[johnmflores]

Ever shot a wedding?

I'm not saying professionals can't or don't use APS-C. I use a K-3 and will continue to use it, in certain situations, even when a FF body comes along. What I'm saying is that I also need the advantages a FF bring in certain situations, and I'm sure there are many other pros who are the same (which is why they give pentax a miss). Think of dark churches or reception venues, when you would prefer natural / ambient lighting over flash...or wide angle group shots without distortion....or portraits of the bride with as much creative DoF as possible....

No, I've never been sentenced to shoot a wedding. But if I had to shoot one tomorrow, I'd switch to Nikon as much for their AF and strobes as for their FF. Pentax is a long way from cracking that market.

And I wouldn't equate "Pro" to "Wedding". It's just one market. And related to the topic of this thread, I'd hazard a guess that most "Pro" work gets viewed as frequently (or more frequently) on a screen these days versus in print. And it just so happens that smaller sensor cameras have gotten better just at a time when viewing formats have become smaller.

I've got one friend, a working pro, that's ditched his FF Canon in favor of the Panasonic GH4 and the F2.8 zooms. He couldn't be happier. And he shoots events. Often very dark ones. For his personal work, he's even put away his medium format and is using the GH4. And his pictures are great. You know why? Because of him.

A couple of years ago I did a motorcycle trip with a couple of other journalists. One guy had a Canon 7D. The other a 5D. I had the K-5. I got the better shots. Another time I had an editor email me requesting use of one of my photos because the guy he sent to the event didn't take a good shot with his Nikon. What did I have? A Panasonic GH2.

And that's my greater point–if we photographers continue to place gear above talent and skill then we can't complain when the unwashed massed come up to us and say, "That's a nice camera! It must take nice pictures!"

I'm with you. MOST of us want - pros actually need.

My wedding was shot on a 6x7. Wooden handle with flash and a cord. He used a little hand-held bounce flash now and then for the outdoor wedding party shots (did he have three hands?). The neg envelopes feel like a stack of 3x5 Index Cards.

No flash was permitted in the church - and it is a dark and medieval church - so the guy set the bride in shafts of light, white dress and low key or back lit side profile was the best he could do (pros hate our church). Stuff is really art - not documentary work. (She's really pretty and the dress was hand-embroidered, with seed pearls and appliques - her mother made it - he captured her and the dress . . . . ).

I really don't think he could have done it with 35mm. None of my friends who were married there have that kind of wedding photos. My son and daughter-in-law have the typical 5DMkII formula album.

Soon.

Don't give the camera credit. I bet the photog, given a 35mm or a 5DII, would have still managed to do something special. Not the same as the 6x7, but special nonetheless. He's the talented one, not the camera. He's the pro, not the camera.

[6BQ5]

I'll add a +1 to the comments from johnmflores above. Gear is nice but it's more about the photographer than the technical specs. I too have read that some pros (i.e. people paid for their photography) are switching to u4/3 tech. Everything is smaller and lighter yet can still produce excellent results that people are willing to pay for.

Besides, didn't someone get their images from a Q series camera professionally published recently?

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 10:45 PM ----------

I bumped into a quote from HCB that made me think of this thread :

Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important. - Henri Cartier-Bresson

[jsherman999]

Don't give the camera credit. I bet the photog, given a 35mm or a 5DII, would have still managed to do something special. Not the same as the 6x7, but special nonetheless. He's the talented one, not the camera. He's the pro, not the camera.

John, everything you say in that post is correct, but it's no real revelation - it's the same old saw, "It's the photographer that counts, not the equipment." The problem with that realization is that no-one who knows anything about anything disputes that.

The meta discussion (aps-c vs FF vs m43 vs. whatever) takes that truth for granted, it's built into it. It's moved beyond that in a way. Bringing it up isn't an epiphany, its a regression.

[johnmflores]

John, everything you say in that post is correct, but it's no real revelation - it's the same old saw, "It's the photographer that counts, not the equipment." The problem with that realization is that no-one who knows anything about anything disputes that.

The meta discussion (aps-c vs FF vs m43 vs. whatever) takes that truth for granted, it's built into it. It's moved beyond that in a way. Bringing it up isn't an epiphany, its a regression.

That meta discussion about sensor size has been done at least a million times by now. Is there really anything new that's going to be discussed, or is it just going to be a rehash of what was said last week, last month, and last year? Let me summarize it for you:

Bigger!
Smaller!
Depth of field!
Lighter!
Low light!
Getting better every year!
Diffraction!
My back!

Did I miss anything?

Forget about regression. This whole sensor size debate is a distraction from real, valuable discussions about how and why and where to take good photos. Sure, there are times where FF is the "right" tool, but there are also times where APS-C is the "right" tool, and likewise times where MF is the "right" tool.

Debating sensor size without talking about the intent of the photographer is the tail wagging the dog.

[dadipentak]

never been sentenced to shoot a wedding

Well put!

[monochrome]

Don't give the camera credit. I bet the photog, given a 35mm or a 5DII, would have still managed to do something special. Not the same as the 6x7, but special nonetheless. He's the talented one, not the camera. He's the pro, not the camera.

