[Nicolas06]

Or some FF photographer have looked and weighed the cost of the equipment and performance over what a cropped camera can provide then realized that going FF cost them nothing more than what it would have cost with a cropped camera ( other than the cost of the body).
16-50 F2.8 $1070
50-135 F2.8 $1170
200 F2 $6800
300 F2.8 $7500
Total =$16540
FF
24-70 F4 $1370
70-200 F4 $1300
300 F2.8 $7500
400 F4 $7500
Total=$17670

They have also came to the conclusion that the FF body in the long run would give them the best performance and cost savings, as my 3 year old FF still at this time has no equal in cropped sensor in image resolution, DR & low light performance .

In 100,000 photographs the FF has cost me per photograph 2 cents more than what a cropped camera would have cost. Over the day that less than some of the coffees I buy during that time I use camera.

I love your comparison. You maybe have spent 17K$ on your FF and think it is a bargain because that's only 1K more than what an hypotheticall APSC buyer would have done. But most people that are not earning money from the gear will buy a DSLR with a set of kit lenses zooms for less than $1000 every 7 years on average. They are not spending 16K$ on their APSC gear, you can be sure!
17K in 3 years, that's 35 time more expensive than 1K every 7 years. The more funny is that by the way such $1000 rig would have no issue to match the subject separation and picture quality and noise level that osv get out of its tamron 60-300 adapt all at f/10 and Sony mirrorless FF.

Many amateurs will spend more that's true, but they'll stay in the 2000$-5000$ range and spend it over many years. if that include an expensive FF that may mean they not have any money left for any lense for a few years and by that time, a 300$ APSC camera would perform as great as their now outdated FF. Just look how a 5D compare to the most basic DSLR ! In that case it really make no sense.

Sure as a pro, spending 17K$ on gear is not much and after all as the pro would not pay VAT, income tax and alike on it, the cost to him is far lower than that. And well a plumber may spend much more for his company (and make much more money too).

Whatever the individual cost per photo (any amateur can make 100K photos too in 3 years), what would be interresting to know is how much you got from the 100K pictures and how much you would have got out of it if you spent only 5000$ or 10000$ on the gear. My bet is that from 10000$, the difference would be approximately 0. If the contract need specialty lense, you can rent them and make the client pay for it. At least if you need a UWA or a macro lense or a very long tele, you get it while the extensive 17K$ worth of gear has none of it.

My bet too is that is if you have some style and you want to start without investing much you'll be able to do it with 2000$ or less spent on gear and be able to wait until you really got some money out if it before needing to invest more. This will be half for the better gear, half to please yourself.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 09-06-2015 at 08:48 AM.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I guess I would quibble with your run down, in that most folks who go full frame are interested in getting faster lenses than are available for APS-C, not shooting lenses that are exactly equivalent to their APS-C lenses. I shoot with a 16-50 f2.8 on APS-C, but if I went with a full frame camera, I would get a 24-70 f2.8. In the end, full frame gear does tend to be more expensive, because folks who go that direction want faster lenses. Many people who shoot APS-C are satisfied with am 18-135 or 16-85 and a 50 f1.8 for situations where they need a faster lens.

I guess I would quibble with your run down, in that most folks who go 645 are interested in getting faster lenses ( oh wait a minute they can't) than are available for Full Frame, not shooting lenses that are exactly equivalent to their FF lens or slower. but if I went with a 645 camera, I would get a 45-85 F3.5 ( not available )
Using your quibble I am surprised that anyone would want to go with a cropped 645 also but they do.

If most ( by your own words) go FF for the faster lenses why is it most FF people I shoot with use FF as primary body for landscape only ?
" because folks who go that direction want faster lenses" That's funny as I see more 18-35F3.5-4.5, 24-85 F3.5-4.5,70-200 F4 & 300 F4 on FF than anyother lenses.

