Originally posted by biz-engineer None mentioned flash to compensate for high iso limits... (I'm surprised actually) arrrhhh to bad, the flash works up to a certain distance, it is indeed limited to specific conditions again.
Because it is not the same usage and I try to be honest in my position and argumentation. But if we are at it, regardless of format, mastered flash and tripod shoots taken at low iso will usually look much better and give much more possibility for control and creativity. Maybe many of best shoot are taken witch such kind of setup but to be honest, this is not always practical. I can go out for a walk with my camera and my primes handled. Don't really want to take a strobist kit and a tripod.
Originally posted by biz-engineer Regarding the 6D, well, I like to Canon support and lens selection, but the D750 as a camera is better specs than the 6D. Anyway, the never ending story of camera tradeoffs... Pixel shift is an extension that pushes the K-3II to a slightly higher image quality in one specific condition, comparing a K-3II pixel shift to a 6D and drawing a general conclusion about which one is better is like looking a the word through a keyhole.
I don't think people think that pixel shift is something you can always count on. But for a landscape photographer with a tripod, that may have more value that the ability to shoot at f/4 instead of f/2.8 or the hability to have more acceptable noise levels at 6400 isos. Depend of the practice. And again for a landscape shoot, the 6D isn't neither giving more dynamic range neither more sharpness. It bring nothing, even when we remove pixel shift from the equation.
A wedding shooter is going to appreciate much more a 6D, that's for sure, and he will likely have the 2 standard f/2.8 zoom + a few primes to help. (And maybe even 2 cameras). But the lanscape photographer would be more interrested in A7R-II or D810 if we speak of FF than a 6D or D750.
Originally posted by biz-engineer That for sure, most lenses are usually not best performing wide open, that's why I'd still get better image from using my 70-200 @f4 on a FF versus the same lens @ f2.8 on a K-3. The size of the glass gets larger heavier and most costly, but yet, you still have to stop down that fast lens to get the best results. f4 lenses are generally not at bad wide open as f2.8 lenses etc... You can nearly use a f4 lens from f4, while you have to stop down the f2.8 lens by half a stop. That's why I don't think we can say a f4 lens on FF is the same as a f2.8 lens on APSC, the FF f4 combo will deliver better images.
The 70-200 f/4 may beat the 50-135 at f/2.8 on reviews, in particulars on borders. But I had this guy a while ago, and I can say to you, the f/2.8 shoots are pixel sharp. Maybe the 70-200 f/4 would get a significant edge a 42MP, but that would be valuable for 30x40" shoot to see the facial air in all their glory:
f/2.8 shoot (full picture):
And in attachement, the 100% crop. This is from a K5 with a low pass filter. Yet I'll ask you to not advertise it too much because if the subject find it, she will curse me forever thinking it is much too sharp already. And you can already see that the right of the 100% crop is out of focus... This not the lens that limit the sharpness anymore... I would have needed f/5.6 to have everything in focus there.
Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.