Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 08 May 2017 (Monday) 20:07
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Full Frame or Crop

 
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 15, 2017 03:41 as a reply to post 18428045 |  #316

Ah, my bad I think I mush have looked up the 2.8 version, I'll edit my post with that regard.


Cameras: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2
Lenses: XF16mm F1.4, XF 18mm F2, XF 23mm F1.4, XF 35mm F1.4, XF 56mm F1.2, XF 90mm F2, XF 16-55 F2.8, Samyang 8mm F2.8 Fisheye & 12mm F2, Zeiss 35mm F2.4 MC
Gear: AD600BM, Nissan i40, AL-H198, ThinkTank Airport Security 2, Peli 1514, Ona Bowery

flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 15, 2017 03:46 |  #317

ecka wrote in post #18428045 (external link)
Fuji XF 35/1.4 is nowhere near the FE 55/1.8, forget it.

What makes you come to that opinion, you have used both extensively or are you just regurgitating the opinions of others and not making up your own mind. Other than the fact that it is nowhere near as big.


Cameras: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2
Lenses: XF16mm F1.4, XF 18mm F2, XF 23mm F1.4, XF 35mm F1.4, XF 56mm F1.2, XF 90mm F2, XF 16-55 F2.8, Samyang 8mm F2.8 Fisheye & 12mm F2, Zeiss 35mm F2.4 MC
Gear: AD600BM, Nissan i40, AL-H198, ThinkTank Airport Security 2, Peli 1514, Ona Bowery

flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Aug 15, 2017 03:56 |  #318

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18428052 (external link)
Ah, my bad I think I mush have looked up the 2.8 version, I'll edit my post with that regard.

It's OK, nobody's perfect :)
But you are still wrong about crop lenses being smaller. They are not smaller than equivalent FF lenses and they are considerably more expensive than FF ones and they produce images inferior to FF.
So I don't see any logic in praising the APS-C, absolutely none. The size is smaller only with slow kit zooms, because there are no equivalent F5-F8 or F5.6-F9 FF zooms or short F4 primes.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 15, 2017 03:57 |  #319

ecka wrote in post #18428041 (external link)
It is all about the amount of information the image contains. I'm not a big fan of DxO type of tests, but they clearly show that a 20mp APS-C image can contain around 10-13p-mp of detail, while 20mp FF contains around 15-17p-mp of detail, when both using the same prime lenses. Which means that crop images are storing more noise and less information than FF. Glass has its physical limits too.

Yes is does, but your quoting of Dxo if pointless, as proven in the images I posted a page ago. 10-13Mpx is the max a 'crop' sensor can get? Maybe in Canon's old world from a few years ago but these days I not so sure, anyway who really cares. If someone wants to sit around their garden shooting glass and reading other peoples thoughts and opinions, fine. You want to go out and shoot for a living, fine. The camera is the least important part and arguing about half a point of dynamic range or light intensity is pointless outside in the real world.


Cameras: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2
Lenses: XF16mm F1.4, XF 18mm F2, XF 23mm F1.4, XF 35mm F1.4, XF 56mm F1.2, XF 90mm F2, XF 16-55 F2.8, Samyang 8mm F2.8 Fisheye & 12mm F2, Zeiss 35mm F2.4 MC
Gear: AD600BM, Nissan i40, AL-H198, ThinkTank Airport Security 2, Peli 1514, Ona Bowery

flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Aug 15, 2017 04:07 |  #320

ecka wrote in post #18428056 (external link)
They are not smaller than equivalent FF lenses and they are considerably more expensive than FF ones and they produce images inferior to FF

Lenses don't have equivalencies they are what they are. A 35mm f/1.4 will always be just that, a camera won't magically change the lens into something else.


Cameras: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2
Lenses: XF16mm F1.4, XF 18mm F2, XF 23mm F1.4, XF 35mm F1.4, XF 56mm F1.2, XF 90mm F2, XF 16-55 F2.8, Samyang 8mm F2.8 Fisheye & 12mm F2, Zeiss 35mm F2.4 MC
Gear: AD600BM, Nissan i40, AL-H198, ThinkTank Airport Security 2, Peli 1514, Ona Bowery

flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Post has been edited 2 months ago by ecka.
Aug 15, 2017 04:08 |  #321

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18428057 (external link)
Yes is does, but your quoting of Dxo if pointless, as proven in the images I posted a page ago. 10-13Mpx is the max a 'crop' sensor can get? Maybe in Canon's old world from a few years ago but these days I not so sure, anyway who really cares. If someone wants to sit around their garden shooting glass and reading other peoples thoughts and opinions, fine. You want to go out and shoot for a living, fine. The camera is the least important part and arguing about half a point of dynamic range or light intensity is pointless outside in the real world.