A trend I have witnessed when the 70-200 F4 was released many ff users started to dump their 70-200 F2.8, another trend was the 80-400 is a very popular lens among FF users and its not a fast lens ether. There must be a reason why this is happening rather than dumping FF and going with a cropped camera.

Most FF will pickup a few faster lenses that they need but to keep the cost of the system use what would amount to apsc equivalent lenses reducing the over all cost of their system.

[Rondec]

I guess I would quibble with your run down, in that most folks who go 645 are interested in getting faster lenses ( oh wait a minute they can't) than are available for Full Frame, not shooting lenses that are exactly equivalent to their FF lens or slower. but if I went with a 645 camera, I would get a 45-85 F3.5 ( not available )
Using your quibble I am surprised that anyone would want to go with a cropped 645 also but they do.

If most ( by your own words) go FF for the faster lenses why is it most FF people I shoot with use FF as primary body for landscape only ?
" because folks who go that direction want faster lenses" That's funny as I see more 18-35F3.5-4.5, 24-85 F3.5-4.5,70-200 F4 & 300 F4 on FF than anyother lenses.

A trend I have witnessed when the 70-200 F4 was released many ff users started to dump their 70-200 F2.8, another trend was the 80-400 is a very popular lens among FF users and its not a fast lens ether. There must be a reason why this is happening rather than dumping FF and going with a cropped camera.

Most FF will pickup a few faster lenses that they need but to keep the cost of the system use what would amount to apsc equivalent lenses reducing the over all cost of their system.

I don't really understand your point. The point of full frame is not to equal some APS-C system, but to surpass it. It will do so in a couple of respects: it will have better resolution (in many cases), it will allow access to faster lenses, it will in so doing allow for better high iso and photos with shallower depth of field (a big deal to folks who do a lot of portrait photography).

I have absolutely no interest in most of the lenses you posted, but the standard focal lengths (24-70/70-200) I would want f2.8 on full frame. I really like my 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C and if I went with full frame, it would be nice not just to match that, but to better it. I guess unlike you, I don't know many people with full frame cameras and most of the ones I know do portraiture/wedding photography and so yes, they are interested in lenses that allow for shallow depth of field and good low light performance.

I am not sure about the 645 market, although you seem to understand it better than I do, but it doesn't feel relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I love your comparison. You maybe have spent 17K$ on your FF and think it is a bargain because that's only 1K more than what an hypotheticall APSC buyer would have done. But most people that are not earning money from the gear will buy a DSLR with a set of kit lenses zooms for less than $1000 every 7 years on average. They are not spending 16K$ on their APSC gear, you can be sure!

The post was to prove that only time cropped gives you any cost benefit is when you use slower lenses than what is available for FF once cropped matches the DOF control of what FF can provide then the cost savings is all but lost other than the body

Many amateurs will spend more that's true, but they'll stay in the 2000$-5000$ range and spend it over many years. if that include an expensive FF that may mean they not have any money left for any lense for a few years and by that time, a 300$ APSC camera would perform as great as their now outdated FF. Just look how a 5D compare to the most basic DSLR ! In that case it really make no sense.

Out dated FF's that have only been partially match by apsc, what better way to extend the life of your equipment than using a 5d for 10 years ($300 per year) , 5DII for 7 years($400 per year) or the d700 for 7 years ($400 per year) The most important aspect of this is for 10 years you can be reaping the benefit that apsc has only now gained I would have to say that's about the best way to maximise your dollar! If I picked up the 5d instead of the DS, K10D K7 and K3II what would I have saved?

Sure as a pro, spending 17K$ on gear is not much and after all as the pro would not pay VAT, income tax and alike on it, the cost to him is far lower than that. And well a plumber may spend much more for his company (and make much more money too).
Whatever the individual cost per photo (any amateur can make 100K photos too in 3 years), what would be interresting to know is how much you got from the 100K pictures and how much you would have got out of it if you spent only 5000$ or 10000$ on the gear. My bet is that from 10000$, the difference would be approximately 0. If the contract need specialty lense, you can rent them and make the client pay for it. At least if you need a UWA or a macro lense or a very long tele, you get it while the extensive 17K$ worth of gear has none of it.

