That's not why I posted the link, I posted the link because of
And i would assume even tighter control of DoF, and professional appearance...
I'm just curious , most of the things people say they have to have FF for are done better by the 645D, so I'm curious, why pick FF as your stopping point. Why not go all the way?. God knows I've said forever it's not about the pictures.
Affordable is the problem. Apparently it's much easier to produce large size film than large size sensors, and it's pay up front. With digital you pay for all the "film" you will ever use when you buy the camera. Lose the camera and you've lost 100,000 exposures of film. With film the camera is relatively cheap and you pay for film as you go along. Probably more expensive in teh long run, but it never takes the huge bite out of your wallet.
Makes you wonder, given the above statement, exactly how much of the cost of 645D is the sensor? 1/3 to half would be reasonable guesses.
Class A
with all due respect... you can have all those "advantages" and it can make not one bit of difference to the image. It may be that if you shoot a certain style you may need all or one of those advantages...
HIgher than a K-5? wow,
No but you can get 85.1.4 for your APS-C but not the equivalent 135 1.4 for your FF. This kind of argument always pretends like FF is always at an advantage. Sometimes, my depth of field is perfect at 50 and 1.4 mm on an APS-c camera, and using the same lens on an FF system would simply mean cropping the image to APS-c size. No one has done any analysis to show whether you come out on top using an FF or APS-c system. Everyone who uses an FF system seems to like it, I'm not saying it has no value. But is it necessary?
jsherman pointed me to an argument that pointed out "your best lens on APS-c isn't as good as your wort lens on FF", a point the author demsontrated, with 1 on 1 pixel peeping. That's the only way to see the difference. Some of us would argue that's just not relevant.
Price is an issue.... for most of us.
In what way is that incorrect? DoF is measurable, there can be more or less of it, it is the distance between the nearest and furthest points in acceptable focus, distance, as in, there can be more or less of it. An FF can achieve less DoF, but you have to want less DoF to make that worth paying even 10 cents for. . That's just plain fact. Again, in any situation. Shooting with your renowned 50 1.4 on FF or APS-c you have the same DoF. The only issue is what camera's DoF is more appropriate to the picture being taken. Based on my shooting style, 95% of the time I would prefer more DoF to less, which would mean 95% of the time I would be happier using an APS-c camera. Your shooting style may differ, but, what I'm saying is there is no intrinsic advantage to FF, it's different not better, accept with pixel peepers. The fact that theoretically there could be an advantage to shooting FF, doesn't mean that there is, or that you'd ever run into a situation where there wasn't an acceptable workaround. You can get all caught up in theory and imagine things to be really important, that aren't.
In practical terms... if you can take the same image with an Optio W90... for that image, yes it makes my W90 equal to the 645D, and if that's the picture I need, taking it with a 645D instead of your optio 90 would border on insanity. Not in terms of the pride you take in your equipment, or oneupmanship in the forum... but in terms of that image at that size. I'm not at all concerned with theoretical minutiae. I will always make use of the best equipment I own for a specific shot, just on the odd chance I might need a better image quality of higher resolution or whatever. However if APS-c continues to be good enough...and no one can tell if my images were shot with APS-c, FF or MF for that matter, I'm not going more expensive. I'll bet that APS-c FF and MF at 1:2 crop are pretty much indistinguishable, for most images. And that the differences that are an advantage in one situation are a disadvantage in another.
There is just one valid question here.
Do I need less depth of field. If the answer is yes go FF although you should also look at MF too, if you need more DoF, save yourself the grief, stay with APS-c.
Do I need the maximum in sharp images at more than 2500 wide pixels on a computer monitor? If yes, go FF or MF. If 2500 or less, APS-c is good enough and the pictures will be indistinguishable.
Assuming you can get a good print at say 120 DPI.. which I'd go with, my own personal rule of thumb, but probably a bit conservative, .. am I going to print these images over 40 inches in width?
If the answer is yes, you may need to go FF or MF. By my rule of thumb an MF 645 D would get me to about 60 inches.
The parameters for actually "needing" FF are so small as to defy assigning a % to the numbers of photographers who need them.
ANd as well many times limitations of a particular system can be overcome. FOr example, meeting pixel count limitations by taking multiple exposures , stitching your images together and achieving sharpness by reducing the huge image size. Even thinking you "need" FF doesn't mean their may not be work around for the few times you actually do require it.