Originally posted by reh321 I keep hearing how FF is better than APS-C, almost by definition. MF should have exactly the same advantages over FF, by the same definition.
Leaving optics out of the equation, yes it is. But it would be foolish to leave optics out of it.
APSC: High end zooms have f/2,8 and high quality primes have f/1,4
FF.....: High end zooms have f/2,8 and high quality primes have f/1,4
MF....: High end zooms have f/4 and high quality primes have f/2,8
A little simplified numbers of course, but lets keep it simple enough to get the message through. If you want real world lens examples, look at one of my earlier posts in this thread.
With apertures like this, FF have an advantage over APS-C in terms of noise (if one chooses to lower the DoF). An advantage that isn't present between FF and MF.
Aperture number must bee seen in context with sensor size, just like we see focal length in context with sensor size.
Originally posted by mecrox Then why aren't they?
I think its because some professionals think larger sensor size are better by definition, without other things affecting it.