Correct. However, the temptation is always to compose using the full width of the viewfinder and thus move in closer, loosing the greater working distance advantage of AP-C, which effectively provides a cropped view. Thus, you'll tend to need a longer, heavier lens to preserve working distance unless you have amazing self discipline behind the camera - and with so many other things to think about, I'd rather compose using the whole view available and have a lighter set up.eccles wrote:The perceived advantage of APS-C over full frame isn't an advantage at all provided the pixel density is similar.
When discussing of the difference between full frame and AP-C I was coming from the assumption of equal resolution. For me, the big advantage of full frame is the potential for lower pixel density, which offers benefits in lower noise and better tonality etc. Owning both the D300 and D700 has really bought this home to me. An interesting question to discuss is how much resolution you REALLY need? For landscape I shoot 5x4 sheet film which, when scanned produces staggering images of around 50 megapixel resolution. But they are huge files that make my Mac creak and and need big, expensive storage. I find my butterfly/habitat photography is rarely reproduced larger than A4 so 12 megapixels or so is more than enough in my 'real world'. And on the few occasions I need to go bigger, the files can take a increase in size very well. Certainly, while I own an A3 inkjet printer, the cost of printing this size makes means that I rarely use its full potential, and even my exhibition prints tend to be no larger than 18x12 inches.
Apologies to Steve if I'm going off topic.
Best
Malcolm
