[neostyles]

Ive heard that aps c is now more or less equal to full frme a few years ago. I was kind of a skeptic of this but after seeing some sony a77ii shots I just may believe that
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157644127002740/


Wow, look at the detail in the low light shots! Look at how crisp everything is! And in the daylight shots I think it outresolves my d600 atleast with the 24-85!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/13948836740/in/album-72157644127002740/


You can zoom in and practically read names tags if there were any! Who says aps c lenses cant match full frame?


Anyone know of some uber cheap a mount lenses? Just something to start out with!

[tuco]

That Nikon 24-85mm is a kit lens. And only a few apertures on it that have a decent flat field with high resolution from the tests I've seen. Glass makes all the difference in the world if you are pixel peeping.

[mecrox]

Ive heard that aps c is now more or less equal to full frme a few years ago. I was kind of a skeptic of this but after seeing some sony a77ii shots I just may believe that
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157644127002740/


Wow, look at the detail in the low light shots! Look at how crisp everything is! And in the daylight shots I think it outresolves my d600 atleast with the 24-85!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/13948836740/in/album-72157644127002740/


You can zoom in and practically read names tags if there were any! Who says aps c lenses cant match full frame?


Anyone know of some uber cheap a mount lenses? Just something to start out with!

It's just steady technical improvement, that's all. Has M43 caught up with APS-C? Has 1" caught up with M43? Yes and no in every case because even if a new-gen sensor comfortably outperforms an older one, the particular qualities of the format and the lens on the front dictate what can be done. One of the best photographers I follow uses ordinary, nothing-special APS-C and M43 gear but his photographs still knock most others out of the park. Having even a bog standard camera with you is better than worrying about what gear does what. Folks are taking fabulous shots on Nikon D3000 series cameras with the kit lens.

[Jamey777]

f/2.8 still looks like f/3.5 on aps-c, so for me it never will... I don't care about resolution or sharpness so much as bokeh....

[philbaum]

Ive heard that aps c is now more or less equal to full frme a few years ago. I was kind of a skeptic of this but after seeing some sony a77ii shots I just may believe that
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/sets/72157644127002740/


Wow, look at the detail in the low light shots! Look at how crisp everything is! And in the daylight shots I think it outresolves my d600 atleast with the 24-85!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/13948836740/in/album-72157644127002740/
!

I didn't look thru them all, but many were taken at 100is, 120iso, 320 iso, 500iso and one was at 1600 iso. I don't call them lowlight. Its low light when you start shooting at 6400, 12,800 or higher, perhaps handheld as many cameras will do fine on a tripod. Thats when one needs FF, IMHO.

Taking shots in daylight is no difficulty any longer for most cameras, including smart phones.

[Na Horuk]

Anyone know of some uber cheap a mount lenses? Just something to start out with!

See, that is where the advantage stops mattering. If you put cheap glass on D810E or 5Dmk3 or whatever, it still won't look that impressive. Better start with good glass and buy a lower spec camera. And if you already have decent K-mount glass, then get a K-3II. Switching systems is costly and often its not rewarding. Besides, all current Pentax cameras have Sony sensors, anyway.

But in terms of image quality, there have been all sorts of tests done that were meant to show that people cannot tell apart FF and APSC, or even MF, or m43 sensors. Sure, some photographers know what to look for, and some photographers push their gear to the limit where even small differences matter. But for a huge chunk of photography, if you have good light and good glass, a regular audience would not notice or care to notice what sensor size was used

[neostyles]

There are plenty of other reasons why I want the a77ii.. impressive focusing, 12 fps burst, movie mode that puts canon/Nikon to shame. I don't really have the money for high end glass right now but its something that I can work my way to. If went for a cheaper body that kind of defeats the purpose. I want something that atleast can outmatch the d600 in a few areas... as this is going to be my second camera. I need something that fills in the for the d600s weak links. A yin to its yang if you will. Btw, there is an iso 3200 shot on that page.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/berlinbackstage/13956164760/in/album-72157644127002740/


I think aps c has caught up to full frame in that that since the bodies are so much cheaper and give you pretty close low light perfmance, you can spend your money in better glass instead. But that's just the way I see it.

