[neom]

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

[sjwright]

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.

[coldtea]

>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.

[sjwright]

> 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.

[1] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F14L-USM-...

[2] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-50mm-F18-STM-m...

[sjwright]

> it will still be a 1.2 lens as far as light gathering is concerned

Also incorrect, because less than 40% of the light gathered by a full frame lens hits the APS-C sensor.

[neom]

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.

[PuffinBlue]

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA

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).

[dwringer]

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.

[sjwright]

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.

[1] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM-mount...

[2] https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM-...

[CWuestefeld]

more of a minor technicality

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.

[neom]

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.

[sjwright]

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.

[iamatworknow]

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).