[philbaum]

Everyone has a favorite format and is pleased with their choice and will argue that it is the perfect choice. There is no doubt that APS-C cameras are compromise cameras -- initially released because full frame sensors were prohibitively expensive -- but for a lot of photographers, they are still good enough to get the job done, which is why they still out sell larger sensored cameras by a significant margin.

Reading the various discussions about digital cameras can be an exhausting experience. Considering how much it costs to get into and support any camera format, from Q to the 645Z. its a bit amazing to me that any companies still want to be in the game. There was a rumor for awhile that Sony might build a Med Format camera, but that seems to have died away. Considering the required baggage train of new lenses that have to be built to support any new format, it seems that Sony has decided that the e, FE and A mounts are enough for them. Smart company IMO. And the storm of protest any photography mfr sees when there appears to be a momentary slowdown in lens or camera production is intense.

As to the occasional comment that APS cameras are a "compromise" - a more accurate comment is that every camera format is a compromise. Show a camera format to any competent informed photographer, and they can point out things that are limiting to that particular format. The larger the camera sensor, the larger the optics have to be to cover the sensor. A friend and his wife who are into FF and birding/wildlife - tow their long lenses around in wheeled carts. In this case, the compromise may be less in conventional optic quality but more to do with mobility. Just look for compromises - you will find them.

And just what happens to all these wonderful pictures once they are produced? Are the monetary rewards worthy of the effort and expense involved. Generally not - at least in my area - Sales in galleries around my area seem to be down.

[Omestes]

Sales in galleries around my area seem to be down.

For someone that isn't a pro, and has more aspirations towards art (or to put it more honestly; taking pretty pictures); I'd say the motivation shouldn't be selling something in a gallery, since that is a pretty hard thing to do in the best times. In my area, the "hip" art scene pretty much lacks photography completely, you hardly ever see a photo in the "hipper" galleries. At our local art fairs (art for normal people), the main photography you see is uber-saturated, over processed pictures of doors (what is up with this trend?), with the occasional over processed, HDR, hypercolor landscape. Very rarely do I see something that I would consider "fine photography". When I do, it is an amazing thing, and made me wish I had the large sums of money these photographers were asking.

My favorite, and yes, this is off topic, was a guy in Jerome, AZ (a small, old mining town, turned hippy and tourist destination) who took pictures of rust and lichen on old mining machinery, using a large format camera, and a macro lens. Beautiful stuff, if you had the $2,000+ to buy a print. Another guy at our big art fair, took awesome macro shots of rocks (they looked like abstract art). At this same fair though, my girlfriend was pointing at random photos and saying "why don't you sell your stuff, you are so much better", which was a nice ego boost, and a sad statement on the state of the photography at the location.

But at the art fair, much of the painting were also very... consumer focused? Painting of doors, basically. Art is a cultural thing, and is completely dependent on transient, and arbitrary factors. In three years photos could be all the rage, though I doubt it since photography is seen as "banal" thanks to the fact that most people have 20 cameras built into every device they own, and the internet is completely awash in photos. It somewhat cheapens the idea of "fine art" photography.

For myself, I take pictures because I love doing it. I don't care if I ever get rich, the pleasure I get from a really good shot is worth the hassle and expense of the gear. Sharing this with my friends and family is just a bonus, which makes it even more worth while. Don't get me wrong, if anyone ever offered me money for a photo, I'd be about as happy as I could. Not so much for the money though, but more for the ego-boosting recognition ("I'm good at something!")

More on topic, in the beginning of digital, I do think APS-C was a compromise, since 35mm sensors would have been hugely cost prohibitive. But now there are some benefits that it has, even its limitations can be benefits occasionally (more DOF isn't a bad thing for us macro shooters, all of my lenses are longer which can be a nice thing), even M43 has some benefits over APS-C and FF. I don't think there is a perfect format. If all the formats were the same price, people would still choose M43 and APS-C.

[normhead]

If all the formats were the same price, people would still choose M43 and APS-C.

I've been saying that for years... some people just can't get their heads around it.

I guess it's because they've never been at a school or company with a bunch of different formats, and you went and signed out what you thought was best for the job you were doing. I suspect there are folks here who would take FF every time, but that doesn't mean they know what they're doing... or talking about.

[Omestes]

I suspect there are folks here who would take FF every time, but that doesn't mean they know what they're doing... or talking about.