Now we are into what pros want ?

Whatever the individual cost per photo (any amateur can make 100K photos too in 3 years), what would be interresting to know is how much you got from the 100K pictures and how much you would have got out of it if you spent only 5000$ or 10000$ on the gear. My bet is that from 10000$, the difference would be approximately 0. If the contract need specialty lense, you can rent them and make the client pay for it. At least if you need a UWA or a macro lense or a very long tele, you get it while the extensive 17K$ worth of gear has none of it.

If a person is on a budget 18-35F3.5-4.5, 24-85 F3.5-4.5,70-200 F4 & 300 F4 and all these fall into range of what cropped would have cost you. Its only when we are into the slower mega zooms do we see a savings as they are not offered in FF but how many soon realise the limitations and upgrade to 12-24 ( no cost savings) 16-50 ( no cost savings) 50-135 ( no cost savings)

[Rondec]

The post was to prove that only time cropped gives you any cost benefit is when you use slower lenses than what is available for FF once cropped matches the DOF control of what FF can provide then the cost savings is all but lost other than the body





Out dated FF's that have only been partially match by apsc, what better way to extend the life of your equipment than using a 5d for 10 years ($300 per year) , 5DII for 7 years($400 per year) or the d700 for 7 years ($400 per year) The most important aspect of this is for 10 years you can be reaping the benefit that apsc has only now gained I would have to say that's about the best way to maximise your dollar! If I picked up the 5d instead of the DS, K10D K7 and K3II what would I have saved?



Now we are into what pros want ?



If a person is on a budget 18-35F3.5-4.5, 24-85 F3.5-4.5,70-200 F4 & 300 F4 and all these fall into range of what cropped would have cost you. Its only when we are into the slower mega zooms do we see a savings as they are not offered in FF but how many soon realise the limitations and upgrade to 12-24 ( no cost savings) 16-50 ( no cost savings) 50-135 ( no cost savings)

How many of us are pros here?

APS-C cameras have come along way and you can get awfully good photos at this point with a K30/50 (350 dollars) and a DA 50/35 (another 200 dollars). Can you do better with full frame? Of course. But if someone comes to me and asks me what they should buy, I am unlikely to suggest a full frame camera. I would be much more likely to suggest a bridge camera, depending on what their interest in photography is.

I just think we need to be honest that most of the time the enemy of better is "good enough." At this point crop cameras (APS-C and four thirds) are good enough for average users and even if they aren't shooting with equivalent lenses, they seem to be satisfied.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I don't really understand your point. The point of full frame is not to equal some APS-C system, but to surpass it. It will do so in a couple of respects: it will have better resolution (in many cases), it will allow access to faster lenses, it will in so doing allow for better high iso and photos with shallower depth of field (a big deal to folks who do a lot of portrait photography).

I have absolutely no interest in most of the lenses you posted, but the standard focal lengths (24-70/70-200) I would want f2.8 on full frame. I really like my 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C and if I went with full frame, it would be nice not just to match that, but to better it. I guess unlike you, I don't know many people with full frame cameras and most of the ones I know do portraiture/wedding photography and so yes, they are interested in lenses that allow for shallow depth of field and good low light performance.

I am not sure about the 645 market, although you seem to understand it better than I do, but it doesn't feel relevant to the discussion at hand.

