Why bother?

It would make sense, allowing some people to keep any special DA lenses they might value, or indeed might want to use on another aps-c body. Or if that's not implemented then we could just crop manually on the computer I assume? Although to an extent it does defeat some of the purpose ....

As well as the sticker price let's not forget weight, and bulk, for both body and lenses. FF costs more than just the £s.

Some will want to and be able to pay those prices. Some will want to but not be able to come up with the readies. Some will just prefer APSC.

I assume we won't need to be buying massive f1.8 lenses though - we'd get plenty of OOF bokeh with f2.8 on FF wouldn't we? (I mean on a telephoto or long standard zoom).

A 400mm f/2.8 lens, say, would be very fast, very bulky and very heavy. There's a natural limitation in terms of bulk and cost. Personally, the 500mm f/4.5 lens I sold recently was heavy enough, although remarkably light for what it was. I suppose it's all relative.

I've always thought it rather false thinking when I read this idea that aps-c is better for wildlife - this theory is based on the crop factor - ie you need a longer telephoto on FF to get the same sized subject from the same distance. But really it misses the point surely? - you're not increasing the magnification on aps-c, so you still need the same focal length to get the same sized subject with the same perspective from where you're standing with both cameras.

Now, the wide-angle argument I can buy - we need to go to increasingly more extreme short focal lengths on aps-c (such as 10mm) and this involves bigger glass elements, more expensive to make with wide apertures, and more complex designs with more distortions to deal with.

I'm pleased I'm just a hobbyist

You planning on staying with aps-c then Stan?

For the forseeable future. I don't think it necessary, in my case, to change to FF although I did read a magazine article about how it needn't cost a fortune. As soon as my lottery numbers come up I might buy one of the 645Z things including some new glass.

That would be great to try ... I was impressed with the new specs it boasts now, bringing a number of the latest dslr innovations to the larger format also. It makes it more usable and flexible. Strange, I don't recall seeing images from it or the earlier model on here. Are there any members using one?

And another question is, what would we actually see here on the website, that is special and different with digital 645 images. At web resolution is there anything else for to see and identify clearly and consistently that would elevate those images above those we currently see from dslrs?

I would assume there is somewhere the full image could be stored and a link set to download it. There again the problem would be who would be willing to allow their images to be viewed like that except for basic samples which would defeat the purpose. Of course one could strive to become so accomplished one could hold exhibitions in various cities, with huge prints (limited editions for sale). Now, what have I done with that lottery ticket

I think it was on this site that I followed a link to a comparison between the earlier digital 645 and one of the other brands full frame offerings. Even on the web you could see the difference, particularly in the area of dynamic range.

Dynamic range, yes, that would be improved I guess. I've always been interested in analysing different system features with a view to determining key suitability for different categories of photographer, or differing genres and conditions.

So the aim might be to construct some kind of table that would tell me personally what I would gain for my images by moving to a 645, or say, a possible future FF dslr. This would allow better planning and organisation (such as choosing lenses) to make an eventual transition less difficult.

So what would my photography gain if I switched to a 645z system tomorrow?

Very little I think as you have the eye and pretty damn good technique already.

hey thanks, that's very nice of you, but would there not be a noticeable technical quality boost that would make my shots better just for having been taken on the larger format? Or would any extra complexities or higher demands caused by the technology just in fact be more challenging for me and introduce new problems?

There seems to me to be a contradiction in what you are saying here. I agree that you get the same perspective with shots taken by two different cameras at the same location, no matter what lenses are fitted and no matter what the sensor size.

However, if I have a 300mm f/4 on an APS-C camera and a friend, at the same location, has a (approx) 450mm f/4 on his FF camera, we will both be able to fill the frame with the same image. The big difference between us is that he will have paid over ten grand for his 500mm f/4, but I'll have paid less than a grand for my 300mm f/4. I think I can see some advantage here in using APS-C for sports and wildlife.

Andrew