agillot

All my lenses [ older ] are full frame , all cameras are APC , SO ????????

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Putting a FF lens on APS-C bodies does not alter any of the lens characteristics itself, simply a different part of the image circle is captured. The lens behaves exactly the same in either case.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I use my Full Frame and Vintage Pentax lenses on my Crop Factor Pentax Bodies. All of my DSLRs are CF. I only have "full frame" FIlm Cameras. There are slight differences as to the Minimum Focus Distance between say a Film 50mm Prime, CF 50mm Prime, and FF 50mm Prime. I have examples of all of those and 35mm FL lenses as well.

neillaubenthal

Most lenses have some IQ falloff as you get out to the edges of the image circle. A FF lens has a bigger image circle than a DX one does…so on a DX body the entire frame fits into the central DX portion of the image circle instead of extending to the edges of the circle.

Depending on the lens…and your demand that even the corners have maximum IQ…this may be important…but then it might not be to you. The drawback of this approach is that FF lenses are bigger and heavier in order to get that larger image circle.

User ID

Its true that as formats get smaller, from very large sheet film down to 35mm, lenses must get sharper to accomodate the increased magnification needed. And across that large sheet thru 35mm range the lenses really do get sharper.

That design and manufacturing paradigm seems to end at 24x36mm, the 35mm format. Hard to determine whether theres a design limit, cost limit or whatever such that DX compared to FX fails to follow the paradigm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I suspect its not a technology or cost roadblock but primarily just marketing demographics. At each size reduction from 8x10 down thru 35mm, the gear necessarily meets higher standards of precision. Each next smaller format is simply smaller and more portable and therefore more versatile. IOW smaller does not mean inferior ... until we drop from FX to DX.

As size descends from 8x10, each smaller size was not considered to be a cheaper compromise but simply faster, more portable, more nimble. A Rollei was not a cheap substitue for a Linhof. A Nikon was not a cheap substitute for a Rollei. The lenses had to get better as the format shrank. But broadly speaking, DX is actually just a cheap substitute for FX and so no additional effort is applied to its lenses ... sometimes even less effort to lower pricing to meet lower expectations.

If you adapt a 4x5 lens to a 24x36mm camera you should expect that it wont compare to lenses native to 24x36. But that whole paradigm apparently ends at 24x36 FX FF. DX lenses are not designed to compensate for the smaller format. Theyre designed to be cheaper lenses for a cheaper format, so theres no harm or loss from using FX lenses on DX cameras. The DX lenses are not offering improved performance that one might desire to deal with a reduced format size.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good quality DX lenses can address some bulk and weight issues. As a user of the Nikon 10-24 DX I enjoy that benefit compared to my Nikon 16-35 FX.

Likewise my EOS EF-s 10-22 versus my EF 17-40. I even use the EF-s 10-22 on m4/3. My native m4/3 12-35 isnt better than the EF-s 10-22 transplanted to the smaller m4/3 format (its just faster).

petrochemist Loc: UK

There are differences in MFD between lens designs but this is not necessarily related to sensor size at all.
My 35mm film 50mm primes vary from 23cm to 120cm. The one crop only 50mm prime I have focuses to 90cm which is within the range.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

That's the best response I've heard.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Your real issue is thinking that if Tony Northrop says it, it must be true.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Canisdirus

No, it's an engineering thing.

It works on airplanes...computers...cameras...audio...everything.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

As usual, a total waste of time (19 minutes) since he doesn't really stick to the point.

He spends the first half comparing the same zoom lens on two different cameras proving nothing. Then he spends much of the remaining time comparing the optics of full frame vs APS-C. And he runs through the entire presentation sounding like he added too much sugar to his Cheerios.

But the simple facts are that:

* Full frame lenses are larger, heavier and more expensive (and more profitable) than crop lenses. The same is true for bodies.
* There are no crop lenses that perform as well as full frame lenses for the same MP resolution.
* There are no zoom lenses that perform well as prime lenses. The entire presentation should have been based on a comparison of prime lenses.
* Because of the potential profits, only Fuji concentrates their efforts on crop sensor lenses. He pointed this out. That's all he needed to say.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Oh, it does "work".
I have a tuner/amp, I just got a turn table and speakers, no "matching", just a turn table and speakers (other than 8 ohm).
I have a camera, I just get lenses (as long as the lens meets my needs and fits the camera).
I just get a computer, it has stuff in it. My monitors are not "matched" to the computer, they're monitors.
I don't have an airplane.....

By the way, I was referring to the people who have to match things, not the fact that the manufacturer has matched pieces parts.
Like "only OEM for me".....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If your sensor throws away 50% of the frame, how will you ever achieve your potential as a photographer?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Take twice as many pictures.....

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

We already achieved as much sharpness and resolution as we ever needed at between 12 and 16MP. We can make any image as big as we can afford to print or display it starting with that resolution. You will probably never see the difference between APS-C and full frame unless you are obsessed with pixel peeping.

Once we reach 24MP we have gone past the point where resolution really means anything. And most lenses, full frame or crop, start running out of performance above that level unless you are prepared to spend obscene amounts of money.