Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons? Locked

Started May 21, 2014 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,819
Re: Is a FF camera worth it for these reasons?

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In terms of DOF, yes, and you have to pay for it, in terms of size, weight, and cost. That said, if you are trying to match the DOF/noise performance of FF with crop, then you're better off, in terms of size, weight, and cost, with just going FF.

Let's not forget low and base ISOs. Most just emphasize high ISO as this is the only area FF has advantage. Not true. FF has advantages crossing entire ISO range including at base ISO. FF with respective lenses has less noises in shadow (pretty obvious if we view 6D and 70D photos at full size), better color tonality and noticeably sharper with comparable lenses. All these are well discussed, debated and confirmed by creditable test sites such as DXO. In short FF has significant advantage in IQ with comparable lenses. Every EF lens performs (much) better on FF than on APS-C.

Yeah, but many APS-C lenses help close that gap considerably.

First of all, there are not many APS-C lenses in Canon and Nikon. And same some best quality FF lenses help FF cameras maintain the lead.

Not as many as their should be, but there are some pretty good ones.

If FF only had advantage in high ISO then it would much less appealing to professionals as they usually shoot at base ISO for landscape on tripod or in well-lit studio for portrait. Why those pros and enthusiasts like you and me would buy expensive and bulky FF cameras?

I think a lot of pros are at high ISO (wedding and sports photographers, for example). But, indeed, FF has the IQ advantage at base ISO.

Also lots of landscape pros who only shoot at base ISO.

Sure.  I'm just saying that many pros don't.

The question is if FF has enough of an advantage at base ISO to make a noticeable difference in the IQ at the size people display their photos.

Absolutely especially in large size. Most top landscape photographers are using FF or even MF cameras.

Then again, all FF really offers over crop is convenience.  For static scenes, it's a simple matter to merge and stitch photos -- there's even automated software for it.  So, you just take a few more photos with crop than you would have taken with FF.

For some, absolutely it does.

For most pros and many enthusiasts.

For others, not so much.

For many others even cellphone cameras are good enough that is purely subjective.

Yes.

But the potential IQ difference is also substantial. The only difference is if someone cares, someone could produce to see, someone ever needs it?

I don't disagree.  Then again, if the size of the FF system is off-putting to the extent that they would not use it much of the time, there is that to consider.

That is, if FF and crop were the same size, weight, and cost, the matter would never be debated -- everyone would just shoot FF and crop wouldn't even exist.  So, the question is if the IQ advantages of FF over crop are worth the operational and price differences.  My opinion on the matter is that, no, no they don't, for the vast majority.

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