[mike]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288340283' post='3830']

Hi Mike,



I don't particularly understand what you are trying to say here. The equivalent of a 10-12 mm lens on APS-C on FF is 16-19 mm lens on FF, and there are plenty of those, if you are talking about zoom lenses, and plenty when talking about primes, while there are no equivalent primes for APS-C. And you certainly don't need a tilt-shift lens for the same "cool options", because we are only talking about normal DoF here.

[/quote]



I'm not sure what you don't understand? Many people in this thread talked about the shallower dof you can get with a FF. The converse is true also.



Assuming a crop factor of 1.6, for the same fov (which is really what matters) you get at least 1.6x more dof for a given aperture. Therefore, with a 12mm instead of a 18mm focusing at a hyper-focal distance I can get from closer to the lens to infinity and with the ability to use a faster aperture. With the FF you may not be able to step down enough, or if there's a breeze, the shot will be longer and this will show up.



IMO, one of the main advantages of the T&S lens on 35mm format for landscape is the ability to get a very big dof with a larger aperture than you could w/o it. This is particularly useful if there's any subject movement.



There's a nice summary here: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tec...aldof.html



Note the first and last bullets.



Cheers