[Zafar Iqbal]

Size matters if you need it - if you don't then a lesser camera will do and can be "better" in terms of how much (or little) attention it attracts and convenience regarding portability.

I cover weddings using 2 K-30's and I'm fine for most part - the low light photos would turn out that bit clearer if I had FF and then there's some situations where I'm pretty much shooting under candle-lit conditions. Bye bye K-30.

[Winder]

Size matters if you need it - if you don't then a lesser camera will do and can be "better" in terms of how much (or little) attention it attracts and convenience regarding portability.

I cover weddings using 2 K-30's and I'm fine for most part - the low light photos would turn out that bit clearer if I had FF and then there's some situations where I'm pretty much shooting under candle-lit conditions. Bye bye K-30.

True. I shot with a Canon 5D for several years, and the K-5 has better high ISO. Smaller sensors will get to the point where the high ISO is more than good enough for any light that humans have wedding in.

For me its more about the glass. I shoot events and the 80-85mm is my bread and butter lens for people. On my Contax 645 the 80mm F/2 gives me the focal length I want with a great working distance. The 85L on the 5D is a little longer, but still a good working distance. On my K-5 the 85mm is almost too long for a wedding.

I love the quality of Olympus products and I don't have a problem with the M4/3 sensor for most work, but you have to use the 75mm lens to get good portraits and the working distance is way too long.

How different focal length lenses render is very important to me, and simply switching to a DA* 55mm to get the same FoV is not a solution. The 55mm lens will never render like an 85mm lens. Its not possible. It seems everyone thinks equivalence is simply a matter of FoV.

[Winder]

Rangefinder - Roberto Valenzuela's Medium Format Photography

Of course Bigger can be much better.

[RonHendriks1966]

Probably also depending on the country you are looking in. I think there are markets where Pentax is present and thus also having professionals using their camera's.

[magkelly]

I could take pro pics with my micro cam and maybe get away with it, if a client wasn't too picky, but no way I want to. Not professionally. It's not so much the sensor size. I mean I'm a portraitist. I'm not usually printing billboards here so it's mostly a non-issue, size, but I just don't think the pics are often quite as good as with my DSLR in terms of noise and that. They're not bad, and for personal stuff, snapshots, non-work it's fine. I'd take on on vacation if I wasn't planning anything major, no problem, but if I am going to be working and selling my stuff I'd still want a DSLR or a film cam depending.

[Rupert]

I think sensor size is only a part of the equation. There are so many other factors for a specific need or use by a shooter. I'm no Pro, by any means, but I can see a few weaknesses in Pentax that would be critical to some Pro shooters, depending on their field of choice in shooting.....landscapes, sports, portraits, street shooting......they all demand different expertise and camera qualities.

I love my K5 (original) and am in no way knocking it for its overall abilities, it is superb. However, many times I resort to my little FujiX20 instead because it will get the shot my K5 will not.

My K5 will not focus even with the assist light in total darkness. The X20 locks almost every time.
[IMG] [/IMG]

Not a Nat Geo quality shot for certain, but it is a shot, one my K5 would not get, and I've tried it many times. The X20 is both fast and accurate to focus. I'd love to see the new model K3...or whatever...have Nikon quality focus abilities, for me that is the only area where Pentax falls short. It can be done, I just hope they will do it. Fast and accurate focus is still one of the main attributes needed in a camera for most all shooters. Anyone that has shot a D800 will tell you how much difference it can make!

Regards!

[Ex Finn.]

Not a Nat Geo quality shot for certain,

Don`t sell your self short, have that raccoon go sailing across the air from a NASA rocket launch and NAT GEO would be all over it

Cheers
edit: and PETA and green peace too, come to think of it.

[Rupert]

edit: and PETA and green peace too, come to think of it.

I did remind Mrs Rupert that threatening to make coonskin caps out of my raccoons because they "look at her funny" could bring a pre-emptive strike on her by PETA. Didn't seem to worry her much, she is definitely not a raccoon fan.
I love the little fellers! So much fun to watch, and each one has a different personality.
Regards!

Patiently waiting for dinner on the back deck.....when Mrs Rupert opens the door to go out and sees a sight like this, all hell breaks out!
[IMG] [/IMG]

[Winder]

Don`t sell your self short, have that raccoon go sailing across the air from a NASA rocket launch and NAT GEO would be all over it

But you make a valid point. The sensor size and quality is not as important as the subject matter being captured.

If you want your pictures to be interesting then take pictures of interesting subjects. That is what separates professionals from the rest. It is the quality of their subject matter and how they capture it, not the quality of their gear or the size of the sensor. I'm not saying that sensor size doesn't have advantages or disadvantages, just that its really not that important.

[Winder]

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 Full Real World Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

[MRRiley]

Conflict Photographer's Best Pictures Are Some of Humanity's Worst Moments | Raw File | Wired.com

Magnum photographer uses mostly M4/3.

"I mostly work with an Olympus OM-D E-M5 camera"

How many Magnum photographers use Pentax? Why don't we see articles about professionals who use Pentax?

Magnum photographers can use whatever they want to use. They all have the chops and the portfolios to prove that they could shoot great photos with a hundred year old Kodak Brownie.

The thing we have to realize is that, much like other things in life, size... in this case sensor size... does not matter. What matters to a professional and his/her clients is... RESULTS!

There are indeed some media organs and major clearing houses (such as Getty Images) that once encouraged or even required specific "minimum" cameras and unfortunately this was done out of ignorance and often I suspect to some degree, a subsidized bias (think Canon and Nikon payola).

From Getty's old "Work with Us" page (~2008-2011)...

• If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Canon EOS: 1D(Mk1,2&3), 1DS(Mk1,2,2n&3) 5D, 30D and 40D; Nikon: D2X, D2Xs, D3, D200, D300 and the Leica M8. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.

Whats funny, is that Getty would accept images from Full Frame 11Mpx cameras such as the 11 year old Canon 1DS all the way down to the 4Mpx APS-H Canon 1D from 2000. Other brands had cameras superior to the 1D during those years, so to me this indicates that there was an artificial and suspicious bias towards the "Big 2." Of course, there were allowances for "Medium Format" Leaf and Phase One backs (as little as 4-6Mpx range in the mid 90s) and, somewhat aberrantly, the non-FF Leica M8 (10Mpx APS-H). The last is an obvious nod toward the Leica fans on their board.

In 2011, Getty discontinued their "approved camera" list and now concentrates on image quality.

We will only accept JPEG images which have been converted from uncompressed 47.5-52 MB TIFF files, (flattened, with no layers, paths or channels) - 24 bit RGB Color, 8 bits per channel (8 bit file).

For 35mm digital capture, we strongly recommend use of a professional-quality digital SLR using RAW or uncompressed TIFF format. Most compact "point-and-shoot" and consumer-level cameras do not produce images of the level of quality our customers demand, and would not be suitable for submission to Getty Images.

Wonder what they'll do when they start getting 40Mpx files from Nokia cell phone cameras?