Is today's APS-C as good as FF or is it just a myth that FF is still much better in the DSLR space? With the current entries, preceded by the EOS 7D, the 60D, K5, E5 and D7000, not to mention the entry level entries, all are extremely good APS-C with much improved IQ, high and clean ISO and much more. Apart from Canon and Nikon, FF progress has not been this dynamic. Has the gap closed? Do you still need FF, if yes and no, why? Let's discuss and be very civil about your emotion please.
APS-C vs FF, how close are they today?
- Thread starter Anthony Lee
- Start date
FF is sill needed for other things like bokeh. Also we all do need to crop our pictures - at least a bit. So a FF does help matters here. Lastly my brain has been hardwired to film days. At 35mm I know I wont see much distortion. At 20mm I will see lots. What we don't need is bumping up the megapixel. I find something comforting about blowing up a picture to 100% and still see that it's a) sharp at focus point b) it still looks reasonably film like (not jaggered patterns). I also find with FF I carry fewer lenses. 85mm is good enough - no need for the 135mm - slightly different prespective and you need to crop but my shoulder feels alot better.Young ones can carry a haversack full of lenses but ah pek like me can only carry 3. kekekeke
greater depth of field?
shallower. f/1.4 on ff has less dof than f/1.4 on cf, given equivalent focal lengths.
the gap is closing
frankly speaking, it makes sense for the camera manufacturers to slow down progress for CF, since they want to milk every single market for all it's worth. i suspect that if they had abandoned FF in the past, and concentrated all efforts on APS-C, it would be better than the current results of FF today.
that said, i think to be fair, FF still holds much more detail than CF.
Then why aren't Pentax and Olympus much further ahead? Because they need Sony for their sensors?
you are asking me, why the smaller companies are not driving the industry?
i don't understand, from my consumer's point of view, the bigger players are the ones driving the industry.. and the technology might flow down later on.
R&D is a high-investment creature, and it needs $, time. the bigger players are likely to be the ones who have both of those.
your question to me, is like asking why africa and sri lanka are not proceeding much faster than the west for medical research...?
Comparing the same generation of sensors, IQ of FF is always better than APS-C. Any technology that can be applied on APS-C sensors to improve IQ, ISO etc. will be applied on FF sensors. thus the gap will always be there.
But some things never change, FF sensors gives shallower dof as compared to APS-C sensors, while APS-C sensors give more reach as compared to FF sensors.
But some things never change, FF sensors gives shallower dof as compared to APS-C sensors, while APS-C sensors give more reach as compared to FF sensors.
Override2Zion
Senior Member
I would say the image qualities are close but the physical differences are still there. Most people who do wildlife or sports photography will still want further reach and you get exactly that with a APS-C body. You want shallower DOF and slightly wider angle then FF is for you. Different sensors for different purposes.
Well, I just want your opinion for one who have stuck to Pentax for so long. Both Pentax and Olympus are both Japanese and it's not like picking Africa against USA. From a digital standpoint, I went from APS-C to FF and whenever I view my old photos against my new, I always ask my self, what's the difference. Why spend so much more to achieve something I don't really know how to appreciate or need for that matter. Pros and hobbyists, including people like me may have mindsets that derail us from reality. The main reason I pose this thread is to find comfort and solace in getting back to APS-C.
Last edited:
this is what i would call a "unsubstantiated and emotional claim". noise depends on way too many variables (ISO, sensor type <which veries from brand to brand and is technology-dependent>, stray light, pixel density blah blah blah). therefore this kind of claim makes no sense.
To me, these two different sensors have different purposes. From a simplistic point of view, perhaps aps-c with it's extended reach is more intended for birding, and also for entry level dslr given it's cheaper price compared to ff. On the other hand ff offers you the detail, bokeh and so on, so maybe it is not which is better or whether the gap is closing but a matter of how users perceive them to be? It's very much self defined according to personal needs I think.
Last edited:
If you don't mind my asking, looking at your signature, do you think if another guy uses an Olympus E5 with a 14-35f2 and a 35-100f2, can his system be as good as yours in terms of IQ. I purposely choose Oly because technically, they are the closest to your system in terms of FOV so no direct advantage in terms of reach, f2.8 against f2 which is quite close in terms of DOF on each format, except, utimately. other implications in sensor size consideration. Can the Oly system be as good, considering price, convenience in terms of size and weight advantage offset the plusses of having FF?
very true. doubt my shooting would have changed much if i was using aps-c.. but would definitely miss the wideness of things
especially cross adapting lenses for shift stuffs..ryan
Last edited:
Similar threads
