|
Personally, with formal training involving many formats, I had no such illusions about Full Frame. For shallow DoF, FF is the best option. For resolution MF is the best option, for wider depth of field, leltphoto and macro APS-c is the best option. The difference in width between a K-3 and a K-1 is a little over 1000 pixels, 6000 instead of 7300. The increase in resolution is about 30% APS-c to FF. In photography, we do things in halves and doubles. The next step after APS-c would logically be Medium Format, however, as a quirky monkey wrench thrown into the gears, FF has the best Shallow DoF performance. It's just not practical to make wider than 2.6 MF lenses.
FF has many advantages. But it's not the all purpose better in all ways many have made it out to be.
FF is probably the best compromise, for everything buy frame rate. Think of it as FF does 50% of what you might want. APS-c does 25% better and MF does 25% better. FF is on top in terms of over-all versatility, but you can do better in half your shooting if it's all you have. What it does best is about equal to what the uses it's in second or third at. I Just made up those numbers of course, everyone will have a different mix. Don't own any telephoto or macro lenses, then APS_c likely won't a lot of use to you. But MF wills still be better for landscape.
The percentages change based on what you shoot. But the basic abilities of the cameras don't.
| 
Similar Threads 
