[ACG]

A couple of comparisons for you.... I'm glad you posted these, not that the comparisons are in any way controlled but

FF cropped Starling...


APS_c un-cropped.


FF smaller bird


APS_c smaller bird...


With all due respect, the cropped FF images aren't in the same league. Even though in the case of the Boreal Chickadee, that image was cropped from 6000 pixels wide, to 4500 pixels wide, so I got the benefit of more resolution, plus I could still crop. I've cropped this image to 15.1 MP, the size of a 36 MP crop image, and, I get a better image. This is a dead horse, I don't know why you guys keep flogging it.

I can't believe you guys go on an on with your "my camera is better at everything than your camera " mentality. I guess it never occurred to you, "different sensor size, means different strengths and weaknesses." The smaller pixels of a 24 MP crop sensor means larger magnification, more DoF, and more resolution of the subject, using the same lens. So, no you can't just crop an FF image and get the same thing.

Many thanks for your comparison. Your pictures are great.
I only posted them to give those thinking of upgrading to a high pixel ff system an idea of the detail that can be retained with a significant crop. Also to show what a great job that these wonderful 40 year old lenses can still do in a modern world.
I wouldn't advocate going on a wildlife trip armed with a 35mm lens. But for those, like myself, who are more landscape orientated, it is a useful tool to be able to crop a picture of unexpected fauna / flora/ bird/ wildlife and retain a level of detail that is reasonable enough for a photobook.
The bluetit was photographed in winter with the k35 f3.5. The robin was photographed in spring with a mft system (lumix g3 (16mp) with 200-600 equivalent zoom at 600mm.
I still think that the crop is still pretty good for what it is!!!

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

Well that's the thing, you can split hairs, but , long story short, if you own one of these camera, you're probably going to be happy with it. You'll find a way to get done what you want to do without investing in another system. It's good you can get such good images, using a system, you probably didn't buy with that use in mind.

[Nicolas06]

Well that's the thing, you can split hairs, but , long story short, if you own one of these camera, you're probably going to be happy with it. You'll find a way to get done what you want to do without investing in another system. It's good you can get such good images, using a system, you probably didn't buy with that use in mind.

Sure and I think we all agree you can go very far with most system... Some system are better for some use case. Get the max out of your money, Lightweight system, high quality, MF, ultimate AF for sports and so on...

But yeah every system can do quite lot of things they days, even the things it was not necessarilly intended to support.

To me the biggest differences between photos once you have something like an m4/3 and a cheap f/2.8 tamron zoom worth 300€, the most important is the photographer by far. Then it is the post processing and lenses and finally the camera itself.

Edit: I would add that maybe something that is as important as the photographer or at least more important than all the rest is luck. You are going to make great composition from time to time even if you are not that good, you are going to go into some wildlife that is near enough for a 100mm framing while most of the time you would need 500mm... You'll get that unique event and take the photo just at the right moment because of luck.

This mean that even with the best gear you can't be sure to match a better photographer than yourself, but you are not even sure to outrun a worse photographer with more basic gear than you because the guy got lucky. In the area of internet and thousand billion images made each year, that mean you are unlikely to make the best images even if you are best photographer with the best gear.

[normhead]

Looking here...

I don't see anything longer than 200mm, on APS-c that's like 135mm, so nothing more than a 50-135.

So I personally own a DA*60-250, an F70-210, and A-400 and available to me is the 150-450m the DA*300.. There are many of us who find the idea of a Bigma leaving a bad taste in our mouths. It's a lot to pay for a system that really offers nothing acceptable in the long end.

Does that explain the "no long end " thing better?

Now, I'm not going to say this is impossible, there are many on the forum who say they don't need anything more than a DA 16-50 and Da 59-135, but no way you call that a complete system.

[osv]

Nice shot. Here's one of mine that is A7 Tamron 500mm mirror no crops .

wow that jet fighter shot is a stunner! nice

---------- Post added 09-14-15 at 10:28 PM ----------

What happened to the guy's face?

what, i should tell him to look up the next time that he's doing a cutback, in the most important pro surf contest in america? the judges don't care about his face, they want to see spray; he delivered that, and i captured it, at the absolute perfect moment.

most photogs can't relate to what i shoot... where to go, what to look for, equipment to use, how to shoot it.

point was, it's a $779 af lens with 600mm reach on ff, and it's decent... not L-glass, but maybe decent enough.

[Sliver-Surfer]

wow that jet fighter shot is a stunner! nice

thanks