Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer 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?
If you want that, buy a full frame, anyone else, save your money. You can put a 1.4 TC on your APS-c camera on your 400 and you're still ahead. What is wrong with you people' Seriously.
I shot a couple of macros a couple of days ago, at every f-stop from 2.8 to F22, and the winners were, ƒ4 and ƒ11. That is after actually sitting down with all the images and examining them to see which I wanted to use. So my point is, after a day's shooting I didn't select a single images suggesting I needed a full frame, for any reason. It wouldn't have lessened my noise, increased my total light, narrowed my DoF given me more flexibility, except I would have wasted more time creating one more throw away, if I had an FF. I was using the Tamron 90 macro, a full frame lens, but, used on an FF I would have had half the magnification I got using the same lens on APS-c. The 24 MP would have been spread over twice the image size.
I get really tired of this kind of argument.
Quote: or put on a 1.4x tc
Really? You think that's the same? You just turned an ƒ4 into an ƒ5.6 lens. It blows me away that people can say stuff like that with a straight face. In what kind of myopic world, do people pretend stuff like that is the same? The world where folks haven't done these things and just want to talk shit. I actually own a TC and use it. I don't have to make up stuff, I'm well aware of the problems associated with shooting with a TC.
Quote: 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?
What happens if you don't ever want that? You've carried a huge FF system with a huge ƒ1,2 lens around with your for years because in your warped perspective of phtography, you think someday you might want that. Kind of like driving around a logging truck with a loading arm, because someday you might find a tree down across the road. Ya, you're right, it could happen. There could be a storm, a tree could fall down across the road, and the right vehicle might enable you move it out of the way. But are you really going to drive around a piece of heavy equipment just in case?
But, I'm with you on this. If you work removing trees from highways, you better have that truck, and if your photography lives in FF ƒ1.2 land, then you better have that FF and that huge lens, and there are probably some guys like that, and you might be one of them, so, we are prepared to cut you a little slack. You might have a legitimate case, for yourself personally, but, the number of people I've seen proposing that they are one of those people who has to have ƒ1.2 on FF, for most of them, they are married to a concept. It has little to do with the images they take. Kind of like a guy walking around in a lumber jack jacket because he thinks he would be better prepared for life, if he drove around in a logging truck with a chain saw on the passenger seat. Now if it's a guy in a lumber jack jacket, you'd be thinking, "that's a little geeky" wouldn't you? Unless he was actually a lumber jack. We have a pile of people around here claiming to be lumber jacks.