[ElJamoquio]

The math is really very simple

I agree.

[twitch]

Compare the size (and price!) of a Voigtlander 25 0.95 for m4/3's and a FA50. The maths might be simple, but the conclusions are not.

[ElJamoquio]

Compare the size (and price!) of a Voigtlander 25 0.95 for m4/3's and a FA50. The maths might be simple, but the conclusions are not.

I disagree.

The conclusion is simple, too.

Larger sensors are better for everything except initial cost, (likely but not req'd) framerate, and (likely but not req'd) a larger hump for the prism. Really, that last part is better too because the VF is larger.

[twitch]

I disagree.

The conclusion is simple, too.

Larger sensors are better for everything except initial cost, (likely but not req'd) framerate, and (likely but not req'd) a larger hump for the prism. Really, that last part is better too because the VF is larger.

I don't tihnk we disagree, I was thinking of this (credit: Falk Lumo Falk Lumo )

[ElJamoquio]

I think that's an easily reached conclusion, given the simple, easy to understand math.

[normhead]

Larger sensors are better for everything except initial cost, (likely but not req'd) framerate, and (likely but not req'd) a larger hump for the prism. Really, that last part is better too because the VF is larger.

For a small sensor with equivalent Mp to a large sensor, the small sensor will have more DoF and use lighter easier to carry glass, so will be lots of places a large sensor won't be. The glass on FF becomes unmanageable at about 400mm while a comparable APS-c is still a carrying weight at the equivalent FoV at 250. Because software affects image output there are many corrections that can and are done to improve the level of APS-c images to bring them to par with FF images.They don't show up in the math... the math ignores them, which is why so many ignore the math. For a formula to mean anything at all, it has to account for all variables, lens design, software, operator tendencies etc. The formula cited to support FF over smaller formats are so simplistic as to be useless. That is ably demonstrated buy the higher sensor rating of the K-5 than most of the FF cameras that came before it. This is just a small portion of the many advantages smaller systems have over FF systems. I'm sure there are many more I haven't thought of.

Given the advances in auto -focus in the K-30, it is extremely unlikely I will ever use an FF for wildlife, birds in flight, or macro photography even should I buy one. The DoF and smaller lenses are just too much of an advantage to give up for any small advantage an FF might give me.

People don't buy math, they buy pictures, people don't look at math, they look at pictures. If you guys want to sit around and admire the math so be it. it's a fine thing to do. Just don't be thinking it has anything to do with art. Photography always has been and will be artistic in nature.

[Pål Jensen]

I don't tihnk we disagree, I was thinking of this

And what does this prove? That FF is more cost effective if all sensors are made to be equal which they aren't anyway......
As I said an entry level FF Canon cost 28 000 NOK in my country (this is twice the new price I paid for my Pentax 645NII which was a horibly expensive camera). A K-5 can be had at 6300 NOK. Not to mention the lenses to make that FF justice. APS is the most cost effective way of doing high quality imaging; the quality from the K-5 is good enough for large fine art prints. and I mean very large so large that few bothered with it in the film days...
I also wonder what kind of processes are going to make FF sensors as cheap as smaller sensors and what process are going to make the lenses cheaper as well?

[normhead]

APS is the most cost effective way of doing high quality imaging;

For most of us, that's all we need to know.

[Pål Jensen]

The main problem with the math is that it doesn't take reality into consideration....

[ElJamoquio]

Given the advances in auto -focus in the K-30, it is extremely unlikely I will ever use an FF for wildlife, birds in flight, or macro photography even should I buy one. The DoF and smaller lenses are just too much of an advantage to give up for any small advantage an FF might give me.

People don't buy math, they buy pictures, people don't look at math, they look at pictures. If you guys want to sit around and admire the math so be it. it's a fine thing to do. Just don't be thinking it has anything to do with art. Photography always has been and will be artistic in nature.

No one buys math, that's great. Technically, it gives you better latitude to understand the math before you choose your tools. Perhaps it's better to not understand the math in order to create the art though, I might agree to that.

