General discussion

full frame vs APS-C sensor

hi everyone,
I am trying to choose my first camera but I don't know if I should get a full frame or one with a APS-C sensor. I know that the main difference is the crop factor and for this reason I would go full frame. The problem is that if I choose a full-frame camera I would need to spend more for the camera itself and also for the lens, so the question is does it really worth to choose a full frame over a APS-C??

Discussion is locked

Reply to: full frame vs APS-C sensor
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: full frame vs APS-C sensor
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
re: full frame vs APS-C sensor

In your particular case, the only reason to go APS-C is if you can't afford the RP (+ EF lens adapter) + 17-40mm. (And since the 17-40mm is on sale right now, I would strongly encourage you to try to swing this option.)

More generally, another consideration for others would be if they would be using EF-S lenses (which are often, but not always, cheaper, smaller and lighter) or EF lenses. Because, if using EF lenses on an APS-C body (which is also often, but not always, cheaper, smaller and lighter than a full frame body), they won't be getting the full benefit of a cheaper, smaller, lighter package.

But in your particular case, either of the EF-S lenses mentioned in the other post will serve you well, and in fact, better than any EF lens will on an APS-C body.

P.S. and as long as I'm posting, IMO the 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 is a non-starter because 1) it's nowhere near as wide as the 17-40mm. 2) when you add the adapter, it's longer (physically) than the RF 24-105mm f4 is. 3) the RF (and EF) 24-105mm f4 is a better lens. 4) the RF (and EF) 24-105mm f4 is a stop brighter at the long end (zoomed in). 5) the RF is a native lens, meaning it has the control ring, which the EF lenses don't.

- Collapse -
Looks like a lot more for all this.

CNET Forums

Forum Info