---

Last edited by neostyles; 09-25-2015 at 01:51 PM.

[ChristianRock]

Careful, or you'll end up back with a Pentax after bashing the brand so much... unless you do video, of course. The K-3 has a bigger screen, better ISO performance (mostly due to the translucent mirror in the Sony), Pentax lenses are very affordable right now (I'll leave it up to you to decide which ones are better), 2 card slots. The Pentax is cheaper, but the Sony does have better video and more frames per second.

But most importantly, the Sony A mount is about as dead as the Samsung NX you were lusting for not too long ago. Don't count on upgrading in a few years, you'll probably have to switch systems again in the future.

If you are going APS-C, why not a D7200? At least it will give you better video. The big downside (to me) is to have to get stabilized lenses. Or just wait for the A7000.

[neostyles]

Above all, its really the "smart" side of the sony systems that really drew me to them. Ever since my first smart phone ive wanted the same awesome stuff on my camera Having a camera that is not some closed shell but one that can connect to your phone or download apps to add new things is really damn cool Canonikon are doing a bit with the d750 but its not anywhere near on the same level as sonys alpha systems. This doesnt appear to be a big priority for pentax sadly

[Canada_Rockies]

The "Full Frame is Better than APS-C" discussions remind me a lot of 120 vs 35 mm back in the dark ages. I chose 35 mm, and have not regretted it. I now use a K10D - and am waiting for Monday when a used K-3 will arrive - and find APS-C will print up at 24x36 just fine.

Connectivity seems to be mostly there with the K-S2, and it is rated very well indeed in the reviews. My first 35mm camera was a Yashicamat or some such thing with a 35mm lens. My first SLR was a Pentax, and every SLR/DSLR I have bought since is a Pentax. Find me another brand where I can shoot M43 and have the camera do the exposure measuring.

[neostyles]

I think that is one of the biggest things that is making people including me wonder whether fulll frame is necessary. When i picked up my first camera aps c could still only do 14/16 megapixels and full frame was the only way to get bigger than that. APs c is now much more flexible than it was a few years ago.

[neostyles]

1 inch may even be approaching full frame
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 real-world samples: Digital Photography Review

Theres a wine bottle shot in pretty poor lighting taken at iso 12,800 that almost looks usable. The sandwich shot is at iso 3200 which back in 2012 when i started lusting after my friends d3100 was only doable on full frame. Its incredible to see how the far the tech has come when you can potentially impress clients with a 1 inch sensorl The second shot looks to be only one stop behind my d600!

[6BQ5]

I think more about how the smaller formats like u4/3 and the like are quickly catching up to APS. Full frame can still leap ahead.

[Rondec]

As APS-C gets better, full frame gets better too. At this point, it is a question of "good enough." For many people, a cell phone is good enough. Sure, it involves a lot of software manipulation, doesn't do great in low light and has massive depth of field, but within those constraints, the photos are fine and plenty sharp.

Full frame is necessary if you are pushing the envelope -- shooting really low light, printing really big, or wanting really shallow depth of field. At this point, APS-C is one stop worse. End of story. Whether or not you need that stop is debatable, but if you do, the only way to get it is to increase your sensor size (or get a faster lens).

[northcoastgreg]

There seem to be two errors in the rather fatuous APS-C versus FF debate. The first error is that APS-C is "just as good" as FF (it isn't). The other is that FF is much better than APS-C (that's clearly an exaggeration). Bigger sensors do have certain advantages (which tend to be exaggerated by large sensor advocates). Those advantages often don't amount to much, but for certain types of photography, they could constitute a kind of X-factor that could be very critical for getting a specific type of image.

Anyone know of some uber cheap a mount lenses? Just something to start out with!

You might want to check out the old 90's vintage Minolta 28-105. I'm not sure what those things are going for nowadays, but I remember some years ago, when I was researching Pentax 28-105s, I came across some images taken with the Minolta version and was rather impressed.