Don: I am not someone who demands FF as a D200 satisfies my needs. But I can see that so-called FF does have advantages. First I will say that FF and APS are simply two different formats. Each has its advantages, and in general one is not better than the other, but each has its advantages.
FF provides larger pixels for a given pixel count, leading to a better signal to noise ratio, and better high ISO performance. It also provides lower depth of field, so it is good for creativity, if you like that sort of thing. So FF really does have some important advantages and will dominate for some uses such as concert photography.
APS uses the sweet spot of a lens, removing the often poor edges, so soft edges and vignetting are less troublesome. It also has a built in teleconverter effect. So a modest cost 400mm lens on APS behaves like a 600mm lens on FF. And lastly, you get greater depth of field, so APS is excellent for macro. But you need really good lenses to get the full benefits. With a really good lens you will get the full benefit of 12 MP, but only up to about F11. At smaller apertures diffraction kicks in, and you lose sharpness. And of course there are no fast wide angles for APS.
Personally I am happy with APS, but IMO Nikon must provide FF if only to give users a complete system, and hence not create a dead end. And IMO Nikon are reliant on third parties to produce the sensor. We will see probably this year the first FF Nikon with a third party sensor, probably a Sony. It won't be as good as the Canon, but it will be pretty good.
|