Originally posted by top-quark
Sure, a f*ck-off big Nikon or Canon will produce marginally better images than our Pentax cameras. Will they produce 3x better images? Nope. You've hit diminishing returns big time.
The same reasoning could be applied directly to lenses. There really is no reason for any Zeiss lens to exist - diminishing returns have made these lenses that cost 2x, 3x or 4x as much as their less-aristocratic Pentax/Nikon/Canon cousins only about 10% better, optically. Yet people are willing to buy them to get that extra 10%... and because they perhaps just
want them, because collecting them is part of the hobby they enjoy. (The same argument could even be applied directly to the Limiteds - or aps-c DSLRs vs m4/3. Is the K-5 really twice as good as a G3? Is the FA 43ltd really three times as good as the F 50 1.7?)
Quote: Other supposed advantages:
[LIST][*]Viewfinder. Maybe. The SLT EVFs are almost certainly better than any OVF and are likely the future. Plus I'm not exactly hurting with the K-5 viewfinder.
Have you ever shot extensively with a FF DSLR viewfinder?
Quote: [*]DOF control. So bokeh is the primary purpose of our cameras? There are just as many situations where a wider DOF is desirable.
Why does DOF control need to be the
primary purpose? And also, with FF, if you do want more DOF, simply stop down, and it's there. Can't always go the opposite way with aps-c.
Quote: Not gonna bang on about equivalence 'cos that's just dumb.
It is indeed dumb to rant against.... math and physics.
Quote: However, if you look at the ecological niches of our glass, then APS-C does have distinct advantages over FF. Our 50-135 occupies the same niche as 70-200 on a 35mm camera - you'd use it for the same purposes. Weighs and costs half as much. Our 200mm F2.8 occupies the same niche as 300mm F2.8 on 35mm. Weighs and costs one third as much.
200 f/2.8 == 300 f/4.5 (not f/2.8) But you have a point - as long as pixel density is favorable to the aps-c body in your comparison. Meaning, if long telephoto is very important to you, you
could simply crop the FF shot to the same FOV as the aps-c shot when you're shooting long telephoto. If you have enough MP on FF, you could get a shot that's virtually indistinguishable from a native aps-c shot.
Quote: Those big Nikons and Canons are aimed at pros and priced vertically.
Aren't enough 'pros' to account for D3 sales alone. Pros are the most visible, because you see them on TV, on the sidelines, etc, but FF is really a big enthusiast market.
Quote: If I see a pro lugging around two Nikon D3s complete with 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, I think "fair enough". If I see a hobbyist doing the same I think "pretentious twat".
How do you know it's a hobbyist and not a pro?
And what if it was a pro, but they were using their equipment for fun and recreation at that particular moment, not work, what would it be? 'Fair-enough', or 'pretentious twat'?
(personally if I saw a 'hobbyist' lugging around two D3s's with huge lenses, I might simply suggest a smaller FF body and maybe a smaller, better, faster, less-expensive prime or two instead. But I wouldn't be all angry and judgmental about it, that's for sure.)
.