there's a saying " once u into full frame, never wanted back apsc"

[eow]

That's like saying Giorgio Armani is neither here nor there because you borrowed your mate's Armani XLs and you're only an M yourself.

IF APS-C was built from the ground up, with no FF lenses to be used, a bit like 4/3, would you feel the same way?

If you tried those FF lenses on your 4/3, it would be even harder to get accustomed to it. That doesn't make 4/3 neither here nor there.

consider most of the top of the line lenses are built for ff useage, likewise the digital lenses for the 4/3(m4/3). u have use an interesting subject for comparing,but i still stand by my pov

 

[dogears]

Depends on your needs. I went (alien) FF then decided to go M4/3

 

[sprewell]

that's because these people have yet to get their hands on a medium format + digital back.

Been using one for my commercial shoots over the past 6 months.

When i eventually returned to 35mm cameras.. not even the 1ds mk3/a-900/d3x come close.

 

[tankahn]

that is what my FF-ed frens told me :sweat:

Especially when you see the jaw dropping results. Next is lens lust for FF lens.

 

[MintChoco]

Played with FF a few times, don't like the weight of it. i don't think i can take better pics with FF bodies since it's much too heavy for me to use comfortably for longer periods of times, lol. i'll stick to my lightweight APS-C cameras.

 

[Zenten]

.......... FF or APSC ............. depends on what you shoot and where you shoot ............ shoot bird, APS-C seems better ................ shoot in tight spaces, then FF holds the advantage.


.....so when you buying A900/850 to complement your A700?

 

[VisionTechnik]

I do not understand why APS-C is always better for tele due to the additional crop multiplier?
A900 can use APS-C zooms with APS-C too. It's resolution can easily out beat APS-C cropping multiplier.

 

[synapseman]

Each has its pros and cons, but in terms of absolute quality, FF is better simply because of the laws of physics. It's inherent in the design. Shooting a portrait @ 200mm, f/2.8 on an APS-C vs FF, the differences are quite apparent. And not to mention less distortion effects when using wide angle lenses.

But if it's landscapes (for example) with lots of DOF required, APS-C is definitely good enough.

 

[torak]

I do not understand why APS-C is always better for tele due to the additional crop multiplier?
A900 can use APS-C zooms with APS-C too. It's resolution can easily out beat APS-C cropping multiplier.

But using APS-C lens on A900/A850, the max resolution u can use is only 11mp. The A700 and A500/550 will both have higher resolution...

Question:

If u use a 12mp FF camera, enlarge it by 1.5 then crop out the center, and compare it to a 12mp APS-C, both will have same FOV and image size, but in this case I think the APS-C will hv the advantage as it has higher resolution right?

Similarly if I use the highest FF resolution 24mp, then enlarge it by 1.5 and crop it, and compare it against an 18mp APS-C, i think in this case the APS-C will still win in terms of resolution and IQ?

 

[Freed]

I do not understand why APS-C is always better for tele due to the additional crop multiplier?
A900 can use APS-C zooms with APS-C too. It's resolution can easily out beat APS-C cropping multiplier.

I agree with you totally. Cos I also don't understand why APS-C is better due to 1.5 crop vs a A850/A900 that is 24MP. A APS-C lens used on my A850 yield a 11MP image, which I won't say it's inferior. In fact it's better then my A100 with only 10.2MP.

And anyway, 24MP gives me so much freedom to crop to make my subject "bigger" when I want to.

 

[Jed]

I agree with you totally. Cos I also don't understand why APS-C is better due to 1.5 crop vs a A850/A900 that is 24MP. A APS-C lens used on my A850 yield a 11MP image, which I won't say it's inferior. In fact it's better then my A100 with only 10.2MP.

You guys ever heard of ceteris paribus? Come on everyone in school in Singapore's surely had that phrase beat into his head.

Person A earns £10k a week while Person B earns £40k a year. I don't understand why you say person A earns more. In fact Person B earns more than person C who only earns £20k a month.

Genius I tell you

(and yes, I'm aware that the analogy is not directly linked, but you get the idea. Or I hope you do.)

 

[night86mare]

I agree with you totally. Cos I also don't understand why APS-C is better due to 1.5 crop vs a A850/A900 that is 24MP. A APS-C lens used on my A850 yield a 11MP image, which I won't say it's inferior. In fact it's better then my A100 with only 10.2MP.

