photon said:Sporgon I completely agree with you one shutter speed/ISO. That is why I addressed ISO originally, but it was dismissed later by someone comparing DoF and it cannot be dismissed.
Just so we are all on the same page with this, and not comparing different points, would you agree that:
DoF at F2.8 on a crop is ~ the same as the F4.4 on FF? Just over a full stop.
The ISO performance of same generation and product tiers of FF camera's have at LEAST that much ISO improvement over crop? I think some would argue 2 full stops, but we don't even need to go that far to be equal.
Also, at no point am I addressing the point of diminishing returns here. I cannot compare the value of anything beyond my own definition of value and to some the value of cost/reward for a crop may make crop the perfect choice for some.
What I am trying to make clear is that even if a crop camera is going to give you 99% the performance of a FF (again value/cost/diminishing returns ignored because we are just sticking to performance and the purchaser will have to decide individually if the cost is worth it) that at no point are you GIVING UP performance and possibilities going to FF.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I agree with what you've said, and I think that basically what you are arguing is that the high ISO performance of recent generation FF cameras means that you can now use greater dof with a faster shutter speed by increasing the ISO and not losing any IQ.
In terms of what you're likely to be giving up by going to FF, for many it will be frame rate and smaller form, and well as part of your bank balance. Overall I think APS's ace card is cheaper cost.
Upvote
0