"The full frame myth"

Started Dec 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
david tittermary Contributing Member • Posts: 567
Re: "The aps-c myth"

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

.

Agreed.

If you're carrying around an aps-c DSLR with lenses, you're not really seeing much of a size advantage, and if you buy aps-c-only lenses to try to eke out a little bit of a size bonus - you lock yourself out of an upgrade path you might want later. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

aps-c MILC, with the shorter register distance, or m43 MILC? Yes, there's a size advantage worth paying for. Otherwise, if you're shooting DSLR, might as well be shooting FF and get all the advantages.

This article could just as well have been entitled "The aps-c myth."

.

Perhaps but for wildlife shooting I disagree as I have posted before a ff with 500mm lens is going to massive like 15-20lbs massive, just saying
--
david t
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tittermary/

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