Reading mode: Light Dark

Is There a Place for APS-C Cams in Professional Photography?

Go to last post
S

Sidekicker

Senior Member
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
104
Location
CA, US
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
 
My APS-C camera bodies give me an effective x1.6 lens focal length multiplier. I realize that it isn't actual, but it appears this way. That multiplier is very useful in long telephoto shots such as for wildlife.
 
With the advent of low cost MFD from Hasselblad and Fuji, why would you want Full Frame? For product, fashion, fine art or landscape, it's a no-brainer.

Many PJs are switching from Full Frame to APS-C due to lighter weight with no lose in quality. A Canon 7D2 is a great sports camera, it weighs a lot less than a 1DX2, and has abouth the same Mp. .
 
If I remember correctly, it wasn't too long ago when all a PJ had to choose from was crop-sensor cameras. (affordably)

With the IQ coming out of these so-called 'enthusiast' cameras I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more being pressed into use, especially in Sports.
 
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
Nah, the real pros like me use Micro Four Thirds, just to prove that skill beats gear. ;-)
 
Some years ago I attended a talk with Danish press photographer Mads Nissen.

He talked also about gear… an APS-C camera for travelling under demanding conditions. Less to carry.

A couple of years later he won the World Press Award.

Don’t know if this is professional enough. Maybe it’s more about the photographer than about the camera or sensor size.

http://www.madsnissen.com/
 
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
No - too big and heavy. m4/3 is the way to go!

Seriously, I switched from Canon FF to Olympus m43 a couple of years ago. I've not had a single complaint, lost clients or any other nastiness since doing do. (I shoot primarily for magazines).

While there are some areas where the pixel count matters - e.g. high end fashion, more often than not 16mp is plenty ... it wasn't too many years ago that full frame cameras were producing 12mp and that was considered very high res.

What is far more important is choosing the camera the lets you get the shots you want. For some, a built in crop factor and lighter weight will result in more "keepers".
 
Colin K. Work said:
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
No - too big and heavy. m4/3 is the way to go!

Seriously, I switched from Canon FF to Olympus m43 a couple of years ago. I've not had a single complaint, lost clients or any other nastiness since doing do. (I shoot primarily for magazines).

While there are some areas where the pixel count matters - e.g. high end fashion, more often than not 16mp is plenty ... it wasn't too many years ago that full frame cameras were producing 12mp and that was considered very high res.

What is far more important is choosing the camera the lets you get the shots you want. For some, a built in crop factor and lighter weight will result in more "keepers".

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com
Click to expand...
Thanks Colin, I really appreciate the feedback you and the others have provided. A few weeks ago, I had convinced myself that a FF set-up was what I needed, and perhaps it will be someday. However more recently, I questioned that decision and now feel that staying with APS-C is more than sufficient for my style of photography. Perhaps better glass and a newer body (and a lot of practice in the field and behind the computer) should be my direction in the immediate future...
 
Horses for courses...

The best sports and wildlife camera on the market (D500) is aps-c

Lots of weddings are being shot with Fuji x-series gear, which is aps-c

If I shot studio fashion I would invest in a large sensor body(Pentax/Hassie/P1) and not look back
 
Sidekicker said:
Colin K. Work said:
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
No - too big and heavy. m4/3 is the way to go!

Seriously, I switched from Canon FF to Olympus m43 a couple of years ago. I've not had a single complaint, lost clients or any other nastiness since doing do. (I shoot primarily for magazines).

While there are some areas where the pixel count matters - e.g. high end fashion, more often than not 16mp is plenty ... it wasn't too many years ago that full frame cameras were producing 12mp and that was considered very high res.

What is far more important is choosing the camera the lets you get the shots you want. For some, a built in crop factor and lighter weight will result in more "keepers".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The end results are what matter. As a golfer I'm reminded of something often said regarding the purchase of expensive new clubs, "It's the Indian not the arrow". A FF sensor camera won't turn a hack into a great photographer and most great photographers can take amazing pictures with something other than a FF camera.

Photography seems to be one of the few fields where people really get hung up on equipment, we don't look at a beautiful painting and ask what brand name brush and paint was used.
 
I think the arguement is soon going to be the other way around.

these are big and heavy cameras which are offering less and less advantage compared to (in particular) the fuji x series... and a very susbtantial disadvantage... namely price. professional photographers pay for their gear with their work, and every penny we put into gear, is a penny more we have to charge, or a penny we can't put into our mortgage...

If you need the ultimate quality, then some of the medium format digi offers coming out are making a lot of sense... but for the vast majority of guys the smaller chip is now giving more than adequate quality, at half the price of a 5dmkiv....

we are facing this challenge right now... our 5dmk 3's are four years old... and going forward we need to spend nearly £14000 to replace them with the equivalent new... plus of course we have a ongoing investment in lenses as well... If our 70-200's need replacing... they are nearly £2000 per pop....

so if we can do the same work with cameras that would only cost £5400 all in, it's a no brainer..

Ive changed rigs 3 times in my career, and gone from aps-h and c to full frame... I think that there is big change afoot in the industry, the options are opening up for users like myself.... and cost is going to be a bigger driver for professionals going forward than had been the case in the past... Canon in particular don't seem to understand that they can't simply expect us to pay ever increasing amounts when consumer electronic gear is generally falling in price... the days when we needed the big 1 series cameras because there was simply no real alternative, are gone.

--
www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
 
Last edited:
Colin K. Work said:
Sidekicker said:
Colin K. Work said:
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
No - too big and heavy. m4/3 is the way to go!

Seriously, I switched from Canon FF to Olympus m43 a couple of years ago. I've not had a single complaint, lost clients or any other nastiness since doing do. (I shoot primarily for magazines).

While there are some areas where the pixel count matters - e.g. high end fashion, more often than not 16mp is plenty ... it wasn't too many years ago that full frame cameras were producing 12mp and that was considered very high res.

What is far more important is choosing the camera the lets you get the shots you want. For some, a built in crop factor and lighter weight will result in more "keepers".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
... she likes being photographed on film.

With film, she says, everyone is looking at her, and there's energy developed.

With digital, everyone is gathered around the tethered monitor.

Which is not to say that digital is without its charms.

She wrote this in her Rizzoli book Becoming.

She also wrote about the differences in being photographed with 8x10 film cameras, Mamiyas, and Leicas.

Good book.

BAK
 
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
 
BAK said:
... she likes being photographed on film.

With film, she says, everyone is looking at her, and there's energy developed.

With digital, everyone is gathered around the tethered monitor.

Which is not to say that digital is without its charms.

She wrote this in her Rizzoli book Becoming.

She also wrote about the differences in being photographed with 8x10 film cameras, Mamiyas, and Leicas.

Good book.

BAK
Click to expand...
I'll check it out...thanks.

I was reading the comments of another model in an article in View Camera Magazine....same sort of comments. I will find the article.
 
Sidekicker said:
With the higher MP counts, improved DR and pro-influenced features present in mid-to-high end APS-C cameras, is there a place for these traditionally enthusiast bodies in the professionals' bag? If so, what types of photography are they ideal for, and what types are they not?
Click to expand...
To answer the title question- Not for anything I do.

Aside from other issues, APS-C tends to be used with 35mm lenses so no matter how high end the lens is, less of the image circle is covered. I have never been convinced that method provides an IQ to be building a career on.

I feel the same about using 44x33 sensors on the Pentax 645. Those are 645 lenses. They were designed to project an image onto a 645 frame. The results are not the same.
 
If it produces images you and your client like - what does it matter?

I have sold images from an Instamatic 104 to a 20x24 view camera.

It is about doing the job and producing what you want or what the client wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top