Get this: Sigma WILL produce a camera that beats the current DSLRs resolution wise. Locked

Started Nov 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Harold66 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,292
Re: Almost funny

HBowman wrote:

Not funny at all.

Yes, so what ? APS format in the film times was a half-baked attempt to create a new market and it failed miserably but who cares?

contrary to 35mm sensors, no digital APS camera pretend that their goal was to perpetuate some kind of continuity with existing lenses or accessories so the history of it is completely irrelevant, except maybe to some marketing gurus that decided it was good to resurrect the word APS in their brochures

No. This half -backed attempt was a scientific/marketing move at first because when APS-C was introduced in film, company already have studies of the cost to craft digital sensors.

I do not believe that for a moment and I have never seen any tangible sign to that effect,. maybe you care to quote your sources

By this time it was very expensive to craft an APS-C sensors (thus the price of the firsts Nikon APS-C DSLR) and some of us remember the huge price of the first Full Frame sensor, Kodak, and by extent the Leica DMR.

and this is supposed to illustrate the superiority of 35mm sensors how ?

Seriously ? are you contending that 35mm sensors DSLR are selling in higher number that their APS counterparts ? Look at ANY brand and you will see that this is quite the opposite.

I spoke about film, not digital. Company educated us to feel that APS-C was a normal move and every photographers with a film experience was dreaming about a FF digital, period. Even today, many dream about a digital 35mm ala Minox.

okay mixing not only apples , oranges and grapefruits . you are going off the subject here

Really ? have you heard also of weight and size ?

It may come as a surprise to you but if you were to check prices of latest mirorless offerings in both APS and micro 4/3rds it would become clear that lots of users are willing to pay same prices and even higher to have SMALLER and LIGHTER cameras or has this reality escape you as well?

It is up to us. Mirorless is a recent move in the photographic industry, helped with a powerful marketing. I do not say little formats are that bad. I say that they do not come close to what can do, even today, a simple D700. Smaller ? Ok. Lighter ? Not really. Weight is an important factor in the photographic discipline. For example (since you shoot with olympus DSLR), an Olympus DSLR is not that light even thought that it have a M43 sensor... same goes for the pentax DSLR.

First of all , I do not shoot with a dslr anymore ( olympus or other)

PLEASE do not speak on behalf of every photographer . I do not know many photographers who do not look at weight of their system when choosing their equipment but I am sure they exist

so return the favor and admit the reverse is true

Little but heavy. This balance you more when you compose your shoot

yeah right , nothing like a 5  or 6 pounds mass ( camera + lens) when you want to shoot handheld  ...LOL

Cannot comment on the first part since I am not married .as to the second part , good 35mm lenses are still pricey if they are bright . But again , you seem to be so obsessed with the money side of the equation that you are forgetting again these pesky other two criteria : SIZE & WEIGHT

Good 35mm bright lenses are still pricey, yes, but the curve tend to go in the other way actually because of the VR + ISO capability. The f1.8 line for example, in Nikon line, is excellent and not expensive at all given their performances. In + you have company like SIGMA who are actually crafting stunning lenses (sometimes above the performances of big pricey lenses from Canon or Nikon) at a very cheap price. I speak about the 35mm f1.4 ART and by some extent about the 85mm f1.4 DG HSM (and I wonder what SIGMA Santa Claus will bring in the future about lenses...).

So what ? each format has some very good lenses. fail to see how it proves the point that ONLY 35mm sensor is the answer.

This is true. Each format do have some superb lenses, this is a fact. But when we say that lenses are the best investment we can make in 35mm world, this is not really true in the M43 or APS-C world because many want to jump in FF world at a time when they have the money to.

again you speak on behalf of most people . YOu are not most people.

I would even submit that most photographers who have full 35mm system also have a system ( or at least a body and few lenses) in smaller sensors systems ( m4/3rds. aps ) I do not think the reverse is as often the case

It is why it is promulgated to buy good FF lenses to put on your APS-C DSLR because when you will move to FF, you already have the lenses. Many cried to not known that before.

Ha REAL photography versus , I guess , fake one . waouh the chip on your shoulder is getting big. People will notice that blasting the R word in your sentence does not make it less subject to being disagreed upon ...

But 35mm experience will drop ppl in the experience we teach in photo schools since almost a century because..

this part of your sentence makes NO sense to me

waouh, you should go out more often . Now REally ...

and also look at the sales numbers for APS sized DSLR versus 35mm DSLR...

This is only mater of price. Not effectiveness. It is also very complicated for brands to find the correct segmentation in their lineup. Nikon is the perfect guinea pig today to studies this problem.

Probably 80% of the market or more who do not feel the need to drag pounds of equipment when their needs can be fulfilled by stuff cheaper , lighter and smaller

you know REAL world concerns.

Drag pounds of equipments ? You know, most of ppl I know who do landscape photography are dragging pounds of equipment, even in hardcore mountain hike in the snow. The most common is Nikon DSLR with WA lenses (D300 or D700 + 14-24). We see more and more D800 and 5DMKIII on the field with Zeiss glass. They also seek rugged gear (Pantax is doing well in this segment). They seek IQ. I do not speak about MF shooters. SIGMA is a true exception IQ wise but the battery... It is up to you to grab a m43 to do landscape but don't think you will come even close to what can do FF in this field, especially when you print.

Now when we speak about reportage shooters this is an another story because they seek light and discrete gear. In this field, this is true that we have nothing really discrete nor cheap 35mm solutions... till today. The sony RX1/A7/A7r change the landscape for real. Photographer who seek IQ will go 35mm just because 35mm sensors are... better.

Here you go again  speaking on behalf of a category of photographers . By your definition , photographers who do not want 35mm sensors are not looking for image quality

this is BS in its purest forms

When you test a leica M (even if it is not that easy to use at first) you fall in IQ and artistic control. When you come back to your APS-C/M43 equipment and you look at the picture you just say meeeee wtf ??...

falling in artistic control... emphatic , almost lyric but pure bs..

the brand of the camera does not make the capture of a photo artistic in itself . it is such a ridiculous statement

it may come to you as a big shock but when I look at an image that I took and think is good ( and this is the same when looking at a photographmade by someone else) the camera used for creating that image does not matter anymore

In most cases , you would not be able to distinguish the format of the sensors on most images shown in galleries and there is a good reason for that : it rarely matters

ONLY advantages ?

well at least you are consistant with your ignoring the size and weight factor. who knows maybe you have someone carry your equipment for you.

Again, size and weight are not a big problem... ppl who seek IQ are absolutely ready to make this little sacrifice. --

Here you go again , Mr Bowman representative of ALL photographers who seek IQ. you should come off your high horse

I know you do not want to do it but wake up it is 2013 . Today most cameras with medium to large sensors produce great IQ , especially when shot at normal ISO

In all my exhibits I have never had anyone complain about the IQ of any print . I have seen many photographers who work digitally with smaller than 35mm and it does not seem to bother them as much as it does  bother you

makes me wonder where is your priority in your photography ...hmm


-- hide signature --

 Harold66's gear list:Harold66's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II +22 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow