Poll: FF vs APS

[Timmyjoe]

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

D4 w/24-70G -------- 2240g
D610 w/24-70G ------ 1660g
D7100 w/17-55 ------- 1430g

17-55 lens is an inch shorter than the 24-70, and the D7100 body is smaller in every dimension compared to the D610 (not by a lot, but still smaller).

Best,
-Tim

 

[Jerevan]

I prefer the FF because I am used to having a 50 that is a 50 mm lens, and a wide end where the 24 is really 24 wide. In spite of this, I really like the interface of my Nikon D7000 - I bought it a little while ago on a close-out deal and it just felt right - took me three minutes out of the box to get going. Currently FF feels a bit out of reach price-wise. A good, sturdy FF camera with a lower price point would have me seriously interested.

 

[Pioneer]

I guess I'll have to vote full frame because I have an old 5D and a newer M9.

But the huge majority of my digital is shot with a Pentax Q7. I don't see that sensor listed. 🙂

 

[bwidjaja]

I voted APS because:
1. I do not have many legacy lens
2. I do not have the "real need" (i.e. no wild life, sports, large prints, etc.)

I do find the poll rather limiting like some say above. Technology will allow the camera "body" to be smaller and better. However, the lens technology at this point will be limited by physics and FF lens will always be bigger than APS-C lens with similar functionality (AF, IS, etc).

So, for carry around street type of shooting APS-C is good enough even for high ISO. Leica M film is probably the best feel, but not much option for digital (and Leica M digital body is too big for me). If I need the ultimate quality or very large print size, i would rather jump to large format with digital back (not anytime soon given the relatively high price).

 

[filmtwit]

Full Frame for me, but I see use in APS as well.
APS is great for some sports related photography.
I'm also fine with it in Fuji X100.
But otherwise 1.6ing of all my lenses really isn't good for most shoots.

 

[aizan]

people aren't consistently addressing the question at hand:

"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."

while there will be differences between two systems based on different sensor sizes, we're supposed to assume that all of the factors are still desirable in your opinion.

i would pick the full frame system because it seems like the better deal in the long-run.

 

[icebear]

Cropping already at time of exposure seems to be a really odd concept to me.
There is nothing more important than capturing real estate.
This was true for film and it still is true for a solid state sensor.

The ONLY reason small sensors exists:
Everything related to the smaller size is cheaper, the sensor itself, the body, the lenses.

 

[f16sunshine]

We are running out of dead horse to kick !? 😛

 

[FA Limited]

if the quality is the same APS 100%
if the quality is not the same then would prefer FF depending on size and weight considerations

 

[jsrockit]

Cropping already at time of exposure seems to be a really odd concept to me.

It's not cropping if the lens is made for the sensor size.

There is nothing more important than capturing real estate.
This was true for film and it still is true for a solid state sensor.

Not as relavent with a sensor as it is with film. APSC sensors are capable of beautiful large prints that can compete with many FF cameras.

The ONLY reason small sensors exists:
Everything related to the smaller size is cheaper, the sensor itself, the body, the lenses.

Well, true, except that camera size comes into play too. Small sensors are used to keep size down... though that is changing.

 

[Michalm]

Senzor size matters , FF is my choice for a number of reasons.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I already have digital FF camera, grip and set of lenses, flashes, triggers which are compatible with my film camera. Canon EOS system.
It has price, size and and so on for the system, which allows effectively achieve results I want from digital FF.

Then size is the matter, it has nothing to do with the "system". I'll be happy to get x20 equivalent with FF sensor in it under its current price tag 🙂

 

[aeturnum]

I would pick FF as it allows me to harmonize my lens collection between digital and film. APS and FF image quality are so close that only people who need the bleeding edge of image quality would need FF. However, a 50mm being 50mm everywhere is priceless.

 

[merciless49]

I picked FF only to use legacy lenses. If I didn't have any nor cared to use them, APS is surely good enough for me.

 

[DougFord]

ff


. .

 

[nongfuspring]

It's a moot question. With two cameras with equal desirability in all factors other than sensor size then of course everyone will say FF.

 

[willie_901]

"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."

Duh... of course FF would be the choice. Too bad this particular situation is irrelevant because these two cameras do not exist.

 

[kennylovrin]

I prefer full frame mainly because it looks "right". It looks like "all" photos I've seen my whole life and like many many photos have looked for almost a century now. I have no better way of explaining it than that to be honest. I'd say it also rolls off into highlights nicer, but that is likely to get better with each new sensor, no matter the size.

 

[Addy101]

It's a moot question. With two cameras with equal desirability in all factors other than sensor size then of course everyone will say FF.

That surprised me... I voted full frame 'cause I prefer the rendering of 35mm over APS-C. But for pure street photography I don't see the advantage of full frame: the lighter and smaller camera (inherent to APS-C) and the bigger DoF makes it better suited. IMHO of course.

 

[BlackXList]

Full Frame.

Image Quality: Yes a lot of APSC cameras have great image quality, but I'll always prefer more sensor real estate for my pixels to inhabit.

Low Light: FF seems to me to work better in low light.

Focal Lengths: My 85mm is 85 on my film SLRs and 85 on my FF. Also not losing a chunk off the wider angle due to crop factor.

Feel: It's an intangible, and one I'm almost hesitant to add, because I do like working with several smaller sensor cameras too, but there's feel to FF, that I don't get elsewhere. There's a chance that's the placebo effect, but I don't think so.

and lastly
DOF: I have more options for shallow DOF should I need to, it's not something I'm trying to do all the time at all, but its nice to have that ability.


FF bodies aren't THAT big.
I appreciate that the Leica and Sony models are appreciably smaller than the Canons and Nikons.
I don't think the Leica feature set is comparable to the FF Canons and Nikons, it's for different use. I've yet to see much in terms of output from the Sony, that's no judgement on it, I just haven't seen enough from it yet, it looks very interesting.


I have a Canon Eos3, which is a chunky 35mm slr, but that's because it's a lot of camera. The 5d mk3 is the same size.

There's 15 years between them, they're the same size, they feel comparable in the hand, and the 5d manages to cram in all the video stuff as well. It's simply not true that SLRs are these ever inflating beasts.