That doesn't change the fact that you are paying more for inferior tools that are not even smaller, which supposedly was the major factor for your camera system preference. You cannot win this.
I wonder why Fuji fanatics always think that the APS-C makes progress while FF is just siting there and waiting to be surpassed by the crop ... It doesn't work that way. FF will always put APS-C to shame. Because it's physics.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ecka
Senior Member
ecka's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Aug 15, 2017 04:30 |  #322

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18428058 (external link)
Lenses don't have equivalencies they are what they are. A 35mm f/1.4 will always be just that, a camera won't magically change the lens into something else.

If lens A on FF can reproduce any image taken with lens B on APS-C, then they are equivalent. And if it can do even more or better, then it is a superior camera+lens combo. No magic.


Gear List ~(Size Matters!)~ flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Post has been edited 2 months ago by Two Hot Shoes.
Aug 15, 2017 05:51 |  #323

ecka wrote in post #18428059 (external link)
That doesn't change the fact that you are paying more for inferior tools that are not even smaller, which supposedly was the major factor for your camera system preference. You cannot win this.
I wonder why Fuji fanatics always think that the APS-C makes progress while FF is just siting there and waiting to be surpassed by the crop ... It doesn't work that way. FF will always put APS-C to shame. Because it's physics.

Well having actually had both Canon full frame and Fuji APS-C I can speak of experience, the fuji system is a lot smaller. And that is the thing about experience, it gives you a great perspective on the world. 'Paying more for inferior tools...' more toss, again you speak from your own experience here? If you are then I take your opinion as your own and good for you to have made a choice that works for you, but if you aren't then you really can't comment with the conviction that you claim in your prose.

I shoot with Fuji because it offers me the best balance for my work - as a plus it is a really nice camera to use, it feels right - to me. I didn't feel that with Sony, or Nikon [to a lesser extent], Canon was good, as it always was, probably because I was so use to shooting with it, I knew it well. Split hairs all you want about what is 'better' but better to you is a different thing to someone else, like the way the 6D is 'better' than the XF100Mp, not that you can tell the difference as you never shot one - please correct me in that regard if you have BTW.


Cameras: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2
Lenses: XF16mm F1.4, XF 18mm F2, XF 23mm F1.4, XF 35mm F1.4, XF 56mm F1.2, XF 90mm F2, XF 16-55 F2.8, Samyang 8mm F2.8 Fisheye & 12mm F2, Zeiss 35mm F2.4 MC
Gear: AD600BM, Nissan i40, AL-H198, ThinkTank Airport Security 2, Peli 1514, Ona Bowery

flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,903 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Aug 15, 2017 07:02 |  #324

Fortunately I have paying clients that tell me my APS-C results are just as good as my FF results, at least enough to please them and I get compensation. I am fortunate they don't have the elitist views from a FF-er, and they don't even know which photos came from which body.

I don't have to get into troll-invested waters this way with people that try to talk up a good story, but never produce any examples of their own to show their position. I can just sit on the bank and watch the occasional gasp of air and ripples caused by the denizens of the deep. :)

Give a good photographer a good APS-C and good glass and their results are going to be spectacular. Give them a FF, and if they don't equalize the framing, their results will be different, not always better, but different and also very good. It's been proven time and time again. Crop just means you pay less up front, and can buy wider faster lenses to make up the FF difference, but also have alot of good cheaper glass options.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,454 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 15, 2017 08:06 |  #325

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18428036 (external link)
I think the term small is subjective, what might be small to some would be huge to others. Ask any micro 4/3 shooter.

My point was that although the cameras are loosing bulk the trend is not equaled in lens design, on the most part. I know ditching the AF motor can help in reducing the size, those Samyang lenses are small alright but Leica already had the small full frame camera and lenses covered in that regard albeit at a price.

Even the Fuji 35/1.4 compared to the FE 55/1.8 [a fine lens by all accounts], the full frame lens is bigger and heaver & it's a 1.8, perhaps lets not go f:f here. Not much getting round the physics, not yet anyway.

when comparing similar FOV and similar DOF, you can see that the sony system really isnt much bigger than fuji, if at all.

fuji's 10-24 vs sony's 16-35, Sony is heavier by 100g and equivalent to a stop higher total light output.

fuji 16-55 f2.8 vs sony 24-70 f4, Fuji is a little bigger and over 200g heavier.

fuji 18-55 f2.8-4 vs sony 28-70 f3.5-5.6, Sony is only a little bigger and fuji a little heavier

two lenses that dont truly have comparable equivalents, the XF 18 f2 and FE 35 f2.8. similar size.

