FF versus smaller sensors

Started Nov 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP HappyVan Senior Member • Posts: 2,397
Peace and Goodwill - Think about Diminishing Returns

Each sensor size has intrinsic strengths and weaknesses. The important thing to note is that diminishing returns set in once you push outside the comfort zone.

For example, CX is great for size AND reach. However, it can't match FF (the other extreme) for shallow DOF. What would be the CX equivalent for a FF 50mm 1.8 G ($200)? Simply makes no ergonomic, technical or economic sense to try to replicate FF's strength in shallow DOF.

Live with the compromise. That's why it makes sense to be flexible, and use multiple systems.

I should also point out that APS-C has made huge progress in lens selection. For example, Sigma/Tokina/Tamron have created very nice fast zoom lenses at reasonable prices for DX.

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 ($799) is a serious alternative to FF (for example Tamron 24-70 FX ). What's the M43 equivalent?

APS-C is by far the largest segment of the ILC market. It will stay that way because of economies of scale, and above-mentioned diminishing returns.

(Strategically, Canikon and Sony made the right decision to start with APS-C cameras at the beginning of the DSLR era. Kodak tried to start with FF and bit the dust.)

For those who want FF strengths in a smaller and economic package, the obvious alternative is APS-C (only one stop difference). Not a smaller sensor like 4/3 (two stops difference) or CX.

The M43 crowd will insist that they are happy with the compromises. Great! Enjoy! No need to debate or compare with FF.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow