The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using:
* very low noise
* very shallow DOF
* long bursts of rapid images
* weather proofing (including cold)
* improved dynamic range
* high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality)
There are also other improvements such as better autofocus.
Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots.
PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.
>The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using
The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway.
A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" but marginally so compared to a APS C or even 4/3rds camera with the latest (4-5 years) generation of sensors. We're simply above the point of having new cameras really give anything beyond marginal returns in ISO utility (not because they don't get better ISO, but because so much sensitivity is useless for most kinds of photography, including most of landscape work (plus, it affects color rendition). In any case, in all the history of film photography, all known celebrated photographs seldom straiyed outside something like 800-1600 ISO. Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).
Now, while most of the points are real, they are all marginal returns, and depend so much upon the conditions at the shoot and the skill of the photographer that they might as well not matter at all.
I'd go as far as to say that a $300 APS-C used well will be able to take just as good photos as any $5K full frame (yeah, it might lose a couple of stops of DOF, just use a faster lens on it), and even an expensive lens on the latter wont make that much of a different at any normal print size (at least up to A3).
Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).
I agree with your overall point - and I've pretty much abandoned my APS-C camera, using my M43 camera almost exclusively.
However, there is a good reason for better high-ISO performance. It allows for tradeoffs in other areas. It means we can hand-hold in darker lighting or at higher focal lengths or smaller lighting than anyone could before. The ability to take a sharp photo while out on a hike when I didn't want to lug a tripod is valuable.
As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but they could just a well have been shot on a 300D: https://500px.com/john
A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens.
In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.
>A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens.
Only as it pertains to DOF. On the other hand, it will still be a 1.2 lens as far as light gathering is concerned.
And you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C.
The loss of DOF we know, but you still so much DOF latitude on APS-C that you can do pretty much anything. Besides, that 50mm will become a quite handy portrait lens on APS-C.
> you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C
According to DxOMark[1][2], the $1400 Canon 35mm f/1.4 on an APS-C body is comparable to a Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM on full frame and stopped down to f/2.4.
Go put a 50 1.2 L on a 300D and tell me it looks like the 85 1.4 on a 5D. In fact, I'm so confident you're incorrect I'd happily drive up to B&H and snap some raws to prove it.
It seems you're mixing your arguments. From your education you are aware that the 'equivalence' between APS-C and full-frame extends beyond focal length and into aperture and ISO performance I presume?
That's the point the parent you're replying to is making.
It is physically impossible to achieve the kind of equivalence you mentioned in your first post because the 'crop factor' is also applied to aperture and the crop-factor squared is applied to the ISO.
That's a point that's not well known and often dismissed, so I'll repeat it: The crop factor is applied to aperture and the square of the crop factor is applied to the ISO.
If you are not aware of this/don't believe it, see here:
Manufacturers like to gloss over that and constantly talk about 'equivalent' focal length whilst skirting the other equivalents, because they would clearly show the physical (as in physics) limitations of the smaller sensor.
It may well be that a 50mm f1.2 on a 300D would look 'nicer' than a cheaper 85mm f1.4, but that could be due to lens construction/coatings etc and it literally cannot be due to achieving the same focal length/aperture/ISO performance. You cannot physically achieve the same depth of field (let alone focal length) for instance with a 50mm f1.2 on APS-C as an 85mm f1.4 lens on a full frame.
That's the technicality you are being picked up on (albeit in a slightly imprecise manner), so save that trip to B&H because it'll be impossible to achieve what you are saying.
Source: Former pro photographer (and less important but I've used the lenses you mention).
The difference in DOF is more of a minor technicality than a "Your 1500 dollar lens performs like a 350 dollar one!" though. OP is correct that you are exaggerating, though OP was definitely wrong to ignore the difference.
Here we go. The $350 on full-frame in all likelihood outperforms the $1500 lens that is heavily cropped by an APS-C body. According to DxOMark, the Canon 85mm f/1.8 has substantially higher overall sharpness than the middle 40% of a Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens.[1][2]
It is true that the cheaper lens has slightly greater pincushion distortion and vignetting, however both flaws are trivially (and automatically) corrected in post processing. What can't be fixed in post is overall sharpness and depth-of-field.
It all depends on what kind of photography you're doing, and your personal style.
For me, getting that shallow DOF is a nice-to-have, but it's not what I'm typically going for. More likely, I'm using a 7-14mm lens (on my m43 camera, if it you care), which for most reasonable compositions has infinite DOF if you just use hyperfocal distance.
I ignored it because when you get into practical image making the difference in image related to depth is negligible compared to the image quality to cost ratio. My point was that a small sensor can have a use, telephoto compression as a by-product of a crop is pretty handy when you have very expensive primes you want to make longer, hence i only used L series lenses in my example. I forgot there is tie between mastery, artistry and pedanticism. Source: The studio I co-founded won three Emmys for image production (Game of Honor, StillMotion was the production company) and had great margins.
In terms of equivalence, you're just mathematically wrong.
To demonstrate why you're also wrong with overall quality, consider the Canon 5Ds/5DsR. An incredible 50-something megapixels; famous for being able to reveal flaws in (or at least exceed the limits of) some of the most expensive glass. This is because its pixel pitch of 4.14µm is so incredibly fine.
The latest APS-C bodies, the 80D for example, have a pixel pitch of 3.7µm, which is even finer still. Using full frame glass on an APS-C body is like putting it on a hypothetical 5Ds Mark II and cropping into the middle 40% in post. It's just not going to be sharp.
This is because when you put that expensive full frame lens onto an APS-C body, you're only using half of the actual physical glass you paid for. The rest of it is going to waste. You're just using the middle bit... then magnifying it to accentuate the flaws.
And just so it's abundantly clear, I am not saying that APS-C is inferior because it absolutely isn't. Nothing is stopping lens manufacturers from making similarly good lenses for a smaller image circle.
The issue entirely boils down to using lenses optimised for one sensor size (in this case full frame) on a camera that has a significantly smaller sensor (in this case APS-C).
Also, I went through 4 or 5 85 1.4s to find a sharp one because the built quality was so bad, and even after a couple of weeks traveling it had gone soft, never found this with my 50 1.2 (although I ended up ditching all the crop gear and going to FF when I bought the 85 1.2) - However, it was a really good substitute till I could afford it (as I mentioned above) :)
The focal length equivalency factor is partly why I stick with APS-C DSLRs. Plus, my Nikon D500 and its 20 FPS, 200 shot RAW buffer is something you can't find in any full frame camera (yet).
In any situation where I feel like I would benefit from a larger sensor I shoot film instead (either 35mm or 120 and get better colors and tones than any DSLR, in my opinion).
* very low noise
* very shallow DOF
* long bursts of rapid images
* weather proofing (including cold)
* improved dynamic range
* high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality)
There are also other improvements such as better autofocus.
Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots.
PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.