Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

Started Jan 10, 2015 | Discussions
wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!
3

Going full frame to lower cost, and lighten camera weight sounds like a contradictory statement, but let's look at the numbers. Use the Nikon D7100 APS-C with top quality 17-55mm f2.8 lens for the baseline comparison point.

The 17-55mm f2.8 lens weights 755g, and is 111mm long. It is the equivalent of 27.2-88mm for full frame camera. The 17-55mm is a nice lens, but is heavy because is f2.8. Why would you want to go to a full frame camera? The answer is that with the new Nikon D610 and D750 full frame cameras, the size of the camera is exactly the same as a D7100. The D750 is actually a tad lighter at 755g vs 765 for D7100 camera. Both the D7100 and D750 are almost identical as far as focus ability and features. The D610 is also full frame, but with somewhat lower autofocus ability, and lower price. Both make for an attractive full frame alternative.

These are the proposed equivalent lens for the full frame camera to replace the heavy 17-55mm f2.8 lens:

Choice A: 24-120mm f4 lens is 710g and 104mm long.

Choice B: 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is 485g and 82mm long.

The above two full frame lens are lighter because they have higher f-stop, but because you are using a full frame sensor, they are equivalent in light gathering ability. You are exchanging glass for larger sensor here.

Base on the theory of equivalent in graph below, a theoretical f4.3 full frame lens gathers as much light as f2.8 APS-C camera lens. However, because you are using f4.3, you will have to use higher ISO to get the same exposure. To compensate for f4.3, you will need exactly ISO 235 to equal to ISO 100 on a f2.8 APS-C lens. Looking at data from DxO lab, real life tests proves that both cameras have about the same amount of noise.

Now realize that using higher ISO on a full frame camera may affect dynamic range performance. From DxO data, ISO 200 on the D750 full frame camera has about the same dynamic range as ISO 100 on D7100. Maybe only a hair less looking at their graph. This tells you there is pretty much no penalty for going with a f4 lens, and using ISO 200 on a full frame camera.

Conclusion: With the D750 and a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 lens, you save 270g of weight, and camera is shorter by 28mm, or about an inch. In addition, you get a wider 24mm vs 27.2mm (EQ) focal length. If you go with choice "B" lens, you can get the 24-120 f4 lens, and get longer zoom range for the same weight. Both of these lens also has vibration reduction on them, that will probably result in another 3 stops of exposure gain. In short, going full frame is a no brainer.

What about cost.

For the D750, cost is $2300. Together with the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 lens is $2900. That is $600 more than the D7100 combo. Not too much difference in the big picture. However, the cost becomes more attractive with the D610 camera.

The D610 is $1500. The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is $600. Together is $2100. The D7100 is $1000, and the 17-55mm f2.8 is $1400. Together is $2400. Guess what, for the same image quality, you actually save $300 by going full frame! The D610 does not have as high performance autofocus hardware as the D7100, but the rest of the features are pretty compatible.

Somewhat similar argument can be made with Sony mirrorless full frame:

Sony A7 full frame with kit 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 weights 416g+295g=711g total, and cost $1598.

Sony A77II APS-C with kit 16-50mm f2.8 weights 726g+577g=1303g total, and cost $1598.

Full frame and APS-C cost exactly the same with these two cameras down to the dollar. You loose about equivalent of half a stop with the full frame lens at f5.6 end, but gain slight amount of light at the f3.5 end. However, remember that the A77II has a translucent mirror in front of the sensor that takes away about 1/2 stop of light. Therefore, full frame actually beat the A77II at the f3.5 end. Now look at the weight, 711g for the full frame versus 1303g for the smaller sensor, but heavier APS-C camera. Full frame is almost half the weight of APS-C for the same price, and with better performance!

The same argument can be made with these two cameras:

APS-C Fujifilm X-T1 440g $1300 with a 16-55mm f2.8 at 655g $1200 -> Total cost: $2500, weight: 1095g

Sony A7 416g $1298 with 24-70mm f4 430g $1198 -> Total cost: $2496, weight: 846g

Again, the full frame cost exactly the same down to the dollar, but weights less than the APS-C.

My conclusion is don't buy an APS-C camera, go directly to a full frame with the recent drop in price. Then once you get into prime lens, full frame will blow APS-C away in image quality.

