Originally posted by normhead The way 4/3 was implemented was a complete cash grab. Not as capable gear for more money.
Full frame or APS-c, you be the judge. - PentaxForums.com Amuse yer selves.... format wars.. - PentaxForums.com
APS-c is lighter and more functional for 95% of what I do.. Most people don't even see a difference in their images at the size they most often view them, not even in resolution. If you reduce the size of an image, you also reduce the resolution. It doesn't matter what format you shoot at for 3840x2160 viewing, there's practically no difference at all.
Shooting birds with a 4 FPS with a 6 shot buffer is excruciating. Shooting 8 FPS with at 23 shot buffer by comparison is an absolute joy.
Years of experience has shown me that the rate at which people like my images is not used on the format I used to shoot it. Even in areas like you'd expect. Last summer I shot many sunsets beside my wife with her K-5, me with my K-1. The results for anything we've made use of are identical. There might be some theoretical situation where we blow the images up to 60x40 inches where it might make a difference. People always claim it's true, but they can never show us an example.
But that is exactly what I’m saying. There may well be “advantages” of APS-C, or even the lack thereof of FF. It’s the same deal as comparing cameras of today to those from few years ago. The differences are minuscule. Worse yet, consider this crazy fact. There was a blind comparison of shots wide open between Leica Noctilux 50/.95 ($12,500) vs. TT Artisan 50/.95 ($800). 2/3 of so called self described Leica experts/diehards got it wrong. You mentioned m3/4 being a money grab but so is everything else, literally. After all it looks like they tricked you into buying a K-1!.
I seriously doubt Pentax has a blind devotion to bird shooters, and the reason they are plugging on with APS-c is because they think there is money to be made, or that this is the only way they could survive. Seemingly, the shrinking DSLR/mirrorless market (as opposed to compacts and cellphone cams) is leaning towards FF, and despite minuscule differences the marketing of it is that they want you to buy FF, as it got you (and me). At this stage, APSC is a niche, especially an advanced level APS-C feels like to me like beating a dead horse. I just don’t see how they can get away with it by selling above two grand. This is forever accentuated by the death of m3/4 for sure.
I won’t argue that a killer state of the art APSC can compete against a FF set up, especially with those awesome DA Ltds. But if they bet on that - they may hurt the upcoming FF by having to push up the pricing of it.
Me personally, I got DA 15, 35, 40, 55 more or less collecting dust (actually, I use 35 macro ltd quite a bit on K-1 still). and would consider a stellar APS-C body if priced to my liking but not at $2,000 or more. At $1,500 I may (probably not). For around 2K I bet you can get a dying but brand new OM-D and a couple of killer tele’s, and I bet you would be pressed to tell the difference between that and K-5 in terms of IQs etc.