I just voted for APS-C over FF, after careful consideration. The only real draw I see to FF, personally, is a higher DR and better ISO performance. The rest of the differences are pretty much aesthetic choices, based only on what you want out of your pictures. One amusing thing I noticed about the last three months of making this decision, is I feel a bit of remorse over not having the "best", i.e. most expensive and prestigious bit of kit I can afford. I recognize this, rationally, as silly, but it still is a consideration. I have the money, so why wouldn't I want the "absolute best"?

[markku55]

I just voted for APS-C over FF, after careful consideration. The only real draw I see to FF, personally, is a higher DR and better ISO performance. The rest of the differences are pretty much aesthetic choices, based only on what you want out of your pictures. One amusing thing I noticed about the last three months of making this decision, is I feel a bit of remorse over not having the "best", i.e. most expensive and prestigious bit of kit I can afford. I recognize this, rationally, as silly, but it still is a consideration. I have the money, so why wouldn't I want the "absolute best"?

I don't vote for anything, but I'm for sure more happy with a FF body if I have good quality lenses for that size, why waste the ideal picture angle only because of undersized sensor?

[Omestes]

I don't vote for anything, but I'm for sure more happy with a FF body if I have good quality lenses for that size, why waste the ideal picture angle only because of undersized sensor?

Before FF was announced, I never found myself "wasting" anything. I never once felt limited, before they announced FF I never stopped and said "there is no point, since I can only take this photo with a full frame sensor". Heck, I'm a huge fun of the even more "undersized" M43 sensor, which should be totally limiting, but is also oddly liberating since I don't need to heft a beefy DSLR, so I get shots I never would have gotten with my K5, much less the upcoming, beefier, FF.

Within my abilities as a photographer, I have gotten every shot that I've tried for. The ones I didn't get have been because of me, not my sensor size. I don't see FF as improving my abilities, all it would do is give me a little bit extra in my tool kit. I don't print billboards (my largest print is 20x30, and the K5 managed it beautifully), I don't dramatically crop (I try to get framing as correct as possible in situ), I don't need a shallower DOF for my type of photography (give me more DOF, 1-2mm DOF is shallow enough in macro). I generally avoid pushing the ISO above 800, on principle, and I've found I'm pretty steady since I barely touch SR. I'm fine with the length of my FF glass on APS-C, even if bringing down the 77 a bit would be perfect, it would also bring down my 100mm macro, which would be less than ideal. It would further choke LR6, which has a hard enough time on K5 RAW these days, and if the Hi Res 40mpx shots on my EM5 II are any indication, FF would add to my PP workload by 50% or more, and would require me to upgrade my photo drive, and backup drives. Pushing out bigger files also would be pretty much a waste since I mostly distribute online, and most sites have a hard time with sensible resolutions, and generally print in standard sizes (as to afford framing, and presumptuously take over my friends and families walls). The only benefit I can see, when I was weighing my decision, was DR. Expanded DR was not worth over $1000 more. To me, at least.

As I said, I spent 3 months weighing this. I received some "bonus" money literally the day FF was announced, and have spent the whole time pondering it. I poked around pictures from FF cameras on Flickr and 500px, and have yet to find a single picture that I couldn't (giving the resources and skill) on my K-5. Sure, they might not match in pure detail, but being able to pixel peak on a 35mpix file on my computer is kind of pointless if it is going to be shared and enjoyed in smaller formats.

I'm not sure what you mean by "picture angle" here, though.

[markku55]

I'm not sure what you mean by "picture angle" here, though.

With the picture angle I mean that with an older lens made for FF size I loose the angle of picture if I use it with APS-C camera.
For my photographing are wide angle lenses very important, so in the case of APS-C camera I loose a lot of angle compared to FF camera.
In the case of Sony A900 my most used lens is Minolta 24-105mm zoom, in the case of K30 my most used lens is the Pentax 16-45mm zoom and for Sony NEX 5n it is 16-50mm zoom and for Olympus EP-L5 it is Panasonic 12-35mm.
In all of these cases I also have lenses which are wider in angle for my landscape photos, I need quite seldom any longer lenses, so that's why a crop sensor camera with a wideangle FF lens is not quite interesting for me.

[normhead]

For my photographing are wide angle lenses very important, so in the case of APS-C camera I loose a lot of angle compared to FF camera.

This really hasn't been relevant since the DA 10-17 and Sigma 8-16 were released.

