Poll: FF vs APS

[jarski]

I'm wondering why this argument is still going on?

argument goes on as long as there are people trying to dismiss others opinions, and impose their own preferences on others.

so, argument either goes on forever, or until there is better argument taking its place.

 

[MikeAUS]

I'm wondering why this argument is still going on? Why does one have to be better than the other?
Because it is.

 

[nongfuspring]

Here is a 85mm planar for 35mm:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583976-REG/Zeiss_1677_838_Telephoto_85mm_f_1_4_ZE.html

I get entirely what you are saying. You are looking at it from a theoretical angle. Theoretically given exActly the same sensor performance and exactly the same equivalent lens performance there shouldn't be a difference. In practice though this doesn't hold true. There is a big enough difference for me to prefer 35mm over aps-c - and apparently 2/3 the people who voted in this poll too. I don't really care what the exact factors are that do this, but it is the same factors that make me prefer medium format film over 35mm film. Equivalence is theoretical. Theoretical is trumped by what actually happens.

Colour me corrected on the planars all being normal, but I'll maintain that equivalent normal lenses do tend to follow similar optical formula.

You're presuming that since they're different it must be due to inherent format difference, and ignoring the idea that it is due to performance. Cameras are a science, if we want to achieve a particular look, we use particular gear, that is why it is important to understand equivalence. Equivalence isn't a just some academic theory, it is physics, its not like gravity changes depending on what shoes you wear, it is your perception of it that does. Either the science is wrong, or you're wrong.

For the record, I also shoot medium format, small sensor cameras, APSC and (I used to) shoot 35mm. I stopped shooting 35 because my Fuji produces better files and there is nothing (in theory and in practice) that I can do with my FF cameras that I can't do with my x-e1, providing my lenses are wider and faster to compensate.

 

[Addy101]

Actually I did not vote. There was no "it does not matter" choice.

Important things about cameras to me:
1) image quality must exceed a minimum threshold.
2) cheaper is better than more expensive.
3) lighter is better than heavy.
4) smaller is better than bigger.
5) reliable is better than unreliable.
If there is a 6) I cannot think of it. But it is definitely not the size of the sensor any more than it is the brand name or finish color of the camera.

It looks like you are an APS-C person (or, heaven forgive, 4/3's 😱)

1) It is with APS-C and FF
2) APS-C is cheaper
3) APS-C is lighter
4) APS-C is smaller
5) APS-C and FF are the same
So, three of your requirements point to APS-C and the other two are inconsequential. You should go back and vote APS-C :angel:

 

[daveleo]

argument goes on as long as there are people trying to dismiss others opinions, and impose their own preferences on others.

so, argument either goes on forever, or until there is better argument taking its place.

+10

The topic here is no longer FF vs APS . . . it's a now battle of who is willing to be the most obnoxious about his own personal opinion 🙁 .

 

[shadowfox]

I'm wondering why this argument is still going on? Why does one have to be better than the other? Each format has strengths and weaknesses, from large format on down to cellphone cameras.

What argument?
I wanted to know what would be the reason some people said that FF sensor does not matter to them.

Based on the poll, all other things being equal, more people would choose FF over APS, so clearly there are some differences. And I agree.

 

[shadowfox]

Actually I did not vote. There was no "it does not matter" choice.

Bob, you did exactly what the poll is designed to capture.
If you don't care, don't vote.
It's a self-cleaning poll 😀

 

[Michael Markey]

I didn`t vote because I`m no longer sure about this one .
Especially in cases where non native lenses are being used.
I was of the opinion that a crop factor would be an advantage in certain circumstances.
I now have a nagging doubt that my lenses aren`t performing at their best with a crop factor.
For example my Zeiss 85/1.4 doesn`t seem to have the pop and separation that it did on full frame.

Am I imagining this ?

 

[nemjo]

FF for Contax Gs

FF for Contax Gs

However I really like the the new and newer cameras, in the past few years my interest in owning them is lower and lower. The reason is, that they don't give me too much. I mean I'm satisfied with the results of older cameras these days too.
For M mount lenses my RD-1s is still capable - even at 1600 iso.
For F mount lenses I traded my D200 to a D7000 only for it's less bulk and weight.
When the mirrorless cameras came, I bought a Nex to use CG lenses with.
(BTW it has a nice feature: uses any lens...)
And now I'm hooked: the a7 offers itself to use these CGs as they were intended.

Well, the temptation was already there by the Ms and Fs, but with the CGs it's different. (To me at least...)
And now this becomes affordable, and I'm pretty sure, next year more so...

