[normhead]

However, it's not a hard rule. If someone ever made a FF sensor with the same pixel density as current APS-C cameras, that advantage would vanish.

There is the Canon 51 MP sensor, but as far as I can tell it has serious issues with false colour , moire, cross talk between pixels. But at low ISO pretty incredible resolution. But definitely not up to 645z standards.

But that's just what I've read. Maybe there are some Canon users who are just as negative as some Pentax users.

[UncleVanya]

The Canon EOS 5DS is close to the same density. 50.6 mp yields roughly 22.5 mp on an apsc sized crop (1.5 not Canon's 1.6) so not quite as detailed but very very close.

---------- Post added 03-26-18 at 08:27 AM ----------

There is the Canon 51 MP sensor, but as far as I can tell it has serious issues with false colour , moire, cross talk between pixels. But at low ISO pretty incredible resolution. But definitely not up to 645z standards.

But that's just what I've read. Maybe there are some Canon users who are just as negative as some Pentax users.

Your post is more informative than mine. I was posting while you finished, I'd have just liked yours had I seen it. Lol.

[normhead]

The Canon EOS 5DS is close to the same density. 50.6 mp yields roughly 22.5 mp on an apsc sized crop (1.5 not Canon's 1.6) so not quite as detailed but very very close.

That's not a difference I would worry about. In terms of IQ. Better to worry about things you can actually see. In a very large percentage of your images, the detail will be the same, 22 MP and 24 MP. There are those here arguing that 20 MP is all they need.

After the basic resolution threshold has been reached, say 16 MP, adding a few more MP doesn't make much if any difference. You need to add at least 50% more MP to e able to go "wow". And even then, on many images you won't be able to tell which is which.

[UncleVanya]

That's not a difference I would worry about. In terms of IQ. Better to worry about things you can actually see. In a very large percentage of your images, the detail will be the same, 22 MP and 24 MP. There are those here arguing that 20 MP is all they need.

After the basic resolution threshold has been reached, say 16 MP, adding a few more MP doesn't make much if any difference. You need to add at least 50% more MP to e able to go "wow". And even then, on many images you won't be able to tell which is which.

Agreed, I've seen studies in perception that suggest about 2x the resolution is needed for untrained observers to tell the difference. This assumes normal size output, no pixel peeping.

[biz-engineer]

After the basic resolution threshold has been reached, say 16 MP, adding a few more MP doesn't make much if any difference.

I've seen photos in the 300mm+ lens club, PF member Ducatigz shooting FA*600 on a K5... it just tells me 1) working distance and 2) good glass, make the difference.

[normhead]

I've seen photos in the 300mm+ lens club, PF member Ducatigz shooting FA*600 on a K5... it just tells me 1) working distance and 2) good glass, make the difference.

Good glass is sharp no matter what it's on. It will produce sharp images on 6 MP or 36 MP. Poor glass might be ok on 6 MP. But if it's soft on 6 MP it certainly isn't going to be sharp on 36 MP.

On 6 MP I thought my 70-300 was a pretty good lens. Anything 16 or over and it's pretty much unusable in the long end.

[BruceBanner]

For a wedding a prime lens for indoors and a zoom on the second body for outdoors could fit the needs. I'd use thre lenses with one camera.
Since the preferences of most people are different, only recommendations can be given here.
Like some prefer details/overview sceneries, large/small depth of field or small/lightweight gear. Doing a wedding just with Limiteds is also possible.

Hey good points, I never actually thought properly about the indoor aspect and being limited by f2.8 on most zooms. Primes do go wider and this in dimly indoor lit environments is a serious advantage. Perhaps instead of thinking in terms of covering all focal ranges I need to flip things on the side and think more in terms of 'all lighting conditions'

I have indeed shot a wedding with nothing but primes, and just last week a hectic concert where most photographers had a single body and 24-70 to work with I had two bodies with a DA15mm f4, a FA 50mm 1.4 and a DFA 100mm 2.8 to work with.

If I end up going down the 70-200mm 2.8 route I think I would have to flog the DFA 100mmm 2.8, I mean I can get that exact FL and aperture with the 70-200mm, all I'm missing out on is Macro. If I could then focus more intently on 'indoor' primes that also can Macro then I'm perhaps amassing a wiser and more versatile lens line up for my bodies. (suggest away lol)

[aslyfox]

. . . If I end up going down the 70-200mm 2.8 route I think I would have to flog the DFA 100mmm 2.8, I mean I can get that exact FL and aperture with the 70-200mm, all I'm missing out on is Macro. If I could then focus more intently on 'indoor' primes that also can Macro then I'm perhaps amassing a wiser and more versatile lens line up for my bodies. (suggest away lol)

as I understand it

the advantage of the 100mm F 2.8 macro family vs. other macros is that

1 - it can be easier to shoot macro with that focal length

2 - there are several different lenses and therefore price level which share the same optics: F, FA, D FA, D FA WR

3 - and macro lenses are " sharp " by their nature as a designated macro lens

[BruceBanner]

as I understand it

the advantage of the 100mm F 2.8 macro family vs. other macros is that

1 - it can be easier to shoot macro with that focal length

2 - there are several different lenses and therefore price level which share the same optics: F, FA, D FA, D FA WR

3 - and macro lenses are " sharp " by their nature as a designated macro lens

Hmm... yeh, perhaps hold onto it and compare more directly before flogging it lol.

But really I think I'd rather have a 85/1.4 or a 135/2 for portrait work, and these would also work better indoors than the 100/2.8, and if I do get a 70-200/2.8 then it does make it hard to justify holding onto a prime that falls within the 70-200 domain. (i am a poor man and have to justify many things to the boss!).
Initially I was thinking the only prime I'd justify would be something like a 85/1.4 or 135/2 in amongst the 2 zooms i'd likely end up with (70-200 and 24-70 etc).

Still... lots of choices and options to factor in.