Originally posted by calaisien at 12-2-2011 11:30
the APS-C is many time better than FF with many lens cos with the 1,6x crop they only use the centre of the lens, no the border! so lens aberration...
both have pro and cons.
i like vignetting.
i seldom use flash, yet i like to take photos in low light.
in terms of light-sensitivity, no APS-C sensor can ever beat a full frame.
FF sensor is 156% bigger than an APS-C.
so the difference is 1.36 stop.
that's a big deal of difference!
for some lens, the price difference for 1.36 stop is already close to HK$10k.
at high ISO, the difference is even more obviously.
much less noise on a FF.
Canon lens, more choices for FF.
although i must admit, more and more are coming out for APS-C.
but talk abt L-optics (Canon's Pro series lens) there's not a single one available for APS-C. (correct me if i'm wrong)
APS-C lens for Canon uses EF-S mounting, which means they can't be used on FF cameras.
i love the 10-22mm lens, but can't fit on my FF cameras. 
as for people who chases megapixels on cameras. 
unless you are printing for the billboard, why do you need so much megapixels?
generally more pixels = more noise & lower sensitivity.
anyone who uses SLR and changes lens often enough will know that dust will get into the sensor.
and dust on a FF looks 1.6 times smaller than APS-C. 
and for me, it's easier to clean a FF sensor. (more space)
many people argue APS-C is more for casual photographers who don't want to spend too much $$$.
i thought so that way too.
so my first DSLR was a 350D.
but as i gradually demand more from my photos, the small sensor and limited lens doesn't work for me anymore.
so i switched to 2nd-hand FF cameras.
affordable and so much difference in photo quality.
now my old APS-C camera and lens are in the storeroom.
only used when i want to travel light. |
