You're a creative shooter, Robin, I'm sure you'd find some use for those looks.
Quote: Why do you need the extra resolution and faster shot-to-shot performance? So you can print sports shots a bit larger?
I don't 'need' any more resolution than what 12mp on FF brings me, for what I do. The 645D would be resolution-overkill for me, as I said, and it's FPS and AF-lock are woefully behind the D700 for example. What I really want is very fast AF lock, very good ISO performance, followed by good DR and more DOF control. A larger $10,000 camera + large $2500 lenses that perform worse in most of those areas than a smaller $2300 camera + $100, $300, $500 lenses would be a silly choice for me.
Quote: ... I am completely happy saying that they have bought the wrong system and should rectify this as soon as possible to make their job easier and more fun.
See, that's the problem. A lot of them are doing that, when they'd be happier spending their money on a FF Pentax system.
.