FYI, FF offers one tremendous advantage for birds in flight; you have twice as much latitude in making mistakes tracking the birds. Another small advantage is the digital zoom (wide angle) advantage - you don't have to get your focal length exactly correct in order to get an equivalently good picture (with both primes and zooms, and actually the picture would be better). Some FF cameras offer different FPS for different pre-crop levels, but generally you're at a fundamental disadvantage in FPS. Sometimes that's a real disadvantage, but most times, in my experience, it isn't.

There really is no disadvantage with FF except the ones I've listed above. If you think there's an advantage to APS-C other than the ones I listed, let me know, and I will give you my assessment, it's possible I haven't considered absolutely everything.

[ElJamoquio]

APS is the most cost effective way of doing high quality imaging

Your definition of 'quality' confuses me. 'Back in the film days' a lot of large landscapes were done in 4x5, etc. I agree that journalism and sports generally used the quicker 35mm but that wasn't because it was good quality.

[Edvinas]

Given the advances in auto -focus in the K-30, it is extremely unlikely[...]

Probably I missed something. What are advances in K-30 autofocus? Anyone throughly tried K-30 autofocus or you just believe Pentax marketing material, which of course says that AF of K-30 is perfect.

[Pål Jensen]

FYI, FF offers one tremendous advantage for birds in flight; you have twice as much latitude in making mistakes tracking the birds. Another small advantage is the digital zoom (wide angle) advantage - you don't have to get your focal length exactly correct in order to get an equivalently good picture (with both primes and zooms, and actually the picture would be better). Some FF cameras offer different FPS for different pre-crop levels, but generally you're at a fundamental disadvantage in FPS. Sometimes that's a real disadvantage, but most times, in my experience, it isn't.

Huhh??
This makes no sense; particularly the first senstence. You have less latitude with FF cause at the same magnification and exposure (ie the same image and thats what matters) you have less DOF (if you have the same DOF you also get less attitude for errors with FF because you'll have a longer shutterspeed). If you use a 200/2.8 on an APS camera and a 300/2.8 on FF which one has less latitude for errors? If you crop the FF image you have a gross disadvantage in cost (several thousands of dollars) and size (several kilos). For FF you may actually also want to use a tripod due to the weight. If you use the same lens on FF and APS you can save even more money to use a wider lens on APS to match the lens in angle of view used on FF. If you crank up the ISO in the hope of making the FF compete with APS, then you can just as well increase the iSO on APS and keep the considerable advantage. No one buy an D800 and say "I can't use ISO 100 because then it won't be "equal" to an APS camera". People use their cameras to their best advantages. If your an FF owner you use the best image quality you get when you can; the same with APS. You crank up the ISO to get the right exposure for your need when it is needed regardless of what camera format you use.
FF has an image quality advantage and a bigger optical finder. The rest is fiction...

[eddie1960]

If the Pixel pitch is the same like the D800 and K5 Pal apsc has no advantage over FF, since you can crop the ff to match the apsc.

[ElJamoquio]

Huhh??
This makes no sense; particularly the first senstence. You have less latitude with FF cause at the same magnification and exposure (ie the same image and thats what matters) you have less DOF (if you have the same DOF you also get less attitude for errors with FF because you'll have a longer shutterspeed). If you use a 200/2.8 on an APS camera and a 300/2.8 on FF which one has less latitude for errors? If you crop the FF image you have a gross disadvantage in cost (several thousands of dollars) and size (several kilos). For FF you may actually also want to use a tripod due to the weight. If you use the same lens on FF and APS you can save even more money to use a wider lens on APS to match the lens in angle of view used on FF. If you crank up the ISO in the hope of making the FF compete with APS, then you can just as well increase the iSO on APS and keep the considerable advantage. No one buy an D800 and say "I can't use ISO 100 because then it won't be "equal" to an APS camera". People use their cameras to their best advantages. If your an FF owner you use the best image quality you get when you can; the same with APS. You crank up the ISO to get the right exposure for your need when it is needed regardless of what camera format you use.
FF has an image quality advantage and a bigger optical finder. The rest is fiction...

I've highlighed what I believe is correct. The other words have fundamental problems in either assumption or analysis.

Perhaps we should make a FF vs APS-C thread, and debate in there, Pål, rather than weigh down every single thread? You're wearing down on me, I don't have the time to refute these statements day after day.