-- hide signature --
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,005
I can think of about 999 other examples.
22

Say I'm a casual wildlife shooter. I want 400-500mm equivalent reach with good photo quality for good to medium light.

Nikon D5200 + 55-300 VR = $500/ 505g body, $400/530g Lens = 1035g and $900

That is 82-450mm f6.5-8.4 equivalent. There is no lens that directly matches that so I guess I'll have to use the Sigma 150-500 OS on a Nikon D610. That's a $2400 combo that weighs 2600g.

Uh oh, was the FF option almost 3x the size and weight? What happened?

Or maybe I want a decent compact portrait kit with some moderate subject isolation capabilities, but I don't want to spend a ton. I buy a Olympus E-PL7 and a 25mm f1.8 and a 45mm f1.8. Total cost is about $1300 and the whole kit is about 600g.

having a really hard time finding an equivalent FF setup for $1300 with pancake f3.6 primes. If you see one, let me know.

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 14,139
Re: Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!
5

wombat661 wrote:

Going full frame to lower cost, and lighten camera weight sounds like a contradictory statement, but let's look at the numbers. Use the Nikon D7100 APS-C with top quality 17-55mm f2.8 lens for the baseline comparison point.

The 17-55mm f2.8 lens weights 755g, and is 111mm long. It is the equivalent of 27.2-88mm for full frame camera. The 17-55mm is a nice lens, but is heavy because is f2.8. Why would you want to go to a full frame camera? The answer is that with the new Nikon D610 and D750 full frame cameras, the size of the camera is exactly the same as a D7100. The D750 is actually a tad lighter at 755g vs 765 for D7100 camera. Both the D7100 and D750 are almost identical as far as focus ability and features. The D610 is also full frame, but with somewhat lower autofocus ability, and lower price. Both make for an attractive full frame alternative.

These are the proposed equivalent lens for the full frame camera to replace the heavy 17-55mm f2.8 lens:

Choice A: 24-120mm f4 lens is 710g and 104mm long.

Choice B: 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is 485g and 82mm long.

The above two full frame lens are lighter because they have higher f-stop, but because you are using a full frame sensor, they are equivalent in light gathering ability. You are exchanging glass for larger sensor here.

Base on the theory of equivalent in graph below, a theoretical f4.3 full frame lens gathers as much light as f2.8 APS-C camera lens. However, because you are using f4.3, you will have to use higher ISO to get the same exposure. To compensate for f4.3, you will need exactly ISO 235 to equal to ISO 100 on a f2.8 APS-C lens. Looking at data from DxO lab, real life tests proves that both cameras have about the same amount of noise.

Now realize that using higher ISO on a full frame camera may affect dynamic range performance. From DxO data, ISO 200 on the D750 full frame camera has about the same dynamic range as ISO 100 on D7100. Maybe only a hair less looking at their graph. This tells you there is pretty much no penalty for going with a f4 lens, and using ISO 200 on a full frame camera.

Conclusion: With the D750 and a 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 lens, you save 270g of weight, and camera is shorter by 28mm, or about an inch. In addition, you get a wider 24mm vs 27.2mm (EQ) focal length. If you go with choice "B" lens, you can get the 24-120 f4 lens, and get longer zoom range for the same weight. Both of these lens also has vibration reduction on them, that will probably result in another 3 stops of exposure gain. In short, going full frame is a no brainer.

What about cost.

For the D750, cost is $2300. Together with the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 lens is $2900. That is $600 more than the D7100 combo. Not too much difference in the big picture. However, the cost becomes more attractive with the D610 camera.

The D610 is $1500. The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is $600. Together is $2100. The D7100 is $1000, and the 17-55mm f2.8 is $1400. Together is $2400. Guess what, for the same image quality, you actually save $300 by going full frame! The D610 does not have as high performance autofocus hardware as the D7100, but the rest of the features are pretty compatible.

If you're going for a non weatherproofed lens as the basis for your kit, then what benefits does the D7100 offer? Why not go for a cheaper, lighter APS-C? IQ won't change much, and you don't seem to put much credence on better autofocus, or any other specifications beyond IQ, cost and weight.

