![]() Too long for all-round use, a touch too short to be a really good portrait lens: you can mount a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, but it probably wouldn't be your first choice, if there were other options.įor example: a classic full frame 24-70mm lens acts as a 35-105mm equivalent when mounted on an APS-C camera, with a lack of wide-angle coverage limiting its effective use as a walkaround lens. There's a reason that manufacturers make specific lenses for APS-C cameras: the focal lengths that are useful on APS-C are totally different from the focal lengths that are useful on full frame. Why? Because APS-C and full frame are not the same thing. It's a decision that introduces awkward compromises to all future lens purchases. This, combined with the (broadly true) assumption that lenses are a long-term purchase but camera bodies will more quickly become obsolete, leads to some odd behavior and even stranger conclusions.Īll too often I see APS-C users saying that they're not going to buy any more APS-C specific lenses because they plan to move to full frame at some point in the future. ![]() This stems from the fact that you can mount full frame lenses on the many APS-C cameras. However, I'd say the bigger myth is that there's a middle-ground between APS-C ownership and full frame ownership. Fallacy 2: You're already part of the way there Sony in particular has done amazing things in the past year or so to redefine the price/size/quality balance that full frame offers, but it remains true that APS-C and Four Thirds can still be smaller, lighter and less expensive: so the optimal system for you depends on your requirements. And that's true of all formats.įull frame cameras can be incredibly capable but other formats can still be smaller or less expensive (especially once you've factored lenses in), allowing you to choose the size/price/quality balance that suits you. However, if you go back and re-read that last sentence, you'll notice that it contains two important caveats: it can offer the best image quality if you like the size/price trade-off that it brings. If you want the best image quality but don't want to spend the money or carry the bulk of a Pentax 645Z, then your best chances are with a full frame sensor. I'm not questioning the idea that it offers great image quality: if you line up the same framing and use the same shutter speed and f-number, a larger sensor will be exposed to more light than a smaller one and more light allows better image quality. ![]() Fallacy 1: Full frame is the optimal end-point to aspire to There are two reasons I say this: firstly, it implies that full frame is the sole aspirational endpoint for everybody and secondly, that the purchases you've already made have taken you some way towards that goal. ![]() I'd argue the 'upgrade path' to full frame is a myth. This new-found accessibility has had an interesting side-effect: it's made more people feel that they've already taken steps along an 'upgrade path'. Suddenly it's no longer completely ridiculous to talk about 'affordable' full frame cameras, though it's still worth putting the word 'affordable' in single quotes. The past 18 months has seen a flurry of full frame cameras launched at lower prices than ever before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |