Originally posted by normhead I'm just curious , most of the things people say they have to have FF for are done better by the 645D, so I'm curious, why pick FF as your stopping point. Why not go all the way?. God knows I've said forever it's not about the pictures.
If I were a professional landscape photographer, or even a very high-budgeted enthusiast extremely concerned with landscapes, or a pro who's clients required wall-sized advertisements, I might very well spring for a 645D. As it is, my 12MP D700 and 14MP K20D give me more than enough resolution for my landscapes, and I'm not shooting any murals for anyone. A huge, $10,000, 1 FPS body with a relatively noisy sensor past ISO 800 paired with huge $5000 lenses makes less than zero sense for me and many others.
Quote: No but you can get 85.1.4 for your APS-C but not the equivalent 135 1.4 for your FF.
A common 200mm f/2.8 would be about the equivalent to a 135mm f/1.8 on aps-c in terms of FOV/DOF. In terms of 'exposure', since you have at least a stop of ISO extra overhead from the larger sensor, you can bump ISO a stop to get the f/1.4 shutter speed (shooting 200mm at f/2.8 on FF,) if you really need it. So, yes, you do have an aps-c 135mm f/1.4 equivalent on FF, in most ways, except price - a 200 f/2.8 can be had for only around $1000, an actual 135mm f/1.4 (if one existed) besides being much larger would probably cost two or three times that.
Quote: This kind of argument always pretends like FF is always at an advantage. Sometimes, my depth of field is perfect at 50 and 1.4 mm on an APS-c camera, and using the same lens on an FF system would simply mean cropping the image to APS-c size.
Did you really mean DOF there, or FOV? If you want to match the aps-c DOF at equiv FOV for some reason, you'd only need to stop down to do so on FF (thus probably making your image sharper on the focal plane and probably less CA-prone as well, lens dependent.)
Quote: No one has done any analysis to show whether you come out on top using an FF or APS-c system. Everyone who uses an FF system seems to like it, I'm not saying it has no value. But is it necessary?
It's probably only 'necessary' for a small group of PJs and some other pros. For the rest, even many pros, it just makes things easier, sometimes funner, but not always. It just expands capabilities, removes or lessens some barriers, reduces frustrations, and occasionally actually gets better images while doing those things.
Quote: jsherman pointed me to an argument that pointed out "your best lens on APS-c isn't as good as your wort lens on FF", a point the author demsontrated, with 1 on 1 pixel peeping. That's the only way to see the difference. Some of us would argue that's just not relevant.
Everyone needs to determine how important these things are and what they're worth. It's absolutely correct to say 'it's not worth it to me,' but it's completely wrong to say 'it shouldn't be worth it to anyone' or 'the advantages are only theoretical.'
Quote: Price is an issue.... for most of us.
Price is definitely an issue for me, which is one of the reasons I like FF - it allows me to save money on lenses!
Quote: Quote: Getting more DOF control (incorrectly described as 'less DOF')
In what way is that incorrect?
Because it implies that you are forced to have 'less DOF' for the same FOV and aperture and distance to subject, and you're not. You can simply stop down to match the same DOF aps-c would give you there if that's what you want, and you can't always do the reverse - open that 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom up any wider, for example - on aps-c. That's more DOF control.
Quote: Based on my shooting style, 95% of the time I would prefer more DoF to less, which would mean 95% of the time I would be happier using an APS-c camera.
I think you are primarily a landscape photographer, correct? In your case, the DOF-control 'advantage' of FF is largely useless to you. However I think that D800 is really something you should look at for landscape anyway. No-one maybe
really needs to buy $10,000+ MFD any more, right?
(or sign petition asking for a 36MP K1 FF)
Quote: Your shooting style may differ, but, what I'm saying is there is no intrinsic advantage to FF, it's different not better, accept with pixel peepers. The fact that theoretically there could be an advantage to shooting FF, doesn't mean that there is, or that you'd ever run into a situation where there wasn't an acceptable workaround. You can get all caught up in theory and imagine things to be really important, that aren't.
Agreed.
.
Last edited by jsherman999; 02-13-2012 at 10:57 PM.