Somewhat similar argument can be made with Sony mirrorless full frame:

Sony A7 full frame with kit 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 weights 416g+295g=711g total, and cost $1598.

Sony A77II APS-C with kit 16-50mm f2.8 weights 726g+577g=1303g total, and cost $1598.

Why not the A6000? Surely that would be a more appropriate matchup? Also, you've lost a full stop at the tele end, where it's most important. Try the f4 lens instead.

Full frame and APS-C cost exactly the same with these two cameras down to the dollar. You loose about equivalent of half a stop with the full frame lens at f5.6 end, but gain slight amount of light at the f3.5 end. However, remember that the A77II has a translucent mirror in front of the sensor that takes away about 1/2 stop of light. Therefore, full frame actually beat the A77II at the f3.5 end. Now look at the weight, 711g for the full frame versus 1303g for the smaller sensor, but heavier APS-C camera. Full frame is almost half the weight of APS-C for the same price, and with better performance!

The same argument can be made with these two cameras:

APS-C Fujifilm X-T1 440g $1300 with a 16-55mm f2.8 at 655g $1200 -> Total cost: $2500, weight: 1095g

Sony A7 416g $1298 with 24-70mm f4 430g $1198 -> Total cost: $2496, weight: 846g

Yeah, I think there's a reason why the Fuji weighs more. I bet its lens won't give results like these.

Again, the full frame cost exactly the same down to the dollar, but weights less than the APS-C.

My conclusion is don't buy an APS-C camera, go directly to a full frame with the recent drop in price. Then once you get into prime lens, full frame will blow APS-C away in image quality.

-- hide signature --

Useful summary of Digital Cameras:
http://benmlee.com/Digital_Camera/Digital_Camera.htm

Methinks this is a case of too much measureabating and not enough consideration to the other factors involved. I dunno about you, but I buy an ILC so I can use various lenses.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: I can think of about 999 other examples.

tkbslc wrote:

Say I'm a casual wildlife shooter. I want 400-500mm equivalent reach with good photo quality for good to medium light.

Nikon D5200 + 55-300 VR = $500/ 505g body, $400/530g Lens = 1035g and $900

That is 82-450mm f6.5-8.4 equivalent. There is no lens that directly matches that so I guess I'll have to use the Sigma 150-500 OS on a Nikon D610. That's a $2400 combo that weighs 2600g.

Uh oh, was the FF option almost 3x the size and weight? What happened?

They are not the same in terms of light gathering ability. You gain one stop with the larger set-up. Fast lens are very heavy and expensive. Better to use slower lens with larger sensor was my example.

If you don't care about fast lens anyway, look into the Nikon 1 with the 70-300mm lens. Way more magnification. Is 189-810mm equivalent. You will not find better magnification at that price. You just need to shoot in very bright light.

Or maybe I want a decent compact portrait kit with some moderate subject isolation capabilities, but I don't want to spend a ton. I buy a Olympus E-PL7 and a 25mm f1.8 and a 45mm f1.8. Total cost is about $1300 and the whole kit is about 600g.

E-PL7 is in a different class for a different purpose. People that buy the D7100 vs D610 would not consider E-PL7. But, there are a lot more comparisons that can be made. Somebody with an open mind can look into it more.

having a really hard time finding an equivalent FF setup for $1300 with pancake f3.6 primes. If you see one, let me know.

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.

You got to have some basis for comparison. I was comparing in terms of light gathering ability. You are generally paying more for larger sensor and lower f numbers. The point is price has come down enough that you can increase sensor size to compensate for larger faster glass. You get the same light gathering ability for about the same price and weight.

-- hide signature --
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

Martin.au wrote:

If you're going for a non weatherproofed lens as the basis for your kit, then what benefits does the D7100 offer? Why not go for a cheaper, lighter APS-C? IQ won't change much, and you don't seem to put much credence on better autofocus, or any other specifications beyond IQ, cost and weight.

D7100 and D610 are ideal for comparison because they are very similar. The autofocus is not as good as D7100, but still very good compared with other lighter APS-C cameras. These two cameras make for a good case study because they are from the same manufacture, and has the same autofocus configuration design, and even about the same body down to the same two memory card slot. Can't get a more closely matched camera than that. Is not perfect, but pretty close. Between the D7100 and the D610 and D750, you can get a good sense of performance for comparison.