XF 16 f1.4 compared to the batis 25 f2, sony is a little bigger, fuji is a little heavier

XF 35 f1.4 compared to the FE 50 f1.8, basically the same weight, sony is a little bigger

XF 56 f1.2 compared to FE 85 f1.8, sony is a little bigger, fuji is a little heavier.

XF 90 f2 compared to FE 85 f1.8 + crop mode, the fuji is heavier by 200+g, and a little bigger.
XF 90 f2 compared to the Batis 135 f2.8, the Sony is a little bigger and a little heavier.

*little heavier = within 100g or less
*little bigger = within 1/2" length and/or width

I dont know all of the pricing, but I can tell you that some of the Sony's should be less, and optics will be at least as strong, most often, much stronger. With the sony system, I'm able to leverage the full frame system that has a wonderful history that goes back decades. Aside from the small lenses, I can appreciate some vintage gems or large Canikons. I'm not forced to shoot one style and have a wide versatile set of lenses. One of my recent lenses was big and heavy, the 135 sigma art, which I'm going to use to replace an even bigger 200 f2. And then there's the 12-24, which fuji has no equivalent, but canon's 11-24 is double the weight (great lens).

pricing wise, it's not straight forward. 28-70, 28, 50, 85 are low/medium priced lenses. Most of the others are premium high priced lenses, and I know that generally, the fuji 1.4/1.2 lenses are premium lenses with premium prices. The A7ii body cost me only 1K on the second hand market, so a budget FF exists.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
9,751 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Post has been edited 2 months ago by EverydayGetaway.
Aug 15, 2017 09:46 |  #326

This guy pretty much shares my feelings/findings when it comes to Fuji vs Sony http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com ...5/19/fujifilm-sony-right/ (external link)

But that's not the topic of this thread, the topic is FF vs APS-C.

The fact remains that it would cost you a lot less to go with a fully APS-C system from Sony, Canon, Nikon or Fuji. All have cheaper options in APS-C and less cheap options when it comes to their full frame selection. The APS-C offerings are also often smaller and lighter.

The body features are also usually much more impressive for equivalent costs in the APS-C bodies... just look at Sony's best APS-C camera, the a6500 ($1400) vs the cheapest Sony FF camera currently being sold, the a7ii ($1500). That extra $100 for the a7ii loses you the 11fps continuous, a much faster buffer, 425 focus points, touchscreen, 4K video recording, in body flash, and more options for lenses (without having to enable crop mode, which cuts the resolution way down on the a7ii).

Seems that the a6500 offers a lot more for the money and it's the same story with any brand out there when it comes to their top APS-C body vs their similarly priced FF body (7Dii vs 6D/6Dii, D500 vs D610, etc.).

So as I said before, if the (in my opinion/experience) slight differences with the image quality matter to you (shallower DOF, more DR, etc), take that into consideration, but be realistic about it, the differences are nowhere near as drastic as many out there make them out to be. In fact, my friend who's been a FF user since the original 5D bought an a6300 shortly after it came out based on my recommendation and he then bought the a6500 when it came out and told me he finds himself using the Sony's far more often than his 5Diii for birding/wildlife.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,454 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 15, 2017 10:41 |  #327

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18428252 (external link)
This guy pretty much shares my feelings/findings when it comes to Fuji vs Sony http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com ...5/19/fujifilm-sony-right/ (external link)

But that's not the topic of this thread, the topic is FF vs APS-C.

The fact remains that it would cost you a lot less to go with a fully APS-C system from Sony, Canon, Nikon or Fuji. All have cheaper options in APS-C and less cheap options when it comes to their full frame selection. The APS-C offerings are also often smaller and lighter.

The body features are also usually much more impressive for equivalent costs in the APS-C bodies... just look at Sony's best APS-C camera, the a6500 ($1400) vs the cheapest Sony FF camera currently being sold, the a7ii ($1500). That extra $100 for the a7ii loses you the 11fps continuous, a much faster buffer, 425 focus points, touchscreen, 4K video recording, in body flash, and more options for lenses (without having to enable crop mode, which cuts the resolution way down on the a7ii).

Seems that the a6500 offers a lot more for the money and it's the same story with any brand out there when it comes to their top APS-C body vs their similarly priced FF body (7Dii vs 6D/6Dii, D500 vs D610, etc.).