And anyway, 24MP gives me so much freedom to crop to make my subject "bigger" when I want to.

sigh...... crop crop crop crop crop crop. sigh.

i always thought the idea was to shoot with the crop in mind..

anyways, not everyone can afford a850............. and unless people have done conclusive tests to show that aps-c lens on a850 > a100 with aps-c lens..... all talk is just hot air.

 

[kingfishers]

Hahaha for me i still like the A 900 over the APS C as the later could oso switch over to APS C.If for birding than APS C will be my choice.There is no such a thing as one is more superior than the others,if you are born with ten fingers the same length than off course I believe in u...........hahahahaha. As the other TS is saying more are better but cost oso have to factor in as well not everyone could afford the price of FF camera.:dunno:

 

[Agetan]

The same analogy goes for once u r "used" to a system it is very difficult to change.

Human is a habitual creature so it is harder to break a habit even if u know it is not true.

Full frame or not full frame or medium format it is a choice. So if it is better for some it is crazy to think it is also fits your need.

Medium format is better in overall quality but it wont be practical for action photography such as sport nor practical for someone who works involve high iso?

If photography is abt fun, it shpuld be abt the gear.

If photography is abt commercial value, it should be abt the best quality and delivering consistency and of course with lots of fun.

Hart

 

[Jed]

If photography is abt fun, it shpuld be abt the gear.

Rest of what you say makes plenty of sense. But if photography is about fun, why can't it be as much if not more so about the photographs than the gear?

I call myself a photographer not a cameraean or something like that anyway.

Not saying it can't be about the gear, just that it should be about the photographs as well.

 

[Numnumball]

that is what my FF-ed frens told me :sweat:

Couldnt live without APC for macro and nature photgraphy. so my verdict is to have the best of both worlds.

 

[MontoyaSG]

I do not understand why APS-C is always better for tele due to the additional crop multiplier?
A900 can use APS-C zooms with APS-C too. It's resolution can easily out beat APS-C cropping multiplier.

Downside is you're stuck with JPG outputs if you're using APS-C mode

 

[VisionTechnik]

But using APS-C lens on A900/A850, the max resolution u can use is only 11mp. The A700 and A500/550 will both have higher resolution...

Question:

If u use a 12mp FF camera, enlarge it by 1.5 then crop out the center, and compare it to a 12mp APS-C, both will have same FOV and image size, but in this case I think the APS-C will hv the advantage as it has higher resolution right?

Similarly if I use the highest FF resolution 24mp, then enlarge it by 1.5 and crop it, and compare it against an 18mp APS-C, i think in this case the APS-C will still win in terms of resolution and IQ?

Yes you are right that with A900/A850, the resolution is stuck to 11mp in APS-C mode.
I wasn't clear which camera I am referring to, and probably has generalised too much. A700 has slight edge in resolution (or even better, A500) but A100/200/300 does not. IQ are quite similar at ISO <1600 when A900 is on APS-C mode comparing to the legacy cameras.

Downside is you're stuck with JPG outputs if you're using APS-C mode

Ermm...how is is possible with RAW? RAW is RAW = unprocessed data.

 

[BBTM]

APS-C - Normal sedan
FF - Luxury Car
Medium format - Sport car.

So, if you used to FF, when you use a APS-C, you feels you lack of something. When you use Medium format, you found it's too much for you and you hardly use.

For me, when I saw a 50mm mounted on the 7D, I was stun! Cause my view on SLR is bigger than it! So, what is the point of wasting a good 50mm lens (POV). I waited, for years, for the FF body to be out. When out, no $ to buy, so, wait till now.

A850, price ok, a lot of lens fixed it well. I chiong for a 16-35mm CZ and I doubt I will go for a APS-C again. I tried to hold a A500 today, my hand too BIG for it. I dont want to look into the viewfinder, cause I know what I get. True, FF body indeed heavy and now, my back aching. As there is a say, NO PAIN, NO GAIN.

 

[MontoyaSG]

Yes you are right that with A900/A850, the resolution is stuck to 11mp in APS-C mode.
I wasn't clear which camera I am referring to, and probably has generalised too much. A700 has slight edge in resolution (or even better, A500) but A100/200/300 does not. IQ are quite similar at ISO <1600 when A900 is on APS-C mode comparing to the legacy cameras.


Ermm...how is is possible with RAW? RAW is RAW = unprocessed data.

You don't get raw output in APS mode on the a850/900