It was to show how irrelevant your post was to compare why someone would move to a larger format only based only on shallower DOF photography as many moved from FF to MF with out that benefit

Every single lens you buy for FF does not have to better than apsc for shallow DOF and low light photography if this was true why is FF so popular for landscape. Low light work is such a small part on why one would want to buy a FF.
1 large benefit resolution
I only need 20 FF to equal a 24 apsc, that means I can crop many of my 24mp FF with many of my lenses by 1.2, extending my versatility,
With 36FF I can crop about 1.4 times greatly increasing the reach of the 400mm F4 (that's costs the same 300 F2.8 ) . With more resolution at 400mm gives a clear reach advantage over my 24apsc 300 2.8 when needed this way I don't need a 300 F2.8 and 400 F4 on the apsc camera. That's worth every penny, 1 lens that can gives me all this with no hit to the IQ over what I have with apsc.
Times I need to use a TC on my 400F4 I see little to no loss of IQ and can even shoot wide open with no notable loss to detail, using a TC on a zoom often times gives me better IQ than what I see when using a TC with a prime of the same Fov

Many times I can use a zoom over a apsc prime and still have just as sharp image ( nice to have when limiting what I need to carry)

Just the cost savings of extending the use of the 400mm F4 (cropping to 600mm F5.6 ) over the need of having both 300 F2.8 and a 400 F4 for the same IQ is a fair trade well worth the price of a FF body

[Nicolas06]

It was to show how irrelevant your post was to compare why someone would move to a larger format only based only on shallower DOF photography as many moved from FF to MF with out that benefit

Every single lens you buy for FF does not have to better than apsc for shallow DOF and low light photography if this was true why is FF so popular for landscape. Low light work is such a small part on why one would want to buy a FF.
1 large benefit resolution
I only need 20 FF to equal a 24 apsc, that means I can crop many of my 24mp FF with many of my lenses by 1.2, extending my versatility,
With 36FF I can crop about 1.4 times greatly increasing the reach of the 400mm F4 (that's costs the same 300 F2.8 ) . With more resolution at 400mm gives a clear reach advantage over my 24apsc 300 2.8 when needed this way I don't need a 300 F2.8 and 400 F4 on the apsc camera. That's worth every penny, 1 lens that can gives me all this with no hit to the IQ over what I have with apsc.
Times I need to use a TC on my 400F4 I see little to no loss of IQ and can even shoot wide open with no notable loss to detail, using a TC on a zoom often times gives me better IQ than what I see when using a TC with a prime of the same Fov

If you want put your 300mm f/2.8 on your 24MP APSC, that give you the equivalent of a 450mm f/4.2. To match the focal length with a 400mm f/4 on FF, you need to apply a crop factor of 1.125 to it. You then get an equivalent of 450mm f/4.5. If the FF has 36MP after the crop factor, there remain only 28MP.

The FF get a bit more resolution, the APSC get a bit more light. This is by no way a game changer.

But all of this is under the hypothesis that you need the 300mm f/2.8... or 400mm f/4... Counting the sales of both lenses if it was the only justification people find to buy FF, the form factor would have been discontinued by all manufacturers long ago.

[Nicolas06]

Out dated FF's that have only been partially match by apsc, what better way to extend the life of your equipment than using a 5d for 10 years ($300 per year) , 5DII for 7 years($400 per year) or the d700 for 7 years ($400 per year) The most important aspect of this is for 10 years you can be reaping the benefit that apsc has only now gained I would have to say that's about the best way to maximise your dollar! If I picked up the 5d instead of the DS, K10D K7 and K3II what would I have saved?

Less than 5 years difference as a K5 is a superior camera to a 5D. If the guy didn't have money he would not have put the 5D at the begining and if the guy was after ultimate performance it would have changed the FF a few time and got the best available for 5000$ each time.

In the end yes the best FF possible is better than the best APSC possible... For some uses.

This is not true for all uses like when you want something small/light with reach. This is irrelevant if you don't care of 36MP + resolution that you bare eyes can't distinguish or if you don't want have of the same eyes in focus the other half out of focus.

People will justify everything for their spending and what they like... To justify it they put all the value to things that nobody care expect them like 400mm f/4 lenses and alike.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Less than 5 years difference as a K5 is a superior camera to a 5D.

