On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM, J.C. O'Connell<hifis...@gate.net> wrote: > ff bodies don't need as high a peformance lenses as APS > bodies do to achieve same level of system peformance. > That's the main appeal of FF bodies. No super tweeked, > super performance leneses are required, mortal lenses > can be applied to them for same results due to larger sensor format. > > -- > J.C. O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net)
The problem is that this is simply not the case in reality. In reality we have to deal with the fact that lenses capable of performing to the requirements of current APS-C sensors are significantly less expensive than the equivalent for a FF sensor. I can buy a normal zoom capable of outresolving a 12MP APS-C sensor across it's entire image circle at f5.6 for $600USD (see the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM or any of several slower but wider-range zooms like the Sigma 17-70 or Nikkor 16-85VR), but a lens which offers similar performance on FF will cost me at least $1000 (Canon 24-105L). Ditto for an ultra-wide zoom (Both Sigma 10-20's, Tokina 12-24/4 or 11-16/2.8) but then the equivalent will cost me $1500 (Canon 16-35L II, Nikkor 14-24/2.8). And no, primes are not the answer. There are essentially no currently available primes for FF systems that are wider than 35mm, cheaper than $1000 USD new and sharp across the frame 2 stops down from wide open on current 20+MP FF bodies. There are quite a number of primes that can do that for APS-C (wider than 24mm, cheaper than $1000, sharp across the frame 2 stops down) including a number of FF primes that can't do that on current FF bodies. A nice theory, but in practice the real market limitation of FF is lens cost, not body cost. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