Either of those lenses is a lot cheaper than a full frame camera.

I need quite seldom any longer lenses, so that's why a crop sensor camera with a wideangle FF lens is not quite interesting for me.

Sounds like you bought into the wrong system. Even if Pentax releases an FF there won't be a lens like the Nikon 14-24.

[Omestes]

With the picture angle I mean that with an older lens made for FF size I loose the angle of picture if I use it with APS-C camera.
For my photographing are wide angle lenses very important, so in the case of APS-C camera I loose a lot of angle compared to FF camera.
In the case of Sony A900 my most used lens is Minolta 24-105mm zoom, in the case of K30 my most used lens is the Pentax 16-45mm zoom and for Sony NEX 5n it is 16-50mm zoom and for Olympus EP-L5 it is Panasonic 12-35mm.
In all of these cases I also have lenses which are wider in angle for my landscape photos, I need quite seldom any longer lenses, so that's why a crop sensor camera with a wideangle FF lens is not quite interesting for me.

I guess I can see the benefit of FF there, if you mostly shoot wide. Personally, I can't see myself shooting wider than the DA15, but that is just me. My sweet spots, on 35mm seem to be 36mm (24mm crop), 60-80mm (the 40ltd, 50mm on crop; and my 45mm on M43), judging from the lenses I use the most. I also view my 100mm macro being 150mm as a decent bonus. If I wanted wider, I can see where you're coming from. I seem to prefer short teles, though.

This is more a matter of taste, though.

[markku55]

This really hasn't been relevant since the DA 10-17 and Sigma 8-16 were released.
Either of those lenses is a lot cheaper than a full frame camera.
Sounds like you bought into the wrong system. Even if Pentax releases an FF there won't be a lens like the Nikon 14-24.

I don't need extreme wideangles, so those extreme wideangle zooms are not so important for me.
Still I'm quite sad that I sold cheap my Pentax K 20mm F4 lens because of i didn't believe that there will be adigital FF camera for Pentax system.
For APS-C and m43 systems I have wider zooms, but the picture quality is not as high as it can be in FF system.
I changed my Minolta 17-35mm zoom to a Tokina 20-35mm zoom only because of IQ.

---------- Post added 06-13-15 at 11:51 PM ----------

I guess I can see the benefit of FF there, if you mostly shoot wide. Personally, I can't see myself shooting wider than the DA15, but that is just me. My sweet spots, on 35mm seem to be 36mm (24mm crop), 60-80mm (the 40ltd, 50mm on crop; and my 45mm on M43), judging from the lenses I use the most. I also view my 100mm macro being 150mm as a decent bonus. If I wanted wider, I can see where you're coming from. I seem to prefer short teles, though.

This is more a matter of taste, though.

Both bolded sentences are right, specially the makro lens capability will be in some situations much better, because of bigger distance with same aspect ratio.
Also our personal needs are really different, so there must be space for every ones need.

[osv]

Sounds like you bought into the wrong system. Even if Pentax releases an FF there won't be a lens like the Nikon 14-24.

14-24 has already been matched or even bettered in some respects, will there be a k-mount version of this tamron:

Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8: Digital Photography Review

[ElJamoquio]

When asked about K-mount support a couple of years ago, Tamron answered that they were improving their support of mirrorless cameras.

[rawr]

Tamron answered that they were improving their support of mirrorless cameras.

Haha.

And to-date, Tamron have exactly how many E-mount lenses available? One.
How many Fuji lenses? None. How many micro 4/3 lenses? None. How many Samsung NX lenses? None.

[osv]

not to split to hairs, but tamron is still selling the 14-150 for m4/3 and the 18-200 for eos-m.

they probably got burned by their venture into eos-m land, and gave up the mirrorless ghost after that :-)

[philbaum]

not to split to hairs, but tamron is still selling the 14-150 for m4/3 and the 18-200 for eos-m.

they probably got burned by their venture into eos-m land, and gave up the mirrorless ghost after that :-)

After rawr's comment, i had to look up Tamron's 1 emount lens - the 18-200. Couldn't believe it, Sony already has 3 18-200 style and Tamron had to add another one. Don't they think about the market place at all

Then they turn out the superlative 150-600 in Nikon, Canon - and wait for it - A-mount???? I suppose there was a reason they couldn't convert it to e-mount, but K-mount would have made a lot more sense - and i'm not even biased With K-mount, they wouldnt' have been able to keep them on the shelves.