Poll: FF vs APS

[shadowfox]

Today we are seeing more companies releasing cameras with full-frame (FF) sensors. And the trend seems to be leaning towards full-frame as manufacturing cost goes down with the increase in demand.

But I also notice there are some of us who think that APS is just as good as FF, therefore we don't need more FF cameras.

So let's see whether FF matters to more people or not:

Imagine a desirable camera kit (with lenses). It is desirable in terms of design, size, controls, build and optical quality, and price. Now you are to choose *only one* between two models available, the only difference is: One has APS and the other FF sensor, with the same sensor technology.

Setting aside the opinions of others, which one would you *personally* choose? Explain why.

Let's see what the poll indicates.

 

[redisburning]

there's no replacement for displacement.

Ill NEVER buy another camera that shoots smaller than 35mm full frame.

 

[rivercityrocker]

If there is no difference in size, design, et al... then there would be no reason to not to choose full-frame.

In the real world, I use both. Actually, I have FF, APS-C, and APS-H. I find each useful for different things. I don't see why everyone makes it an either/or.

 

[kxl]

I only have one very specific need for APS-C: extreme reach for wildlife photography. An example would be a Nikon D7100 body and mounting a 600-800mm AFS lens with a 1,7x teleconverter, all of that mounted on a gimbal head on a very sturdy tripod. Other than that I'd choose FF for everything else. Though I do agree that it not an either/or situation.

 

[helvetica]

APS-C technically is full frame... 35mm Cine that is! That is one are where APS-C is fairly useful. Open aperture for light gathering, but more depth of field. Photos look artsy with most everything being out of focus, but video just looks... out of focus.

 

[daveleo]

I assume the cameras and lenses cannot be the same size, weight and price, even though each may be equally "desireable" within it's marketplace niche.

If that is a good assumption, I would opt for the APS design because it will be smaller, lighter and less pricey, and the APS level of image resolution is more than I need to print nice 12X18's.

There, I said it 😛

 

[Addy101]

I can see the difference and I prefer the look of full-frame - so, easy, I choose full-frame

 

[jsrockit]

I would chose the full frame version. I'd like the wider range of depth of field options and FF seems to hold its value more in case of resale. That said, I was using a Canon 5d MKII along side my Fuji X-Pro1 awhile back and preferred the output from the Fuji.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Since you're giving them away for free from your house on Strawberry Lane beside Whiskey Creek, I'll take the 46x65mm please.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I voted FF for one reason only: legacy lenses.

My Eos 5D will accept Nikon, Pentax, Zeiss and many other lenses built during the last sixty years and maintain the angle of view for which the lenses were designed.

However, having written that, I use compact, M43 and APS-C cameras as well and wouldn't personally fall into the "one size fits all" trap. At least, I hope I wouldn't. 😉

 

[Jamie Pillers]

APS-C image-quality today is good enough, for all but the pixel-peepers. Heck, even m4/3 sensor images shine these days! These smaller-than-FF sensors allow for much smaller less-expensive bodies and lenses, something I'm all in favor of.

In my opinion, FF might make a comeback if manufacturers find ways to get the size and cost down. Sony seems to be on the right track, but Canon and Nikon don't yet appear to see the coming train wreck.

 

[CliveC]

I own only APS-C on digital at the moment, but not really by choice. FF just doesn't fit my budget, though I am saving up for a 5D II.

I would choose FF because of the crop factor in that it is hard to go wide on crop. Plus they seem to be inherently better in low light. Of course, the legacy lens situation is icing on the cake.

 

[GaryLH]

I think Canon and Nikon are going to stay conservative and not let anything eat into their cash cow dslr business. I know not everyone likes Apple, but in the past one of the things they did that I admired, was to bring out products that could eat into their own business. I think Steve Jobs mentioned in a interview (could be wrong) that he would rather c his own products eat in then the competitors.

I voted apsc.. For me, I don't need ff for the type of pictures I take. Will I pick one up one day, maybe used... It is more because I am a gear head, not because I need it. The m43 and apsc cameras I already have are more than good enough for my needs..

There was a time when I wanted ff.. I was even tempted recently (gear head gas). But there are now enough good native lenses out there for m43 and apsc, I really don't have the need. Yes I have legacy ff lenses around, but the reality is that only some of them are going to play well w/ a ff sensor... And I am perfectly happy w/ shooting native af lenses today. Though I still use legacy lenses more for the heck of it.

Gary

 

[rfaspen]

Let's see, I have how many thousands invested in "35mm" lenses? Don't tell my wife, but it is truly substantial and I am thoroughly excited to take advantage of that investment on a camera that will, near as needed, give me the characteristics I purchased the lens for in the first place. I almost convinced myself the M9 (or variant) was what I had to do (expensive), but the Sony A7 is winning hearts quickly, perhaps mine as well.

BTW, I'm lightly invested in m43 and its quite nice too. I use that system as my primary digital experience. It just doesn't leverage all that money I've spent over the years on lenses. 2X crop factor is too much and my brain expects a 20mm lens to act like a 20mm lens...

 

[swoop]

The larger sensor is usually better. It's why medium format and large format still exist. APS-C has its place though. It's better for small scale studio work like products and food, and APS-C cameras are generally smaller for the carry around amateur and hobbyist for whom the benefits of a larger sensor is kind of a moot point.

 

[Dwig]

I would chose the full frame version. I'd like the wider range of depth of field options ...

False premise. FF doesn't not have a "wider range" of DOF options. What the larger format gains on the shallow DOF end it looses on the deep DOF end. Smaller formats have greater DOF at the point where defraction becomes excessive than do larger formats.

Personally, I'd choose the APS-c. Within the totally unrealistic parameters of this poll the only difference between APS-c and FF would be the DOF considerations and legacy lens interactions. For me, the legacy lens issues are insignificant. I'd prefer the smaller format's greater DOF ability and I can always (and frequently do) create excellent shallow DOF results with post processing.

In the real world, no to similar systems with differing sensor formats and not other "differences" would never be the same size. The larger format system will always have relatively larger lenses even if the bodies matched in size.

 

[jsrockit]

False premise. FF doesn't not have a "wider range" of DOF options. What the larger format gains on the shallow DOF end it looses on the deep DOF end. Smaller formats have greater DOF at the point where defraction becomes excessive than do larger formats.

Let's use 50mm FOV on FF. All I know is that wide open it's going to allow less depth of field and at f/16 or f/22, most everything will be in focus (just as APSC). That was my line of thought. The wide open end is more important to me.

 

[PatrickT]

I voted FF.

For me, it's not about the image quality...APS cameras are damn good. Either would suffice.

The primary reason is that I like to shoot with shallow DOF...FF gives a significant advantage over APS in this regard. That, and legacy lenses are fun 🙂

 

[Timmyjoe]

Been a big fan of FF for a number of years now but am currently looking at a D7100. I need a very lightweight kit to carry with my "portable office" and everything must be carried on my back. The size and weight difference between my FF D4 w/24-70 and the D7100 w/17-55 is considerable.

 

[PatrickT]

Been a big fan of FF for a number of years now but am currently looking at a D7100. I need a very lightweight kit to carry with my "portable office" and everything must be carried on my back. The size and weight difference between my FF D4 w/24-70 and the D7100 w/17-55 is considerable.

Is the D7100 that much lighter than something like the D610?