3 ms·
Full-frame at APS-C prices would be great. It would lose one of the perks of APS-C: crop factor. Getting 450mm out of a 70-300mm lens is nice. edit: since it's
by Kye 5y ago
Full-frame at APS-C prices would be great. It would lose one of the perks of APS-C: crop factor. Getting 450mm out of a 70-300mm lens is nice.
edit: since it's apparently not clear and I'm getting downvoted for sharing how this benefits a harmless personal preference, I will emphasize that I'm speaking to my needs. The 70-300 lens is what I use, not some abstract construct meant to represent all purposes.
The crop factor is generally a perk for people who shoot at the ranges I shoot at even if it comes with compromises for other needs.
- booi 5y agothis is essentially zoom though as you're not using the full output of the lens
- Kye 5y agoThat's okay. I usually shoot things that are further away. Other people will have different needs. Only speaking for myself.
- cschep 5y agoIsn't this usually thought of as a disadvantage? E.g. You have to buy more glass ($$) to get smaller mm equivalents?
- Kye 5y agoI am only speaking for my use cases. Nikon crop sensors can use DX lenses, and those are always cheaper for more or less the same reach and features.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y agoCrop factor is only an advantage for APS-C cameras where the pixel density is higher than the comparable FF camera. That's not always true, eg I have a Sony a7Riv, which has 26MP in crop mode (more than APS-C cameras). The "croppability" of the image is not really a function of the sensor size, it's a function of pixel density. APS-C cameras used to have higher pixel density than FF cameras, but that hasn't been universally true recently.
- e40 5y agoOr where you are willing to sacrifice pixels to get the longer length.