5D mkII came out same year as K5. 5D classic was eating fish and chips and hanging out in the bingo hall when k5 was born

[filoxophy]

I have no idea what's happening in this thread any more.

[normhead]

I only need 20 FF to equal a 24 apsc, that means I can crop many of my 24mp FF with many of my lenses by 1.2, extending my versatility,

From Imaging Resources, regarding the Pentax K-3
Resolution
Very high resolution, ~2,700 lines of strong detail from JPEGs, about the same from converted RAW files.

A Canon 5D MkIII at 22.3 Mp produces 2499-2500 lw/ph

A Nikon D600 produces 2700 lw/ph,

A Canon 6D produces 2400 lw/ph

A Nikon D750 produces 2900 lw/ph...

Only one of the 4 mentioned full frames beats the K-3 in resolution.

You do know that to match my K-3 with a 400 mm lens, you have to have a 600mm lens of full frame at 2 to 3 times the cost?
You talk about flexibility, well, it;s only rarely that the flexibility you talk about actually affects IQ.

I haven't got a clue what you're going on about. But you really are a bit out of control here as far as I can tell.

Do you actually understand anything you're writing about, or are you getting all your information from some Full Frame propaganda central?

[boriscleto]

I have no idea what's happening in this thread any more.

Has cheese been discussed yet?

[Sliver-Surfer]

You do know that to match my K-3 with a 400 mm lens, you have to have a 600mm lens of full frame at 2 to 3 times the cost?

or put on a 1.4x tc
What happens when you want to get the same effect as a 50mm at f1.2 on a FF in a small room with aps-c DSLR?

[Nicolas06]

5D mkII came out same year as K5. 5D classic was eating fish and chips and hanging out in the bingo hall when k5 was born

Doesn't change the fact that the all superiority of the all mighty FF was just suppressed after 5 years and now any APSC camera beat it even brought used for 200$.

This is just to say you don't invest in a inherent superiority except for the deph of field if your are into f/1.2 on FF thingy... You just a temporary advantage at a premium price. And you really have to put the premium, low end FF lack features of high end APSC or just don't improve on some areas. No more resolution, even less if you think to take a Canon FF, less efficiant AF, sub par performance toward other FF for Sony A7 or sony A7-II, limited to 3 images for bracketing and so own.

I don't say it is useless, just that in the end that lot of money spent for a small difference.

[Nicolas06]

or put on a 1.4x tc
What happens when you want to get the same effect as a 50mm at f1.2 on a FF in a small room with aps-c DSLR?

You may want to switch to a 35mm lense in your situation on APSC, but if your are outdoor you may want to switch to a 85mm on FF In both case to have more comfortable working distance toward your subject. You have access to the same lense and so exactly the same rendering on both camera. What does change is when you use them.

In my case because I'am more after the framing of a 77 on APSC than a 50mm on FF for my portraiture shoots, I'll look for a 70-85mm lense in APSC range or 100-135mm lense on FF range. I'am not sure I'll be that disapointed by what I get with the 77 on APSC toward what I could get on FF with a 100 or 135mm lense on FF.

In all cases, I'll get shallower deph of field with my FA77 on my APSC than if I was using a 50mm f/1.2 on FF... If that was important to me I mean.

For a framing of 50mm on FF, I tend to want more deph of field for my practice. Chances are that I want to shoot a landscape or that if I'am still for portraiture, that 2 persons are in the frame and that'll want more f/4 to have both subjects in focus.

Some 50mm are f/1.2 because it is easy to make f/1.2 lenses at 50mm, not especially because it is better or worse to have it at 50mm than 35mm or 135mm. The lenses you buy will highly depend of your camera, the system you use and your personnal taste. It is of course better to construct your bag, with a consistent set of lenses that match what you like to shoot.

Not like you'd get a tremendously difference in deph of field betwen f/1.2 and f/1.4 anyway, that 16% deph of field difference. That'll show mainly if you put shoots side by side.