So yes : FF

nemjo


:bang::bang: How can one vote???

 

[Addy101]

What argument?
I wanted to know what would be the reason some people said that FF sensor does not matter to them.

Based on the poll, all other things being equal, more people would choose FF over APS, so clearly there are some differences. And I agree.

If you want reasons, why do you start a poll 😕

 

[Margu]

I didn`t vote because I`m no longer sure about this one .
Especially in cases where non native lenses are being used.
I was of the opinion that a crop factor would be an advantage in certain circumstances.
I now have a nagging doubt that my lenses aren`t performing at their best with a crop factor.
For example my Zeiss 85/1.4 doesn`t seem to have the pop and separation that it did on full frame.

Am I imagining this ?

no digital RAW image has pop and separation, its something that is achieved during conversion and post processing. the jpg engine of the camera, even a good one, is still desinged to please everybody.

all this nonsense about FF having separation and pop is complete nonsense.

 

[gavinlg]

no digital RAW image has pop and separation, its something that is achieved during conversion and post processing. the jpg engine of the camera, even a good one, is still desinged to please everybody.

all this nonsense about FF having separation and pop is complete nonsense.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. Sorry. :bang:

 

[jsrockit]

all this nonsense about FF having separation and pop is complete nonsense.

So, lack of depth of field can not offer separation and "pop?"

 

[Margu]

So, lack of depth of field can not offer separation and pop?

a lack of dof, meaning bokeh or a mild bokeh is not separation, its simply shallow dof.

separation is giving the photo a sense of depth. its something which is at the hearth of landscape photography. pop or micro contrast is a software thing, all RAW files are flat.

people who talk about "seeing" need to stop using bubble-gum RAW converters who pretty up an image and instead use a RAW converter which shows what actually the RAW file looks like - i mean in its RAW state.

 

[Dez]

From some of the posts in this string, I would say the discussion has gone pretty far off the rails. If I may, I would like to address the original question.

I selected the full-frame option, mostly because of the availability of lots of lenses designed to make best use of this format. There is little point in having an expensive wide-angle lens designed to produce a large image area, and then use only a fraction of that area. If you want the same angle of view in a smaller format, you need a lower FL lens, which will probably cost a lot more. This is why I never saw the point of the Leica M8.

At the other end, the suggestion that a smaller format gives long lenses a "longer reach" is just silly. If I want to use just the centre bit of my image, I'll crop it, thank you, in printing, not in the camera. A lens is a lens, and it will do whatever it can regardless of the sensor, digital or film, that you stick behind it. I prefer to get as much out of a lens as it was designed for.

Now, there are some very impressive lenses that were specifically designed for the smaller formats. My Nikon 18-200mm DX lens is a truly wonderful device. I wish I had the equivalent for full frame, but I probably couldn't carry it or afford it, or both. I have a Nikon D700, and one of the cool options you can select on that camera is an automatic switch between full frame and the DX (APS) format depending on the lens that is mounted. In that context, I don't know or care about FF vs APS.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Addy101]

Now, there are some very impressive lenses that were specifically designed for the smaller formats. My Nikon 18-200mm DX lens is a truly wonderful device. I wish I had the equivalent for full frame, but I probably couldn't carry it or afford it, or both.

Good news: the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR weighs 800gr and can be had for just $989,56 Canadian. I don't know whether you can afford it, but it isn't expensive 😀

 

[rivercityrocker]

If I want to use just the centre bit of my image, I'll crop it, thank you, in printing, not in the camera.

That D700 5MP crop isn't going to go far in printing.

 

[Dez]

Good news: the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR weighs 800gr and can be had for just $989,56 Canadian. I don't know whether you can afford it, but it isn't expensive 😀

The lens is advertised for $1030 at Henry's, supposedly on sale. Doubtless it can be found cheaper. I can lift it: affording it requires a bit of thought.

So now I need to save my pennies either for a D800 or 28-300 lens.

RCR does make a good point, though. I could get a better print from my VR lens on a D200 than a D700.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Addy101]

The lens is advertised for $1030 at Henry's, supposedly on sale. Doubtless it can be found cheaper. I can lift it: affording it requires a bit of thought.

So now I need to save my pennies either for a D800 or 28-300 lens.

RCR does make a good point, though. I could get a better print from my VR lens on a D200 than a D700.

Cheers,
Dez

The price I quoted was from www.thecamerastore.com.
But be sure it has the quality you want, Photozone.de wasn't that impressed....

 

[Dez]

Thanks. That's quite a good price. I see ebay numbers from 900-1300.

Cheers,
Dez