[jsherman999]

For journalism though,, its becoming less print oriented and more web publishing , where a crappy noisy 41mp image can be shrunken down to a 72dpi 6x4 image for a web article.. .

Yes, journalism (covering stories where telephoto or fast AF isn't needed at least) is a great candidate for camera phones. PJ work hasn't been a big DSLR market for years now, though, there just are not that many PJs out there, and the markets are shrinking.

[rrstuff]

You assume that everyone always wants huge depth of field and are just fine with noise, so they're always stopping down their FF cameras to match the ideal look of micro 4/3? (Do m/43 shooters ever wish, in their deepest REM dreams, to go the other way? Occasionally get less DOF, less noise? )



You have to stop down your OM-D several times to match the deep DOF of the Nokia phone camera! This means that you've overpaid for your OMD!

.

As I said this pertains specifically to cases when you need more depth of field. I am not that into the shallow depth of field. I find it troublesome, for example for street photography, landscapes and macros. I am sure some people will want to have as little of depth of focus as possible, but for me the amount we get in M4/3 and APS-C is perfect. For lower DOF shooting becomes difficult - no possibility of recomposing, subject moving an inch, the delay for moving subjects. I can see why an average amateur photographer might want to have more, rather than less, depth of focus. That's why I can relate to the notion that APS-C/M4.3 will be more commonly used than the full frame along with a significant cost advantage in the optics department.

[jsherman999]

As I said this pertains specifically to cases when you need more depth of field. I am not that into the shallow depth of field. I find it troublesome, for example for street photography, landscapes and macros. I am sure some people will want to have as little of depth of focus as possible, but for me the amount we get in M4/3 and APS-C is perfect. For lower DOF shooting becomes difficult - no possibility of recomposing, subject moving an inch, the delay for moving subjects. I can see why an average amateur photographer might want to have more, rather than less, depth of focus. That's why I can relate to the notion that APS-C/M4.3 will be more commonly used than the full frame along with a significant cost advantage in the optics department.

I think in most cases where folks don't care about DOF, they may care about noise (or DR) up from base ISO and are willing to accept one stop less DOF to gain one stop cleaner image.

In a lot of cases, distance to subject and FL makes the DOF issue moot - there's enough DOF at that distance to comfortably hold the entire subject, and you simply gain the stop of noise control - win/win. Street shooting comes to mind here - most of the time you're far enough away from your subject that you never have to worry about 'too little DOF'. Of course that's not always true, and in those cases, you can simply stop down.

20mm f/6.3 ISO 6400 on FF, equiv to aprox. 13mm f/4 ISO 3000 on aps-c & 10mm f/2.8 ISO 1600 on m43


Re size/cost: I've found that once you add some lenses onto the front of a 'small-bodied-large-sensor' camera, the whole thing is no longer really very small anyway... but it still is a bit smaller than most FF combos and less expensive. I guess I just haven't found it as versatile for all the shooting situations I find myself in. As a dedicated-street kit, m43 might be nice (with the right lens,) but as a general-purpose kit... it lacks, for me. YMMV.

.

[EssJayEff]

Yes, journalism (covering stories where telephoto or fast AF isn't needed at least) is a great candidate for camera phones. PJ work hasn't been a big DSLR market for years now, though, there just are not that many PJs out there, and the markets are shrinking.

Last autumn I went to the Magnum Photo symposium at Austin, Texas. Among the photographers who spoke was Michael Christopher Brown. He documented the Libyan revolution in 2011 with a camera phone. Check out http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_9_VForm&ERID=2K1HRGWPN2V8

[Rondec]

I think in most cases where folks don't care about DOF, they may care about noise (or DR) up from base ISO and are willing to accept one stop less DOF to gain one stop cleaner image.

In a lot of cases, distance to subject and FL makes the DOF issue moot - there's enough DOF at that distance to comfortably hold the entire subject, and you simply gain the stop of noise control - win/win. Street shooting comes to mind here - most of the time you're far enough away from your subject that you never have to worry about 'too little DOF'. Of course that's not always true, and in those cases, you can simply stop down.

20mm f/6.3 ISO 6400 on FF, equiv to aprox. 13mm f/4 ISO 3000 on aps-c & 10mm f/2.8 ISO 1600 on m43


Re size/cost: I've found that once you add some lenses onto the front of a 'small-bodied-large-sensor' camera, the whole thing is no longer really very small anyway... but it still is a bit smaller than most FF combos and less expensive. I guess I just haven't found it as versatile for all the shooting situations I find myself in. As a dedicated-street kit, m43 might be nice (with the right lens,) but as a general-purpose kit... it lacks, for me. YMMV.

.

I think for photo journalism, more depth of field is often a good thing. Your goal isn't to separate people from their surroundings, it is to show them in their surroundings. What makes these photos "good photos" is the way in which they tell a story. I can understand how someone could use a camera from a depth of field stand point for photo journalism. I am not totally sure from a camera performance stand point. My i phone just doesn't take photos very quickly and feels laggy. But I guess there are better camera phones out there.