Somewhat similar argument can be made with Sony mirrorless full frame:

Sony A7 full frame with kit 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 weights 416g+295g=711g total, and cost $1598.

Sony A77II APS-C with kit 16-50mm f2.8 weights 726g+577g=1303g total, and cost $1598.

Why not the A6000? Surely that would be a more appropriate matchup? Also, you've lost a full stop at the tele end, where it's most important. Try the f4 lens instead.

The NEX series does not have f2.8 standard zoom lens. Can't really compare with the A6000. All their zoom lens are slow ones.

Sony 28-70 f3.5-5.6 at the tele end is slow at f5.6. You are absolutely right. However, you gain that back because you are using a larger sensor. Basically, you are using silicon to compensate for glass. In the past, sensors were very expensive, so you want small sensor, but now, sensor price has come down, and glass is the limiting factor. Use a large full frame sensor with a slow f5.6 lens for the same light gathering ability. Don't forget, Sony A77II has a translucent mirror on it. You loose half a stop right there.

The same argument can be made with these two cameras:

APS-C Fujifilm X-T1 440g $1300 with a 16-55mm f2.8 at 655g $1200 -> Total cost: $2500, weight: 1095g

Sony A7 416g $1298 with 24-70mm f4 430g $1198 -> Total cost: $2496, weight: 846g

Yeah, I think there's a reason why the Fuji weighs more. I bet its lens won't give results like these.

Will have to wait and see...

Sony lens are overpriced for what they offer. They have room for price to come down. For full frame mirrorless, they are the only game in town, so they can charge whatever they want. Once there are some competition, Sony quality will either go up, or price will come down. You can use an adapter on the Sony, then use any Nikon or Canon lens to match up to Fuji quality.

-- hide signature --
buybuybuy
buybuybuy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,388
Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!
1

Do the same analysis with MF and Large format bodies. Add graphs for maximum credibility!!!

-- hide signature --

Castigat ridendo mores: "one corrects customs by laughing at them"

Dukhat
Dukhat Veteran Member • Posts: 3,810
Re: Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!
7

All this thread proves is that cherry picking can allow anyone to prove anything. All they have to do is keep the definition narrow enough.

OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

Dukhat wrote:

All this thread proves is that cherry picking can allow anyone to prove anything. All they have to do is keep the definition narrow enough.

Not sure what you mean by keeping the definition narrow enough. I like to keep the comparison about the same base on available cameras. There are hundreds of cameras out there, and each has its plus and minus. I can't just pick any two and compare. Have to pick ones that are very similar. So yes, definition do need to be narrow. This is just a comparison to show that sensor size cost has come down to the point where f-stop of the lens is the driving factor in cost.

-- hide signature --
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 18,720
Cherry pies
2

wombat661 wrote:

Dukhat wrote:

All this thread proves is that cherry picking can allow anyone to prove anything. All they have to do is keep the definition narrow enough.

Not sure what you mean by keeping the definition narrow enough. I like to keep the comparison about the same base on available cameras. There are hundreds of cameras out there, and each has its plus and minus. I can't just pick any two and compare. Have to pick ones that are very similar.

Let's try two "similar" lenses. The Nikkor 300/4 costs £1029 and weighs 1440g; the 180/2.8 costs £695 and weighs 760g. Of course, I'd like to compare a 200/2.8 but there isn't a Nikkor of that spec. If I go to Pentax it's £899/1070g for 300/4 and £729/825g for 200/2.8. (Pentax doesn't make FF bodies of course but these are FF-ready lenses; I'm just pointing out that equivalent lenses are by no means always lighter for FF).

Further up the thread you compared the non-weather-resistant D610 to the WR D7100; that's not picking ones that are very similar - unless you choose to consider only a few parameters, which is exactly the cherry picking that wombat mentions.

If you want a meaningful comparison it needs much more work than you've done. Let's stick simply to Nikon/Nikkor. You'd need to list size/weight/cost for all the current APS-C and FF bodies. You'd need to list size/weight/cost for all lenses serving equivalent functions on the two sensor sizes. You'd note where direct equivalence is feasible and where the nearest available choice is inevitably better.

