with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
RicksAstro
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,415Gear list
Like?
Re: with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?
In reply to coudet, Nov 10, 2012

coudet wrote:

ennemkay wrote:

the reason i bring it up is that, when comparing the m43 vs. nex, even though dof and iso differences are only about a stop, the two systems are the same price, so choosing nex for that extra stop still makes sense. but ff systems are WAY more expensive

No, FF is actually cheaper.

Look at 24/1.8 for NEX, for examplel. NEX user pays $1,100 for a slow 35mm equivalent. How much does (would) an equivalent lens cost for FF, a very slow 35mm? Peanuts? RicksAstro, above, wrote a good post. MFT users have it really bad.

Exactly...if you need the shallow DOF, you pay dearly for it on the smaller formats.    If you don't, then yes the crop cameras are a good alternative.

It's not to say that FF cameras are "better".   If you need a smaller system, then certainly the FF cameras are worse.   But to me, FF cameras can cover all your bases (shallow DOF, wide DOF) and be a more flexible system than the crop format if you don't mind the size.

All cameras are a compromise of design.   It's awesome we have such great choices that just about anyone can find a camera that checks off their individual boxes.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow