Originally posted by *isteve I think it has a lot to do with 3 things.
Firstly, FF cameras until recently have had the edge on IQ because they had more resolution and lower ISO noise, though comparing like with like, eg Canon APS and Canon FF, the noise difference is not great. But the extra detail available on a 5D over, say, a 20D was quite visible and a 16MP 1DS was more visible still (although most conveniently ignored the higher noise!) This advantage is waning, partly because of the amount of research done on new APS sensors has brought resolution up and noise down at the same time. A K20D will provide resolution and noise performance not far off that of a 1DS mk2 for around 1/8 of the price, and THAT is my definition of progress!
Well yes APS-C has come a long way, but then again so has FF and so has MF.
I think it is fair to say that larger generally is better, but not proportionally to the cost involved. or the application used.
You are comparing a brand new APS-C sensor to a how many years old FF? What if we compare it to say a 12MP D3 or a 10MP 1DIII From what I have seen of sample this still will have an advantage in terms of noice vs. detail.
I guess we can all agree that the 21MP 1DsIII still has a bit of a way to go to compete with say a 22MP MF back same will go for APS-C vs. FF. Important question is if the gained improvement is important or pays off in terms of cost.
I have recently delivered a full eventset to a customer, during that event I shot a fair bit at ISO 6400... something I would nto dare do with any APS-C.
The K20D might have a workable ISO 6400, but will it be comparable, I would really love it to be but I doubt it.
Originally posted by *isteve Secondly, there has been an extraordinary amount of hype and misinformation spread around and repeated ad-nausiam by people who dont even know what MTF means that exaggerates the superiority of FF to almost mythical proportions and simultaneously avoids facing any of its downsides, like the fact that more than a few expensive wide-angle lenses designed for film do not work at all well on it and have quite obvious light falloff and edge sharpness issues. If you are a product photographer it makes them almost unusable. Canon have rushed out quite a few "upgrades" to some of these lenses as a result. So, IMO a lot of your old FA and A lenses are really going to suck on FF.
After having done a fair number of shots with the D3 I am now confident that what we have known as a soft corner issue on FF is more related to canon than to FF, which is natural as they for a long time was the only provider.
The Nikon F mount (quite similar to the K mount in terms of registration distance have not shown this weakness, at least not with the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8G
See any soft corners here?
Truth is that none of us really knows how a K mount would do with FF digital. Canon FF has the "soft corner" issues, Nikon in my personal experience does not.
Originally posted by *isteve Thirdly, a lot of people are labouring under the rather odd prediction that FF will get cheap enough in the near term for them to buy an FF camera for $1500 or so. This aint so. However much you reduce the cost of manufacturing and using multipass lithography (which is really difficult BTW) you STILL end up with the yield issue. APS sensors will always be a minimum of 4X cheaper and costs of APS sensors are no longer dropping much because they are already mass market commodities and right now FF chips are more than 4X the cost. It will take a while to improve the lithography techniques to get it as low as 4X. Even Canon produced a white paper explaining that FF cameras would never be "cheap" and its them who are exploiting the FF hype to the max.
Well I agree on that part, just like Mf will always remain rather expensive compared.
Question is if the cost is justifiable and whether the advantages of FF matters to the type of photography you do.
Originally posted by *isteve So yes, FF has some advantages, they are not great (and to a large extent APS is catching up) and nor is it without disadvantages, but it will generally carry a significant premium in price terms which, unless you are a very demanding pro with a particular need, is overkill for anyone that does not regularly print at >A3. However that doesnt stop the melon-heads remortgaging the house so they can tell their friends next door that they have the best and lock their camera up in a fur lined case next to their rolex at night.
1-2 stop cleaner at high ISO, larger DR, shallwoer DOF, but at the same MP count it allows you to stop further down before hitting diffraction limits. UWA is better at lest from what I have seen with the D3. less distorsion.
Downside to FF is size and weight of the body, as well as the telephoto lenses and the nagain not, a 70-200f2.8 on FF would be equal to a 50-135 f2.0, so I guess if we calculate in speed the lens part averages out. The APS-C does have a reach advantage though.
Shake reduction is another major advantage of APS-C.
Another major FF downside is price, but then again that would hold true with MF compared to FF as well, a larger format will always be more expensive, that has not changed since film IIRC.
Originally posted by *isteve If you really want a significant and obvious improvement in quality than the only choice is to go really big, like MF, and that has a whole bunch of other issues.
Agreed, each step up in format has advantages and disadvantages MF more so than FF, I sse it as 3 different formats with each of their own set of advantages, to me personally after having shot quite a bit of FF it seems to me as the most attractive compromise for the paid work and some of the personal work I do, but APS-C and Pentax will not leave me completely, the compact pentax primes will stay in my kit for certain things, that kit will very likely include a K20D too
My general question to all of those people that keep "defending APS-C and especially with the arguments, comparing a brand new APS-C to an old FF and bringing up the canon "soft corner" issue is.
Steve I greatly respect both your opinions and your skills, so below question is not directed at you personally but in general.
The fact that I will run a FF and APS-C system side by side for different applications tells what I think of the whole issue as well. That and the fact that Pentax is my APS-C system of choice and I am every bit as thrilled with the K20D as the rest of you, so I am not bashing it, I am just not expecting it to compare to a new FF system.
How many of you have actually shot extensively with the new FF cameras? and made an fact based comparison relative to the work you do?