carstenw wrote: douglasf13 wrote:
As aps-c technology improves more and more, I think FF will become less and less necessary to most shooters.
I don\'t think this is a question of necessity. FF sensors will always have an advantage in at least one of: high ISO performance, pixel count, dynamic range, depending on what the sensor characteristics are, but APS-C sensors are already good enough that except for extreme cases, they are good enough in all these three areas for almost anyone. Where FF cannot be matched is in look. Larger sensors yield different-looking images, and I would not replace my FF system with an APS-C system, because I love this look. It was the same in film days, incidentally.
While I mostly agree, much of this \"look\" is at wider apertures, and it is dependent on lens and print size. At mid aperture, I find it difficult to distinguish between my NEX cameras and A900 in 13x19 prints. I haven\'t printed from my M9, yet, so I\'m not sure in that regard.
The problem is that there aren\'t comparable lenses for the aps-c format to give us fair comparisons. If someone designed native, f0.9 lenses for these aps-c sensors, it would be interesting to compare them to f1.4 lenses on FF. I\'d bet the look would be pretty close at most print sizes, but the size and price of the lens would negate any advantage of the smaller format, so I don\'t see that happening.
Either way, at least in terms of interchangeable mirrorless, Fuji and Sony both seemed to be pretty committed to aps-c as the compromise between size, IQ and price. For DSLRs, where size is less of an issue, FF makes more sense. In fact, I\'m not sure I\'d ever consider buying a non-FF DSLR again.
Of course, the Leicas are small and FF, which is awesome.
carstenw wrote: douglasf13 wrote:
As aps-c technology improves more and more, I think FF will become less and less necessary to most shooters.
I don\'t think this is a question of necessity. FF sensors will always have an advantage in at least one of: high ISO performance, pixel count, dynamic range, depending on what the sensor characteristics are, but APS-C sensors are already good enough that except for extreme cases, they are good enough in all these three areas for almost anyone. Where FF cannot be matched is in look. Larger sensors yield different-looking images, and I would not replace my FF system with an APS-C system, because I love this look. It was the same in film days, incidentally.
While I mostly agree, much of this \"look\" is at wider apertures, and it is dependent on lens and print size. At mid aperture, I find it difficult to distinguish between my NEX cameras and A900 in 13x19 prints. I haven\'t printed from my M9, yet, so I\'m not sure in that regard.
The problem is that there aren\'t comparable lenses for the aps-c format to give us fair comparisons. If someone designed native, f0.9 lenses for these aps-c sensors, it would be interesting to compare them to f1.4 lenses on FF. I\'d bet the look would be pretty close, but the size and price of the lens would negate any advantage of the smaller format, so I don\'t see that happening.
Either way, at least in terms of interchangeable mirrorless, Fuji and Sony both seemed to be pretty committed to aps-c as the compromise between size, IQ and price. For DSLRs, where size is less of an issue, FF makes more sense. In fact, I\'m not sure I\'d ever consider buying a non-FF DSLR again.
Of course, the Leicas are small and FF, which is awesome.
Nov 02, 2012 at 05:23 PM
Previous versions of douglasf13's message #11087430 « Leica the only Digital Rangefinder? »
