Originally posted by jsherman999 Lenses like the Tamron f/2.8 zooms (in-spec), most modern, well-coated fast 50s and even some older 50s and 35s and 28s - these are inexpensive lenses that can give you incredible results on FF.
But I'm already getting incredible results on APS-C with Pentax glass. At a bi-monthly local photo critique, I have twice been approached by a local professional photographer who has asked me, with some measure of incredulity, whether my images shown in the critique session really were taken with an APS-C camera. There seems to be a myth going around that APS-C is, at best, only "good enough." But that isn't true in the least. APS-C is way better than good enough. And you don't have to move to FF to get incredible results.
Originally posted by jsherman999 If you're looking at a consumer-zoom shot, you might be looking at a lower-resolving or higher-distortion lens that's being shot at an aperture well within the range that aps-c is capable of - because the consumer zooms are variable aperture and don't open up very much, especially at the long end.
No, what I'm seeing is primarily the lens contrast (which affects the colors as well). The one thing I have never liked about FF advocacy is the over-emphasis on numerical specs. With FF-ophiles, arguments and judgments are often based largely on numbers, and only haphazardly on the aesthetic values of actual images. I don't happen to believe that image quality is determined by measured resolution or the equations of equivalence. I'm more interested in what Mike Johnston has called the "tonality" of the image -- the colors, the contrast, the rendering of detail and transitions. And lenses play a far greater role in the tonality of an image than does sensor size (particularly when comparing APS-C and FF).
So for those who believe that FF is so much better than APS-C that it will enable a lens like the old F 35-70 to out perform even mid-range zooms on APS-C, they may be in for a rude awakening. While the 35-70 is a reasonably sharp lens, it just does not have the contrast or the color rendition of any the DA standard zooms (with the exception of the DA 18-55). The last thing a rational person wants to do is buy a ~$2,500 camera only to discover that images from their expensive FF camera just don't
look as good as what they were getting out of their APS-C camera.
Originally posted by jsherman999 The 'pro glass' zooms are nice to own, but are huge, expensive, and honestly - in my opinion - not necessary. I know Pentax sales dept (and Nikon, Canon etc) want you to feel that they are necessary for FF - but they're not.
No lens is absolutely necessary on any platform. But if I'm going to buy a $2,500 camera, I want the upgrade to be as significant as possible. And that means using lenses that are at least as good (and preferably even better), in terms of tonal response, as what I'm currently shooting on APS-C.
Another issue involves whether a given system fits one's shooting style. A 50mm prime might work for some; a 28-70 f2.8 (or even a 24-70 f2.8) might work for others. But none of these fit my own shooting style. I don't need or want fast glass. I want high quality slow glass (which is often hard to find, as there's a tendency to reserve the best quality for the fast lenses). I need a 4x or 5x standard zoom lens starting at 24mm. Something like the Canon 24-105 f4 or the Nikon 24-120 f4. If Pentax would release a DFA* 24-105 f4 with aerobright II coatings, a Pentax FF would begin looking far more enticing in my eyes than it does presently. Otherwise, since I'm pretty much getting everything I want out of Pentax APS-C, I'll stick to that.