>>2942592Resolving power of old lenses, especially at open aperture is not that great, and you are throwing away half of the image when you use apsc.
Also 12mpix on full frame in practice is very different from 12mpix on apsc. Nikon D3200 with its double pixel count is just on par in actual sharpness with Canon 5d.
Used 85s are much more expensive then used 135s. There are many dirt cheap, but usable 135mm f/2.8 lenses. Again you are listing an 85mm lens that is cheap for your standards(and most other photographers) but those 135s i mentioned go for 20-30 euros. Of course Samyang/Rokinon is f/1.4, but on apsc not much different then those dirt cheap old 135s are on full frame.
More then previous ones, this opinion really shows your lack of knowledge/experience with cameras. Actually its just as good as some modern 1000$ apsc cameras in RAW. The price is not indicative of the performance in this aspect. Some cheaper new cameras are the same as more expensive ones in this aspect. Canon 5D is still close to the best sony/nikon/canon/pentax offer today in apsc. Go research it if you don't believe me.
For me the difference between apsc and ff is pretty small, but If color depth and tonality are memes why are some people(usually very knowledgeable about photography) using larger formats? If it was a meme cellphones would have the same color as larger sensor cameras, and of course they don't.
Well if you care a lot about bokeh(i dont), FF is key, especially if you want it cheaply.
A gearfag that is recommending a 11 years old dslr. I'm a new kind of gear fag it seems, a retro gear queer!
>>2942594Maybe the are garbage because you are putting it on apsc?
>>2942628I hope you mean 11x17 inches, and if you are considering D3200 i have bad news. Its not sharper then EOS-m at all. You are not going to get big benefits with iso performance in the price range you stated.