So as I said before, if the (in my opinion/experience) slight differences with the image quality matter to you (shallower DOF, more DR, etc), take that into consideration, but be realistic about it, the differences are nowhere near as drastic as many out there make them out to be. In fact, my friend who's been a FF user since the original 5D bought an a6300 shortly after it came out based on my recommendation and he then bought the a6500 when it came out and told me he finds himself using the Sony's far more often than his 5Diii for birding/wildlife.

the article mentions something very important, however since it's over a year old, it didnt see things as they evolved.

"If you’re talking about native lenses though, generally Fujifilm’s tend to be better but in the past couple of years, Sony’s lenses have been taking a major step forward."

it can be argued that Fuji's lineup is basically complete, so they dont need to create anymore lenses, hence they seem to be focusing on their MF venture.

Sony on the other hand, could have used a lot more lenses at that time, and you can say Fuji had a better lens lineup then.

During the time of the article, Sony was already on a blistering pace of announcing/releasing native lenses, that in a short year, they basically closed the gap that Fuji once had, and should easily surpass fuji next year since they're releasing at a far faster pace with more and more third party jumping on.

on top of that, Sony's been taking a page from Fuji's playbook and improving firmware. A camera you may have used a year back have much more refined controls now, the floating AF has been trickled down from the A6500 to the A7ii and A7rii.

When it comes down to the A6500 vs A7ii, it comes down to if you want the speed or not, the A6500 is clearly a speed demon, however some folks would rather have decent FPS and better IQ, rather than fast FPS, and ok IQ. I see the writing on the wall, sony is creating lenses faster than anyone, I want a strong lens backing, so that's the path which is easiest.

When it comes to budget lenses, it may seem that APS-C has it in the bag, HOWEVER, consider that Tokina and Samyang are making FE lenses now.... Tokina says they will make AF lenses, and Samyang is already making AF lenses, first in their history! Doesnt get much more budget than Samyang! it's a peak into the future, and while there are plenty of high priced sony's, the competitive market is starting to evolve, since sony does something they dont normally do, which is open protocols.


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Aug 15, 2017 11:46 |  #328

This topic is almost like bench racing. Many speak of hardware combinations from cylinder heads, cam profile, rod ratio, equal length headers, clutch materials, transmission ratios etc. Some can apply the hardware and produce real life results and some just carry on bench racing "proclaiming" empty words.

My analogy applies to a lot of things in life. Sometimes you can have the best hardware but lack the skills in applying them. You can own the latest and greatest Apple/PC computer but you cannot use photoshop and but great at checking email and buying things on Amazon :) This analogy truly can be associated with alot of things in the real world.

The truth about FF or crop is that specs wise the full frame sensor will always perform better in low light. In good light there is still some visually seen differences in IQ. Physical size of sensor will always change the DOF in apertures when comparing FF to Crop.

The original poster asked if there is an IQ difference. The simple answer is YES.

Every person holding a camera is one of the major contributor of final output of IQ as far as holding/using the camera, composition and post processing. Form factor is a personal thing but this isn't a consideration when a client/family member looks at the photo. Larger bodies can be intimidating to subjects but that can be addressed by the photographer communicating to the subjects.

Having said that....... Shoot away improving your skills as a photographer and use the camera gear as a vehicle to deliver digital files. If the tools do not do exactly what you need to do....buy another tool to fit that need.

I own both formats and cannot see myself changing for a while.

Charlie good to hear Sony is filling the holes in lens selection. I love my X-t2 with 16mm combo. The A7mk2 with 25 f/2 batis in the used market would be around the same price and be a beautiful combo too. One day I'll need to be more serious on testing the A7 series.

Fuji is still an eye candy image maker :) I think Fuji has marketed a great system to appease non photographers (clients/friends) when they look at the images. Softer approach in how they look compared to a dslr file IMO. DSLR full frames can be potentially more gritty and hard edged while fuji can give more pillowy approach in the files or still create hard edge look. Of course this can be a good thing and bad. Pick your paint brush :)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
9,751 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Post has been edited 2 months ago by EverydayGetaway.
Aug 15, 2017 13:49 |  #329

Charlie wrote in post #18428299 (external link)
the article mentions something very important, however since it's over a year old, it didnt see things as they evolved.

"If you’re talking about native lenses though, generally Fujifilm’s tend to be better but in the past couple of years, Sony’s lenses have been taking a major step forward."

it can be argued that Fuji's lineup is basically complete, so they dont need to create anymore lenses, hence they seem to be focusing on their MF venture.

Sony on the other hand, could have used a lot more lenses at that time, and you can say Fuji had a better lens lineup then.