Then you'd need to provide a facility - ideally with a few sample sets - to create lists of comparable set-ups to satisfy a range of needs.

Until you do that all you've done is bake a few cherry pies.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

buybuybuy wrote:

Do the same analysis with MF and Large format bodies. Add graphs for maximum credibility!!!

MF and large format cameras are still very expensive. At some point, those too may come down in price. Then the comparison gets interesting.

I know you are being facetious, but look at the Pentax FA 75mm f2.8 at $699 weights 215g. Compare that with Nikon 58mm f1.4 at $1696 weights 385g. They are equivalent, but the medium format weights less and cost less. 75mm happens to be a sweet spot for medium format. Medium formats are not made in anywhere near the number of Nikons and Canon lens, so you are paying for a near custom lens. As price comes down, who knows.

I am not a fanboy of any particular format, so I keep an open mind.

-- hide signature --
buybuybuy
buybuybuy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,388
Re: Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

wombat661 wrote:

buybuybuy wrote:

Do the same analysis with MF and Large format bodies. Add graphs for maximum credibility!!!

MF and large format cameras are still very expensive. At some point, those too may come down in price. Then the comparison gets interesting.

I know you are being facetious, but look at the Pentax FA 75mm f2.8 at $699 weights 215g. Compare that with Nikon 58mm f1.4 at $1696 weights 385g. They are equivalent, but the medium format weights less and cost less. 75mm happens to be a sweet spot for medium format. Medium formats are not made in anywhere near the number of Nikons and Canon lens, so you are paying for a near custom lens. As price comes down, who knows.

I am not a fanboy of any particular format, so I keep an open mind.

Interesting. On some level, that is quite illuminating, indeed.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 14,139
Re: Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

wombat661 wrote:

buybuybuy wrote:

Do the same analysis with MF and Large format bodies. Add graphs for maximum credibility!!!

MF and large format cameras are still very expensive. At some point, those too may come down in price. Then the comparison gets interesting.

I know you are being facetious, but look at the Pentax FA 75mm f2.8 at $699 weights 215g. Compare that with Nikon 58mm f1.4 at $1696 weights 385g. They are equivalent, but the medium format weights less and cost less. 75mm happens to be a sweet spot for medium format. Medium formats are not made in anywhere near the number of Nikons and Canon lens, so you are paying for a near custom lens. As price comes down, who knows.

I am not a fanboy of any particular format, so I keep an open mind.

Not equivalent, and the Pentax doesn't have an autofocus motor. Equivalent would be more like a 80mm f2.3

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: Cherry pies

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

wombat661 wrote:

Dukhat wrote:

All this thread proves is that cherry picking can allow anyone to prove anything. All they have to do is keep the definition narrow enough.

Not sure what you mean by keeping the definition narrow enough. I like to keep the comparison about the same base on available cameras. There are hundreds of cameras out there, and each has its plus and minus. I can't just pick any two and compare. Have to pick ones that are very similar.

Let's try two "similar" lenses. The Nikkor 300/4 costs £1029 and weighs 1440g; the 180/2.8 costs £695 and weighs 760g. Of course, I'd like to compare a 200/2.8 but there isn't a Nikkor of that spec. If I go to Pentax it's £899/1070g for 300/4 and £729/825g for 200/2.8. (Pentax doesn't make FF bodies of course but these are FF-ready lenses; I'm just pointing out that equivalent lenses are by no means always lighter for FF).

The Nikon 180mm f2.8 is a full frame lens, so is the 300mm f4. They are both full frame lens. Make sure you are NOT comparing full frame lens with full frame lens. Full frame lens has a larger image circle, so they are bigger and more expensive. You can use a full frame lens on a crop frame camera, but really, you are wasting money and space.

Further up the thread you compared the non-weather-resistant D610 to the WR D7100; that's not picking ones that are very similar - unless you choose to consider only a few parameters, which is exactly the cherry picking that wombat mentions.

The D610 and D7100 are both build on similar bodies, and they BOTH are weather seal. Anyway, weather seal does not mean much, is just a $.05 rubber if you are so concerned about that. Even the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 lens is not that well weather sealed. I know because I took one apart. Nikon added another five cents for little bit of seal. I think Nikon does it to jack up the price.