[Paul MaudDib]

I can see why. I am annoyed with the low depth of focus and expensive lenses of bigger sensors.

What in the world are you talking about? You do realize Pentax just released a $1000 kit lens, the 20-40 f2.8-4, right? Or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8? You do realize that the same money would buy you your choice of professional full frame zooms or primes, right? And you do realize that half the time people end up buying full frame lenses to put on their crop bodies anyway?

There's a small difference in manufacturing cost, but you'll never see that in retail prices. Whether a lens is "consumer", "prosumer" or "high-end" market for its sensor has a lot more to do with retail than sensor size.

We've had the thread where people work out the cost of buying a decent full frame system versus a decent crop system, and they're practically identical as long as you're not obsessed with the idea of owning the top-of-the-line 2014 model of every single lens. And while you don't want shallow depth-of-field, many people do, and trying to match that on crop systems is a bottomless pit of money because the lenses need to be a fair bit faster, and going from f2 to f1.2 to match DoF is a huge jump in cost and (likely) a huge drop in image quality

Also, the difference between full frame and APS-C is real but not earthshattering. Something like 6x7 is going to have a lot more noticeably shallow depth-of-field and it's still perfectly controllable even there. If you really want more depth of field, you can just push the ISO up a stop and then stop the aperture down. Full frame is enough better than APS-C that you'll still come out ahead in terms of noise and IQ. It's much harder to go the other way.

[philbaum]

Last autumn I went to the Magnum Photo symposium at Austin, Texas. Among the photographers who spoke was Michael Christopher Brown. He documented the Libyan revolution in 2011 with a camera phone. Check out Magnum Photos Photographer Profile

Thanks for sharing the link. Convincing/dramatic photographic series.

Monday evening, after the main presentation at our photo club, there was an announced exercise in using our cameras. 4 members who have dslrs, chose to participate in the exercise with their cell phones instead, leaving their dslrs at home. This is only one small data point, but one sees many more instances when even enthusiasts are buying and using smart phones for cameras - not solely perhaps -but the interest is there. The revolution is happening - now.

[Clavius]

Thanks for sharing the link. Convincing/dramatic photographic series.

Monday evening, after the main presentation at our photo club, there was an announced exercise in using our cameras. 4 members who have dslrs, chose to participate in the exercise with their cell phones instead, leaving their dslrs at home. This is only one small data point, but one sees many more instances when even enthusiasts are buying and using smart phones for cameras - not solely perhaps -but the interest is there. The revolution is happening - now.

I see this happening also, and that is why I am so happy to see manufacturers sticking as large as possible sensors in as small as possible camera bodies. And making those camera bodies play very nice with mobile phones. I think that's the only way the system camera is going to live on, by taking advantage of the fact that they have larger sensors and can mount good quality lenses. But they do have to play VERY nice with mobile devices or they deserve to disappear.

[Rondec]

What in the world are you talking about? You do realize Pentax just released a $1000 kit lens, the 20-40 f2.8-4, right? Or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8? You do realize that the same money would buy you your choice of professional full frame zooms or primes, right? And you do realize that half the time people end up buying full frame lenses to put on their crop bodies anyway?

There's a small difference in manufacturing cost, but you'll never see that in retail prices. Whether a lens is "consumer", "prosumer" or "high-end" market for its sensor has a lot more to do with retail than sensor size.

We've had the thread where people work out the cost of buying a decent full frame system versus a decent crop system, and they're practically identical as long as you're not obsessed with the idea of owning the top-of-the-line 2014 model of every single lens. And while you don't want shallow depth-of-field, many people do, and trying to match that on crop systems is a bottomless pit of money because the lenses need to be a fair bit faster, and going from f2 to f1.2 to match DoF is a huge jump in cost and (likely) a huge drop in image quality

Also, the difference between full frame and APS-C is real but not earthshattering. Something like 6x7 is going to have a lot more noticeably shallow depth-of-field and it's still perfectly controllable even there. If you really want more depth of field, you can just push the ISO up a stop and then stop the aperture down. Full frame is enough better than APS-C that you'll still come out ahead in terms of noise and IQ. It's much harder to go the other way.

It is clear that you pay a premium for Pentax glass. It just isn't cheap. And certainly if Pentax releases a full frame camera, its version of the 24-70 f2.8 will come in at 1500 and its version of the 70-200 f2.8 will come in at 2500. They probably will have some kit lens for cheaper, but they don't have the volume that other brands have in order to drop their prices.

Of course, you can just get Sigma/Tamron lenses as well, but if you are going to do that, you might as well get a D800.

[monochrome]

I had a conversation yesterday with a young coworker who had upgraded from whatever Canon crop sensor to a NIB 5DMkII - our dealer was clearing back-stock. He says the dealer had talked him into buying whatever is Canon's best FF 70-200 zoom (see post above).

