[bossa]

Here's an even more extreme example, a whopping 5x crop from a 10mm to the FOV of a 50mm, going from ultrawide to short telephoto without moving the camera (K-3):

10mm:


10mm cropped:


50mm:


So tell me, what is the difference in perspective that you claim focal length affects? All I see is that everything in the 10mm crop has the same relative size and position as in the 50mm shot because both were in the same spot pointed in the same direction. Ignore the DOF, that's obviously going to be different.

For reference, this Balrog figurine is 10 inches tall and 7 inches deep (roughly the size of a human head if you want to extrapolate). Shot from approximately 3 feet in front of it (the 70 vs 130mm was shot from about 9 feet away). The dragon is 18 inches behind it, and the bookshelf is approximately 6 feet behind it.

The original files for this, and the above 70 vs 130mm shots, are available for download if you want to try it yourself. Just don't look too closely at my apartment, please.

EDIT: changed the 10mm vs 50mm photos to a clearer demonstration.

Try cropping "out" instead of "in" and let us know how that goes (sorry couldn't help myself there)

[oxidized]

Artists, animators, dentists, publicists, ornithologists, astronomers, microbiologists (and probably any form of science you can think of) all need cameras, or photographs at least.

I believe you are kinda missing the point here... the ppl you list make up what? 1-2% of the market. now how many of those ppl actually need a DSLR? and a full frame DSLR? do they need various lens/focal lengths in their field? with advancement of technology these ppl hardly need anything more than point and shoot (short of some super niche equipment which they might needed for whatever advanced science they practice). pretty sure this is not the market segment pentax/canikon is after...

[panzerfaustnl]

It's not proof, because it's just one. But I have to go often to a hospital for my son. And his leg needed to be photographed, so we were sent to the photographer and instead of going to a mri kind of thing we were send to a real photographer who has a studio in the hospital with lights, boxes etc, just to photography medical situations. And he has a range of lenses build for medical situations. He uses a D700 and a D300s. with this type of lenses:

[Eyewanders]

".....the reason a photograph succeeds or doesn't lies behind the viewfinder and not in front of it...".

I've quoted this bit as I feel it sums up things quite well. This quote mirrors my own personal belief, developed after many years of photography and using different formats.


I do believe that once a photographer is using a certain level of camera equipment.... such as.... a Nikon D300s, Nikon D600, Nikon D 610, Canon 7D, 6D, 5D2, Pentax K-5 series, K-3 is essentially that in the end....how good the photograph is...is dependent more on photographer skill and lighting, than sensor size.

I think I've said that before, somewhere and if I have, forgive me as I'm an old guy. I maybe forgetful....but I am consistent.

This is gospel and the sum of this thread IMO... If it takes 9 pages to reach it (again), then so be it.

[bossa]

I believe you are kinda missing the point here... the ppl you list make up what? 1-2% of the market. now how many of those ppl actually need a DSLR? and a full frame DSLR? do they need various lens/focal lengths in their field? with advancement of technology these ppl hardly need anything more than point and shoot (short of some super niche equipment which they might needed for whatever advanced science they practice). pretty sure this is not the market segment pentax/canikon is after...

I'm not missing the point at all.

Here is what I quoted from your post:

"Unless you are a professional photographer I think it's safe to say you never truly "need" a camera"

You weren't talking about DSLR's or market share you were referring to "cameras" per se.

Humans don't really need much other than food and shelter so the topic is moot anyway.

[oxidized]

Humans don't really need much other than food and shelter so the topic is moot anyway.

exactly my point...

[richard balonglong]

Well, I happen to have bought Pentax and they don't offer a micro four thirds camera, although those are obviously quite nice and offer good quality. Below four thirds, there is quite a drop in dyanmic range and performance at high iso.

I think you buy based on glass and go from there.

Yes, that's true.. Based on the glasses on hand, it will be a factor for your preferences for a camera..

---------- Post added 05-05-14 at 12:25 PM ----------

Not if you consider the trade off, of IQ for portability. Every enthusiast wants to use the best camera possible without going into bankruptcy or carrying a barbell. For each of us, there is that magic point at which the portability and IQ intersect to give us the best option for what we do. If you're an MF dude, it's MF, if you're a 4/3 dude it's 4/3. There is no argument to be made. You are what you are. For a guy where 4/3 represents the best set of compromises it's pointless arguing he should move up to APS-c for IQ. He's already made that decision. Same arguing an APS-c guy should shoot FF, or an FF guy should shoot MF.


There is the whole insulting thing going on.... where the person commenting explains why the format they shoot is better, which ignores the choices taken into account when the person being addressed made their decision. Every format has it's strengths and compromises. Most people pushing one format over another aren't much better than the proselytizers that come to your door looking to convert you to their religion. They don't care what's right for you. They tell you what's right for them, and for some reason don't seem to have the capacity to understand, people are different, and what's right for you isn't right for everybody.


Both arguments are wrong... it's none of your business what someone else shoots. It only matter what's right for you. Even if you're the only person with the right set of shooting preferences to maximize your talent shooting APS-c, anyone who tells you you'd be better off shooting FF or 4/3 is wrong. SO if you mean, the arguments are equally offensive, ya they are.