If you want a meaningful comparison it needs much more work than you've done. Let's stick simply to Nikon/Nikkor. You'd need to list size/weight/cost for all the current APS-C and FF bodies. You'd need to list size/weight/cost for all lenses serving equivalent functions on the two sensor sizes. You'd note where direct equivalence is feasible and where the nearest available choice is inevitably better.

Then you'd need to provide a facility - ideally with a few sample sets - to create lists of comparable set-ups to satisfy a range of needs.

Until you do that all you've done is bake a few cherry pies.

I think D610, D750 and D7100 are good cameras to compare because most people that look at D7100 will consider D610 and D750. Look at the Nikon forum. Many are considering going full frame, and upgrading from D7100 to D610 is a popular route.

People who get the D610 wants to get the f2.8 lens immediately, and then realize how expensive f2.8 full frame lens are, so they go back to D7100. I am saying, look get the D610 and get a cheaper f4 lens. Guess what, now you got a full frame camera with equivalent performance to the D7100. Great thing about full frame is f4 lens are typically lower in cost because they are not considered "premium". Nikon does not charge you an arm and a leg for it like the "premium" 17-55 f2.8 on their APS-C lens. You are cheating they system by getting same performance at a lower cost.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

-- hide signature --
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

Martin.au wrote:

wombat661 wrote:

buybuybuy wrote:

Do the same analysis with MF and Large format bodies. Add graphs for maximum credibility!!!

MF and large format cameras are still very expensive. At some point, those too may come down in price. Then the comparison gets interesting.

I know you are being facetious, but look at the Pentax FA 75mm f2.8 at $699 weights 215g. Compare that with Nikon 58mm f1.4 at $1696 weights 385g. They are equivalent, but the medium format weights less and cost less. 75mm happens to be a sweet spot for medium format. Medium formats are not made in anywhere near the number of Nikons and Canon lens, so you are paying for a near custom lens. As price comes down, who knows.

I am not a fanboy of any particular format, so I keep an open mind.

Not equivalent, and the Pentax doesn't have an autofocus motor. Equivalent would be more like a 80mm f2.3

The Pentax medium format has a .8 crop factor (.79 to be exact). Pentax is not a full size medium format. Therefore, 80mm would give 64mm equv. 75mm would give 60mm, which is very close to Nikon 58mm. The 75mm does have autofocus. See their website .

-- hide signature --
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 16,005
Re: I can think of about 999 other examples.

wombat661 wrote:

You got to have some basis for comparison. I was comparing in terms of light gathering ability. You are generally paying more for larger sensor and lower f numbers. The point is price has come down enough that you can increase sensor size to compensate for larger faster glass. You get the same light gathering ability for about the same price and weight.

I don't disagree.  And if you had approached it from a different perspective other than implying FF is the lighter and cheaper options, period, then I might have not disagreed.  Maybe if your thread was entitled, "Are f4 standard zooms on FF cheaper and lighter than f2.8 zooms on APS-C?".  But you didn't.

The point I was trying to make is that much of this is scenario dependent. And furthermore, most people shoot different things with their cameras.   Maybe a 6D with a 24-105 f4 is as cheap and light as a 70D with a 17-55 f2.8.  But then I also want to shoot wide and long with my camera and there's the $300 10-18mm and 55-250 STM for the 70D.  You aren't going to find anything that sharp and cheap and light for the 6D setup.  And if I don't worry about it, it doesn't matter if a FF setup might have marginally less noise.

I was a bit overly snarky in my previous response, I'm sorry about that.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 14,139
Re: Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

wombat661 wrote:

Martin.au wrote:

wombat661 wrote:

buybuybuy wrote:

Do the same analysis with MF and Large format bodies. Add graphs for maximum credibility!!!

MF and large format cameras are still very expensive. At some point, those too may come down in price. Then the comparison gets interesting.

I know you are being facetious, but look at the Pentax FA 75mm f2.8 at $699 weights 215g. Compare that with Nikon 58mm f1.4 at $1696 weights 385g. They are equivalent, but the medium format weights less and cost less. 75mm happens to be a sweet spot for medium format. Medium formats are not made in anywhere near the number of Nikons and Canon lens, so you are paying for a near custom lens. As price comes down, who knows.