He wasn't really too impressed with the improvement and was going to take it back - until he printed some photos. So once again, the difference probably isn't so much in the viewing - it is in the printing. An iPhone just can't do that.

Interestingly (commentary on something) he came in to tell me his story because his wife was at home playing with the new toy and she couldn't freeze the motion of snowflakes falling while their dog jumped up to catch them. He was on his cell trying to explain and came over to ask me what he should tell her to do. As if I'm an expert.

[ElJamoquio]

It is clear that you pay a premium for Pentax glass. It just isn't cheap. And certainly if Pentax releases a full frame camera, its version of the 24-70 f2.8 will come in at 1500 and its version of the 70-200 f2.8 will come in at 2500.

I'd say $1900 for the 24-70.

Of course, you can just get Sigma/Tamron lenses as well, but if you are going to do that, you might as well get a D800.

Nikon's user interface is sucktastic.

[Rondec]

I'd say $1900 for the 24-70.






Nikon's user interface is sucktastic.

It's not that bad. Just if you get a D600, right? I would assume it is better on a D800/D4 (I haven't used any of them, so take that with a grain of salt).

[normhead]

What in the world are you talking about? You do realize Pentax just released a $1000 kit lens, the 20-40 f2.8-4, right? Or the Sigma 18-35 f1.8? You do realize that the same money would buy you your choice of professional full frame zooms or primes, right? And you do realize that half the time people end up buying full frame lenses to put on their crop bodies anyway?

Today's prices at Henry's

SIgma 8-16 APS-c $799 - Nikkor 14-24 $1,749, and the Sigma is wider...
Pentax 16-50 $1,199 Nikkor AFS 1,649
Pentax 50-135 $1,399 ƒ2.8 Nikkor 70-200 ƒ2.8 $ 2179
Pentax 60-250 $1,399 ƒ4 Nikkor AF-s 200-400 ƒ4 $6499

Pentax K-3 $1100 Nikon D610 $1999

Totals..
Pentax system Approx $6,000 Nikon FF system Approx $14,000

Both systems produce about the same IQ in good light, with APS-c having more DoF, for people who value that, and the FF system having less DoF for those who value that.

And you can leave out the 50-135 on the Pentax system bringing it down to $4600, as unless you want ƒ2.8 the DA* 60-250 covers most of it's range.

And you do realize that half the time people end up buying full frame lenses to put on their crop bodies anyway?

I don't believe I listed even one FF lens in the Pentax line up. And I can make the Pentax line up cheaper and better by inserting the APS-c Tamron 17-50 for $489. I don't think you can make the Nikon system better by buying cheaper glass.

Take out the 50-135 and substitute the Tamron 17-50 for the Pentax 16-50 and you have a very high quality system, quite comparable to the D610 system, for $3,700. Close to the total cost for a D800 and kit lens.

[infoomatic]

Today's prices at Henry's

SIgma 8-16 APS-c $799 - Nikkor 14-24 $1,749, and the Sigma is wider...
Pentax 16-50 $1,199 Nikkor AFS 1,649
Pentax 50-135 $1,399 ƒ2.8 Nikkor 70-200 ƒ2.8 $ 2179
Pentax 60-250 $1,399 ƒ4 Nikkor AF-s 200-400 ƒ4 $6499

Pentax K-3 $1100 Nikon D610 $1999

Totals..
Pentax system Approx $6,000 Nikon FF system Approx $14,000

This is a wrong calculation: given the at least one stop better noise handling of FF systems, one should choose the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR (the Pentax 60-250/4 is a 90-375/6 in FF terms) which is cheaper than the Pentax 60-250. Furthermore, the Nikon AF 24-85mm 2.8-4.0D on FF is more like the Pentax 16-50 on APS-C, and the Nikon is again about 1/4 cheaper than the Pentax. Also, to the Pentax 50-138/2.8 there is the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 4.0G ED which is the same price. And: you can definitely not compare the Sigma UW-Zoom to Nikons, the image quality the latter delivers cannot be compared to the Sigma, its completely a different league.

When you take the Sigma 14-24/4.5-5.6 DGII instead of the Nikon, then here you pay 5039 € for the Nikon FF system and 4929 for the Pentax APS-C system...

[ElJamoquio]

This is a wrong calculation: given the at least one stop better noise handling of FF systems, one should choose the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6 VR (the Pentax 60-250/4 is a 90-375/6 in FF terms) which is cheaper than the Pentax 60-250. Furthermore, the Nikon AF 24-85mm 2.8-4.0D on FF is more like the Pentax 16-50 on APS-C, and the Nikon is again about 1/4 cheaper than the Pentax. Also, to the Pentax 50-138/2.8 there is the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 4.0G ED which is the same price. And: you can definitely not compare the Sigma UW-Zoom to Nikons, the image quality the latter delivers cannot be compared to the Sigma, its completely a different league.

I can get the 18-55 for $100 or something, look how much more expensive FF glass is!