I have to give the camera credit for enabling those specific shots. I don't believe those specific shots could have been made with other gear and apparently not by another photographer if what we've seen of wedding prints over the years is an indication (I could be wrong, of course). Our (her) guy was primarily a studio portraitist - looks like he viewed the setting as a metaphorical studio.

My point is, gear enables, shooter creates. Can't have specific product without both.

Msot consumers only understand the gear part - it takes only moments to spend money on a FF camera. Who wants to invest years of work in skill and technique and experience and knowledge and accept the gift of creativity or photographer's eye, when buying gear is so quick and easy?

[jsherman999]

...

Forget about regression. This whole sensor size debate is a distraction from real, valuable discussions about how and why and where to take good photos. Sure, there are times where FF is the "right" tool, but there are also times where APS-C is the "right" tool, and likewise times where MF is the "right" tool.

Debating sensor size without talking about the intent of the photographer is the tail wagging the dog.

Are you proposing a requirement that for every post someone makes in "Pentax Full Frame", they're required to make another post in one of the technique or artistic or aesthetic-centered subforums?

The technical arguments about equipment choice are not mutually exclusive to those. The human mind can (generally) hold both concepts.

If you personally are tired of or bored by the debate, why read them and why participate, other than to say "what you're talking about isn't worth talking about," which is what these inevitable "it's the photographer not the equipment!" interjections really are.

.

[ElJamoquio]

This whole sensor size debate is a distraction from real, valuable discussions about how and why and where to take good photos.

Huh? Jsherman has said dozens of times that any sensor size can take any picture. That's the fundamental conclusion of equivalence.

[rburgoss]

This is turning interesting.

Of course, wedding photography is one of the pro-oriented photo jobs. If fact, besides being on assignment to photograph some astronomic, biological or political event that happens just once in a lifetime (or century), wedding photography is about the riskiest business there is around. With todays digital gear, at least the photographer can check every once in a while if the production is coming out as expected, but back in the film days, I wouldn't even dare to "help" shooting pics in a wedding and two days later discover that the lab screwed up the film... Horrors!

By reading all the answers about this thread, I kept asking myself the same question over and over... Do I really need a ff body? ... and after a couple of days, I found a "valid" answer (for me) that does not involve claiming I need the extra resolution for my purposes. Here is my answer: "Yes I do, because I would like to use back all my 10 legacy full frame lenses to their extent.

Just think how sad I am that since putting away my PZ1P and started shooting with the *istD, My SMC-A 15/3.5, FA20/2.8 and F17-28 fisheye zoom have never been used again, and for God's sake, I love those lenses, but only on full frame coverage.

So there it is, my valid answer towards the need for a ff body, without trying to fool myself that the extra pixels would make a real difference.

Of course, dumping Pentax and switching brands if out of the question.... would you care to calculate how much it will cost to replace my glass arsenal in any other brand?

Wanna know something really ironic about the attached picture: It was shot using my smartphone in panorama mode!

[RonHendriks1966]

That FA*24mm/f2.0 is f2.0

[rburgoss]

That FA*24mm/f2.0 is f2.0

Ooooops.. my mistake. Copy/Paste can backfire any moment.

Thank you. Its fixed!

[RonHendriks1966]

Ooooops.. my mistake. Copy/Paste can backfire any moment.

Thank you. Its fixed!

You should really buy something new. Cameramakers can only survive by customers who regular buy their products.

[rburgoss]

You should really buy something new. Cameramakers can only survive by customers who regular buy their products.

I did, I just got a new MX-1 (store demo) for a very good price. But yes, I should renew some of my DSLR stuff.

I am really thinking about the K3, but history has taught me that any time soon, there will be a new K3 (debugged) version, like it did back with the PZ1 (12 months later the PZ1P), the ZX5 (then ZX5n), the *istD (then the *istDS), the K5, (then K5 II... then K5 IIs); so I wouldn´t be surprised if in the next 3 to 6 months, a new K3 "something" shows up... Get my idea?

Of course, I wouldn't expect a ff frame body. I do believe Pentax (Ricoh) has put too much money and effort around the APS-c format, relying on the usability of old K mount glass on the newer bodies, but this issue does not work backwards. All the DA glass will be next to unusable on any new ff camera, leaving recent customers "abandoned".

I really don't think Pentax has the market share to play with both formats at the same time as N and C do, with pro and consumer oriented gear under one brand.

[RonHendriks1966]

I did, I just got a new MX-1 (store demo) for a very good price. But yes, I should renew some of my DSLR stuff.

Forgot about the MX-1, you are a good customer

[jsherman999]

My point is, gear enables, shooter creates. Can't have specific product without both.

Well put.

Msot consumers only understand the gear part - it takes only moments to spend money on a FF camera.

Or aps-c camera. When it comes to aesthetics, subject play, form, craft/art/seeing, you don't even need an apsc DSLR. Phone cam seems to be the tool of choice for those moments these days:


Summer Ball (iphone 3gs)

.

---------- Post added 09-27-14 at 03:40 PM ----------

Of course, dumping Pentax and switching brands if out of the question.... would you care to calculate how much it will cost to replace my glass arsenal in any other brand?

You have a gold mine there. Yes, you will love K-mount FF methinks. I want your FA 20 2.8, FA* 24 2.0 and that FA 135 2.8 especially.