During the time of the article, Sony was already on a blistering pace of announcing/releasing native lenses, that in a short year, they basically closed the gap that Fuji once had, and should easily surpass fuji next year since they're releasing at a far faster pace with more and more third party jumping on.

on top of that, Sony's been taking a page from Fuji's playbook and improving firmware. A camera you may have used a year back have much more refined controls now, the floating AF has been trickled down from the A6500 to the A7ii and A7rii.

When it comes down to the A6500 vs A7ii, it comes down to if you want the speed or not, the A6500 is clearly a speed demon, however some folks would rather have decent FPS and better IQ, rather than fast FPS, and ok IQ. I see the writing on the wall, sony is creating lenses faster than anyone, I want a strong lens backing, so that's the path which is easiest.

When it comes to budget lenses, it may seem that APS-C has it in the bag, HOWEVER, consider that Tokina and Samyang are making FE lenses now.... Tokina says they will make AF lenses, and Samyang is already making AF lenses, first in their history! Doesnt get much more budget than Samyang! it's a peak into the future, and while there are plenty of high priced sony's, the competitive market is starting to evolve, since sony does something they dont normally do, which is open protocols.

In the same post you admitted that Fuji has an impressive lens collection already and then said you'd rather be with the system with the strong lens collection...?

Yes, the a6500 is clearly meant for people who need a fast camera, but they also offer several other APS-C camera with the same IQ for considerably less with certain features removed, so there are options to buy into the system for much cheaper and instead spend that money on what is more important, lenses. Which is why I find it laughable that someone (I don't think it was you, but I don't have time to dig through the thread right now) pointed out that the X-Pro2 costs $1700 like that's the only camera in Fuji's lineup... you can get an X-T20 which has the same sensor, same focusing system and same basic feature set for $900! To deny the value there is disingenuous.

I switched to Fuji mainly because I liked the way the bodies handled over my Sony. The aperture ring on all my lenses, the shutter-speed dial that can be adjusted with the camera off (and now with my X-Pro2 and X-T1, the ISO dial as well) and the quick switch on the body for the different AF modes... all of these things translate to a much better shooting experience for me. I also found my Fuji files more pleasing to work with, Sony was often a pain to get the colors and white balance where I wanted them, frequently had to play with the HSL sliders in Lightroom. I almost never have to do that with my Fuji.

I highlighted for me because I recognize that this isn't true for everyone, and that's fine. Everyone is allowed to have their preferences, but when it comes to sheer IQ you'd be hard pressed to see a tangible difference until you zoom the image way in (as has even been pointed out and argued in this thread). The reality is that the vast majority of people don't view their images this way, heck, most people don't even print their images at all! So spending considerably more money for a negligible (again, for most users) difference in IQ is just not advisable in my opinion.

Your lens argument also doesn't really make sense to me, more lenses for Sony's FE lineup also translates to more lenses for their E lineup. My same friend I mentioned earlier has the FE 28mm for his two APS-C cameras and loves it. So therefor, again, more lenses and cheaper options for APS-C (just like with every other brand).

I'm not telling anyone not to shoot full frame, I'm telling you to really consider if the price difference (and stop misleading people by claiming there isn't one, there very clearly is) and decide for themselves if it's actually worth it and stop buying into internet hyperbole.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,608 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Post has been edited 2 months ago by CyberDyneSystems.
Aug 15, 2017 14:26 |  #330

On price differences.

In the Canon world it is absolutely straight forward. Crop is significantly more affordable.

To get the same kind of AF performance that is available in an APS-C body like the $1,350.00 7D2 in a Canon full frame body, one needs to spend $2,200-4,000 (5D3 or 5D4)

Glass is no different.
EF-S 18-135mm STM offers better image quality and broader zoom range than 24-105mm L at a lower cost.

EF-S 10-18mm IS (or 10-22mm) vs. EF-16-35mm f/4L IS. Price difference is considerable with the same field of view. If we go back to the days of the 17-40mm f/4L, the EF-S lens was wider field of view and sharper throughout the zoom range.

Crop lenses CAN and ARE being made lighter weight and at lower costs. This is a fact of physics. If one chooses to adjust the rules to fit your argument, sure you can prove that a specific FF lens is smaller or more affordable than a specific crop lens, but that's on you to have made the criteria fit your own argument. It does not jibe with physics or reality or the whole picture. Those rare exceptions frankly help prove the rule.

The debate of which format has superior image quality, (or more to the point, how important the actual difference is) may go on, but the cost differences can not really be toyed with IMHO. And certainly for some, they also can not be ignored.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

16,547 views & 182 likes for this thread
Full Frame or Crop
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00203 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is jjj9070749
863 guests, 373 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016