Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons? Locked

Started May 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Elaboration on sharpness difference (its mostly lens related)

Timbukto wrote:

The FF advantage is *mostly* in the normal range to short tele portrait range of lenses. Once you go tele to super tele, the size/weight/cost savings of shooting crop is compelling *especially* when you factor in that shooting a wider f2.8 with crop may have autofocus benefits over shooting a more tele f4 on FF!

Disagreed. Canon and Nikon super-tele lenses are best used on their respective FF cameras as we see in sport venues and wildlife. Crop cameras only advantage (except operation advantage in size/weight/cost) is pixel density (so-called more 'reach') when you don't have a longer enough lens or unable to move closer.

The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens is *amazing* from the 100% crops I've seen, however its also a big/heavy lens. However it is one zoom lens that somehow *seriously* enables a lot of the 'fast' quality normal focal ranges on APS-C.

So now let's check closely on the two best APS-C lenses. I also own one of them as you, EF-M 22/2.0 STM that is excellent.

DPR 24-70L/2.8 II on 5D2 vs Sigma 18-35/1.8 on 7D

24-70L/2.8 II is still (noticeably) better on 5D2 (or 6D/5D3) than Sigma 18-35/1.8 on 7D (or 60D/70D), and wider and longer in rage 24-70mm vs FF eq 29-56mm from sigma lens at similar FF eq max aperture F2.8.

DXO 40/2.8 on 6D vs 35/2.0 IS on 6D vs 22/2.0 on EOS-M

16 vs 18 vs 13 mpix. Or check Measurement | Sharpness | FieldMap, as I said earlier you even don't need to stop down to FF eq aperture but just one stop F2.8 in this case, both 40/2.8 STM and 35/2.0 IS @F2.8 on 6D is already sharper than EF-M 22/2.0 @F2.0 on EF-M from edge to edge and maintain the lead from there.

It's really an upperhill battle for a crop camera to match or even better than a FF camera - must with a way better lens (most times it's virtually impossible to design such lens) and much more amount of pixels (a lesser factor than former). Sigma 18-35/1.8 is still inferior to Canon 24-70L/2.8 II and I can say not even better than Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. The same true EF-M 22/2.0 is not better than 40/2.8 STM and 35/2.0 IS. There are simply impossible to design such FF eq lenses against Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Otus 55/1.4 or two Canon F2.8 zoom with the same FL range and FF eq max aperture.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow