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

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
tesilab
Senior MemberPosts: 1,910Gear list
Like?
Largely psychology
In reply to ennemkay, Nov 11, 2012

ennemkay wrote:

is the dof difference really that significant?

And by psychology I mean more than one phenomenon at work:

1. The Standard: FF defines "normal"

35mm film had a long run, and defined what was normal.  What you could expect to shoot with a 50mm lens, at what distance. Many of us, though shooting APS-C are always mentally converting every focal length into 35mm equivalents.

There is even a problem with the name. "Full Frame" makes it sound as if any smaller sensor is missing something.

2. Perfectionism: FF is always a bit better than APS-C no matter how good APS-C gets

There is the high ISO advantage.  A few years ago, only an FF camera could get a decent shot at ISO 3200. We wanted it. Now even an MFT camera can get a pretty good ISO 3200 image. Doesn't matter, the FF cameras are also getting better, and can give you IS 12,800 shots you could use in a pinch.


Note that in some ways, FF cameras are worse. It isn't just the size. 35mm FF lenses have always struggled to provide good sharpness across the frame. Lenses designed for APS-C don't scale down as much as they could to deliver the same relative performance. Instead they scale down some, and typically provide better results across the entire frame. Focusing performance (with the same technology) also suffers with bigger size.

No way this talks me out of getting that RX1!

 tesilab's gear list:tesilab's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sigma 19mm F2.8 EX DN +11 more
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