Very true... It's not because one is satisfied in their choice of format that means others should be satisfied with it or go along with them too. Everyone have their own desires for their own output/images, thus, their choice of format relies on it.

[mecrox]

Well to get bak to subject of the thread, in my case the reason would be simple: to access a better lens catalogue than Pentax has with, in particular, better rendering fully across the frame for landscapes and interiors. Good value would also help, and I believe not a few FF lenses offer that over their nearest APS-C equivalents from the lands of Pentax or Fuji.

[pericombobulation]

As a hobbyist I have a few goals - a few things I want to get out of my hobby. Chief among these is a few large (LARGE) prints, both for my home and office. Hey, I've got a lot of empty wall space and big blowups are always impressive, right? I shoot all kinds of photos, but I want my giant blowups to be landscapes.

I've been to a few photo galleries over the past year or so and have seen some giant prints (or aluminum or other media) which knocked my socks off. Giant panoramas, gosh I don't even know how big - 40x60 at least, and even bigger. Or great big triptychs with each panel probably 3 feet on a side. Or long skinny panos that stretch the length of a couch. I want that. :-)

With my K-01 and K-30 I can print to about 20x30 without any significant loss of detail. I want to go bigger. So I've been experimenting with longer focal lengths and pano stitching to gain more pixels. This technique works great when all the stars are aligned and I've done a good job in the field. But it's difficult and success is not always guaranteed. And sometimes I screw up. :-)

So someone please tell me... do I need a FF camera?

[Rondec]

As a hobbyist I have a few goals - a few things I want to get out of my hobby. Chief among these is a few large (LARGE) prints, both for my home and office. Hey, I've got a lot of empty wall space and big blowups are always impressive, right? I shoot all kinds of photos, but I want my giant blowups to be landscapes.

I've been to a few photo galleries over the past year or so and have seen some giant prints (or aluminum or other media) which knocked my socks off. Giant panoramas, gosh I don't even know how big - 40x60 at least, and even bigger. Or great big triptychs with each panel probably 3 feet on a side. Or long skinny panos that stretch the length of a couch. I want that. :-)

With my K-01 and K-30 I can print to about 20x30 without any significant loss of detail. I want to go bigger. So I've been experimenting with longer focal lengths and pano stitching to gain more pixels. This technique works great when all the stars are aligned and I've done a good job in the field. But it's difficult and success is not always guaranteed. And sometimes I screw up. :-)

So someone please tell me... do I need a FF camera?

I don't honestly know how much bigger you can print with a D800 than a K3. One size bigger? Certainly for larger prints, you can get there using a pano head and a series of shots. This is a 65 megapixel image taken with a series of FA 31 limited photos and a K3.

[ElJamoquio]

As a hobbyist I have a few goals - a few things I want to get out of my hobby. Chief among these is a few large (LARGE) prints, both for my home and office. Hey, I've got a lot of empty wall space and big blowups are always impressive, right? I shoot all kinds of photos, but I want my giant blowups to be landscapes.

I've been to a few photo galleries over the past year or so and have seen some giant prints (or aluminum or other media) which knocked my socks off. Giant panoramas, gosh I don't even know how big - 40x60 at least, and even bigger. Or great big triptychs with each panel probably 3 feet on a side. Or long skinny panos that stretch the length of a couch. I want that. :-)

With my K-01 and K-30 I can print to about 20x30 without any significant loss of detail. I want to go bigger. So I've been experimenting with longer focal lengths and pano stitching to gain more pixels. This technique works great when all the stars are aligned and I've done a good job in the field. But it's difficult and success is not always guaranteed. And sometimes I screw up. :-)

So someone please tell me... do I need a FF camera?

Panorama's are great, I use them all the time. Great for mountains. Terrible for oceans.

[pericombobulation]

Yup, exactly, Rondec. That's what I'm talkin' about. Great shot. This one was originally somewhere around 60 MP as well:

[rawr]

So someone please tell me... do I need a FF camera?

There are also Foveons like the Sigma DP1 or 2, if landscapes and lots of detail are generally your thing. Combine a DP1 or 2 with panorama stitching and the results should be awesome.

The impact of output DPI on print size is always worth noting, of course, alongside viewing distance:
DPI Calculator | web.forret.com

[JoeMo]

I love the OP's missive about the essence of photography comes down 'to skill level, glass and lighting.' He is absolutely correct. My only petty retort is that I feel a bit cheated by not having the full traditional frame. I loved film and I want my digital camera to be everything it can to fill that roll. (No pun intended.) Sure you can get the 645Z, if you need the pixels. But I don't need the pixels. I love my old K-7. But I would love it even more if I thought it had a full-frame sensor. 14MP and all!

[cali92rs]

I love the OP's missive about the essence of photography comes down 'to skill level, glass and lighting.

That is nice in theory...but a little bit hypocritical. For example, there are plenty of top notch olympus and voigtlander lenses in micro 4/3 whose quality rivals anything in larger formats. What is it that makes APS-C as good as FF, but micro 4/3 not as good as APS-C?
Or 1"...or 1/1/7...and down the line.
There's a reason why photographers tend to buy into the largest format with associated system that they can afford.

If we could afford 645Zs, and their lenses, there would be a line around the block for them.