I am not a fanboy of any particular format, so I keep an open mind.

Not equivalent, and the Pentax doesn't have an autofocus motor. Equivalent would be more like a 80mm f2.3

The Pentax medium format has a .8 crop factor (.79 to be exact). Pentax is not a full size medium format. Therefore, 80mm would give 64mm equv. 75mm would give 60mm, which is very close to Nikon 58mm. The 75mm does have autofocus. See their website .

Oops sorry. Didn't realise the Pentax 645 wasn't actually a 6x4.5.

That would make equivalence of your 58mm f1.4 a 72.5mm f1.8. Why are you comparing it to an f2.8 lens?

Also, the focus for that lens is screwdriven, from the camera body. No focus motor in the lens.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
OP wombat661 Regular Member • Posts: 288
Re: Upcoming Post: Choose Medium-Format over FF to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

Martin.au wrote:

The Pentax medium format has a .8 crop factor (.79 to be exact). Pentax is not a full size medium format. Therefore, 80mm would give 64mm equv. 75mm would give 60mm, which is very close to Nikon 58mm. The 75mm does have autofocus. See their website .

Oops sorry. Didn't realise the Pentax 645 wasn't actually a 6x4.5.

That would make equivalence of your 58mm f1.4 a 72.5mm f1.8. Why are you comparing it to an f2.8 lens?

Also, the focus for that lens is screwdriven, from the camera body. No focus motor in the lens.

Yes, my mistake also. I was comparing medium format with APS-C camera. The Nikon 58mm is a full frame lens. Yes, Pentax would have to be a f1.8. Medium format lens is not quite competitive with full frame at this point.

-- hide signature --
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Choosing Full Frame over APS-C to Lighten Weight and Lower Cost!

I went from the 50D+17-55 to the 5D2+24-105. The weight stayed more or less the same, the IQ went up. Of course, I own and use many other lenses.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
John McMillin Contributing Member • Posts: 672
Wombat makes a good point

Thanks for doing all that homework and calculation, WB. But the folks who don't want to hear the moral of the tale are getting all wrapped up in picky lens-to-lenscomparisons. But the basic principle holds: FF doesn't have to be larger and heavier IF you avoid the "Pro" 2.8 zooms. That's been my strategy with my Sony a850. The body, at around 900 g, is plenty beefy, by the 24-85/3.5-4.5 Minolta lens I use on it isn't, at around 400g, and it's as small as a good 50mm prime. The Minolta is a lot smaller than Nikon's new 24-85, BTW, since it doesn't need stabilization. When I got this combo, I forgot about the premium Sony/Zeiss lenses I was looking at for my APS-C camera.

When you buy a small-format camera, you tend to start compensating by looking for the best lenses money can buy. That's a way to go, and the results from my Fuji XP1 and Zeiss Touits prove to me that this can work just fine. Those images just about match what I get from a 24 MP FF camera with a well-chosen vintage zoom of modest specs and tiny price ($150 for an EXC example). But I rarely see anyone with this combination, because "it's all about the lenses" -- right?

Personally, I don't think I'll ever buy a 2.8 zoom. News PJs and sports shooters need that ultimate flexibility, but I don't. Pro zooms are huge, but not really all that fast, compared to > f2 prime lenses. And they can be very expensive. And they usully get used at f4 or less, anyhow, I'll bet.

 John McMillin's gear list:John McMillin's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM +5 more
John McMillin Contributing Member • Posts: 672
Re: Wombat makes a good point

It's not just a matter of comparing total weight, either. My big camera-small lens philosophy creates a combination with a center of gravity back in the camera body, not out there in the lens. The camera's not twisting downwards from the weight of the lens. That imbalance causes some to buy a battery grip for they DSLR, not because they need 1000 shots a day but for the simple purpose of adding balance. Now, with their little APS-c camera, big 2.8 pro lens and battery grip, they wind up with something weighing much more than a FF DSLR and compact lens. So hey sell it all and buy mirror less, to start that cycle again.

Considering the generous cropping capability from a 24mp FF camera, there's a lot to be said for using three well-spaced prime lenses and nothing else.

 John McMillin's gear list:John McMillin's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads