Is the grass greener in full-frame land?

Gooshin · 12-08-2008, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by MPrince

Depends on your definition of professional. Mine begins and ends with the person, not the equipment.

If Hank Aaron gave me one of his bats, I could swing it all day and never hit a homerun. The bat doesn't matter. The person swinging it does.

Eric Clapton and I could trade guitars (not likely since I'm a lefty) and you would have no trouble determining which one of us you were listening to. Doesn't matter that he'd be playing a lower-end Ovation and I'd be playing a Martin. The guitar doesn't matter. The guitarist does.

Oh, and by the way, superior glass is superior glass regardless of the body it is attached to.

you go shoot candle light scenes without a tripod and then try to print it 20X30 on a 6 megapixle point and shoot and then come back here and tell us that equipment doesnt matter.

considering you make a point about superior glass in the same post you dismiss quality equipment!

sheesh

MPrince · 12-08-2008, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

you go shoot candle light scenes without a tripod and then try to print it 20X30 on a 6 megapixle point and shoot and then come back here and tell us that equipment doesnt matter.

considering you make a point about superior glass in the same post you dismiss quality equipment!

sheesh

Why would I go do something stupid like that?

sheesh

poco · 12-08-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by lol101

First off, do you really think the K20 and D3 are comparable cameras? If so, please, try a D3 for 5 minutes...

Yeah, that's about all I could afford, 5 minutes with the D3. Of coarse without a lens it was a total bust.

I forgot, what was the point of this thread?

lol101 · 12-08-2008, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by poco

Yeah, that's about all I could afford, 5 minutes with the D3. Of coarse without a lens it was a total bust.

I forgot, what was the point of this thread?

I loved the quote: "Nikon D3 (only 12.1 MP but close enough)"...

"Close enough" indeed!

I think the purpose of the thread was to demonstrate how much cheaper an APS-C setup is when compared to a FF one.... and, when you do the maths, it is!!

... at least if one considers that a 500f4 AFS-VR mounted on a D3 will give you the same images/possibilities as a DA 300f4 mounted on a K20...

Gooshin · 12-08-2008, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by MPrince

Why would I go do something stupid like that?

sheesh

cuz you are like many out there that are quick to proclaim that "its not the camera, its photographer", when that is one of the dumbest horse beaten rhetorics in the photography world.

your equipment impacts your work, unless your work is in a very limited scope, like day time portraits of your kid next to a guy in a mickey mouse costume.

and better equipment will produce better work, or at the very least allow you to work in conditions that you otherwise could not work in.

**rparmar** · 12-08-2008, 01:38 PM

The point of this thread was to provide a little dose of reality, to stop people lusting insanely over kit they would likely never even buy if it existed. We should be damned happy APS-C exists and that Pentax do so much with it!

stevebrot · 12-08-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by raider

Pardon my ignorance...

I understand that with FF you get less sensor noise at high ISO, u get better of everything thing but why would we want this when

1. u will lose the range of using APC-S glass. i mean that expensive 70-200 we buy when on the APC-S body is really a 105-300mm lens on a FF body. On a FF body, that 70-200 is well, a 70-200. Isn't the extra range something?

2. the ultrawide lens like 14mm and 12-24mm (which to me seems to be wide enuf) on a FF body will be well, 14mm and 12-24mm respectively, which would also mean it is necessary to invest in more expensive filters to avoid vignetting issues? Cokin X-Pro series are very expensive. With APC-S body, we can still stick to Z-Pro series for the 12-24 or some people even use the P-series with some minor modifications. Isn't the cost savings worthwhile?

I would welcome the move to FF but at what cost?

I hear what you are saying regarding the long end of things. A 150mm lens on the 35mm format yeilds about 3x magnification. The same lens on APS-C yields about 4.5x. That is quite a bit of difference. I have to admit that it sort of nice to go into the field with something as short as 200mm and get reasonable shots of wild birds.

On the wide end the difference is a little more extreme (from my perspective). I enjoy doing landscapes and some architectural work. My Zenitar 16/2.8 has 180 degrees diagonal on 35mm. On APS-C that is reduced to 110 degrees, the same as a 24mm on 35mm film. This FOV is acceptable, but in order to get it, I have to put up with extra distortion, "interesting" quality, and a choice of zero filters. My only other option is to pony up the big bucks for a Sigma 15 or Pentax 10-17 (or something similar) just to be capable of doing landscape work.

For the 35mm format, the wide angle of choice would be 28mm for most people and 20mm or 24mm for those doing architectural work. Most lenses at those focal lengths have minimal distortion, are fairly fast, and are well-corrected to boot. (Did I mention that they also tend to cost less?). They accept regular filters of reasonable size (my 28mm takes 49mm filters) and are even relatively light and compact. As for the truly short focal lengths, lenses below 20mm are used mostly for special effects if FF land.

The picture gets even more interesting with normal zooms. Instead of paying mucho dinero for a DA* 16-50/2.8 (good as that lens is), one can be very happy with something like the excellent Tamron 28-75/2.8 instead.

Just a few things to consider. On one end you lose. On the other you gain.

Steve

raider · 12-08-2008, 05:52 PM

Thanks guys for the explanations. It is good that u mentioned the Tamron 28-75. I do have this lens and am very pleased with it. I didn't know it is suitable for full frame as well. Good news for me. But I think my lovely DA14 is APS-C only