DominikDUK
Well-known
As a pro I have to say bigger is better lower pixel density means less heat means less noise etc... Depth of field is another point. I don't deny that small sensor cameras can/are fantastic but if I had to choose between a camera with a 35 mm sized sensor or one with a 4/3rd sensor (with the same pixel count) I'd choose the bigger one.
Dominik
Dominik
emraphoto
Mentor
It's a good thing you don't own any magazines.
emraphoto
Mentor
The word 'pro' should have subcategories.
Pro that shoots school portraits
Pro that shoots wire service/spot news
Pro that shoots ad work
Pro that shoots in a lab
Repro Pro
Pro that shoots team sports
Pro that shoots cars for advertisements
Pro that works on sets
Pro that shoot architecture
Trying to write doctrine for an occupation with such a myriad of possibilities and requirements seems senseless without a little context.
Pro that shoots school portraits
Pro that shoots wire service/spot news
Pro that shoots ad work
Pro that shoots in a lab
Repro Pro
Pro that shoots team sports
Pro that shoots cars for advertisements
Pro that works on sets
Pro that shoot architecture
Trying to write doctrine for an occupation with such a myriad of possibilities and requirements seems senseless without a little context.
willie_901
Mentor
At this point in time her is a fact: larger sensors collect more data per shutter cycle than smaller sensors. Anything you do to improve the performance of a small sensor can be used in a larger sensor. In fact, so far the technology flow has been in the opposite direction.
Some readers will think this is just BS, or elitism or a misinterpretation of the facts. Those people could read this technical article:
Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs
More data means a superior signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range and color (tonal) depth. No matter how much one enjoys the advantages systems with smaller sensors... there is no substitute for data quality.
The difference in DOF is either good or bad depending on the photographer's goal. Most people prefer less DOF because it is easier to achieve DOF (just top down) than not (find a lens with a larger aperture). But increase DOF does have advantages.
To me there are two issues: how much performance are you willing to give up for the sake of convenience (smaller cameras and lenses, and less cost of ownership), and can the system lenses deliver the results you require.
After carrying a m4/3 system daily for just over a year, I decided the APS-C sensor was the smallest format for me. Obviously many other photographers' (most of them more competent than me) needs are well served by systems with smaller sensors. Regardless of how much smaller sensors improve, the next largest format system will improve too. At some point it's possible we will see D800 performance on smart-phone size sensor. But for now the mirror-less ASP-C systems represent the optimum balance for the system I carry with me wherever I go.
Some readers will think this is just BS, or elitism or a misinterpretation of the facts. Those people could read this technical article:
Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs
More data means a superior signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range and color (tonal) depth. No matter how much one enjoys the advantages systems with smaller sensors... there is no substitute for data quality.
The difference in DOF is either good or bad depending on the photographer's goal. Most people prefer less DOF because it is easier to achieve DOF (just top down) than not (find a lens with a larger aperture). But increase DOF does have advantages.
To me there are two issues: how much performance are you willing to give up for the sake of convenience (smaller cameras and lenses, and less cost of ownership), and can the system lenses deliver the results you require.
After carrying a m4/3 system daily for just over a year, I decided the APS-C sensor was the smallest format for me. Obviously many other photographers' (most of them more competent than me) needs are well served by systems with smaller sensors. Regardless of how much smaller sensors improve, the next largest format system will improve too. At some point it's possible we will see D800 performance on smart-phone size sensor. But for now the mirror-less ASP-C systems represent the optimum balance for the system I carry with me wherever I go.
cosmonaut
Well-known
When I think pro I think someone that is going to cover the World Series, Super Bowl, shoot the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit issue, National Geographic. Not Opie in the Mayberry news paper. I am certain a pro could use anything and make usable shots. But if you were the editor for Sports Illustrator would you hire a guy to cover a night Nascar race with an E-M5? One of the biggest flaws that a pro would have with an EVIL camera with an EVFer would be battery life. A pro would have to have a bag full of batteries as I can only get a few shots out of my NEX 7 before it starts to drain. Grip or not it's a big problem. It's not going to last for a four hour event. Not to mention if they were shooting in low light situations. The Oly cameras can't handle high ISOs.
When I think pro I think someone that could cover anything in a pinch, not have to run out and buy new gear.
When I think pro I think someone that could cover anything in a pinch, not have to run out and buy new gear.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Emraphoto is right pro working in different fields have different needs.
Pro journalist (incl. Nat. Geo) are often better off with a smaller camera for them the advantages are obvious more depth of field, smaller more portable, steathier etc..
A museum photographer, architecture photographer or a product photographer etc... has other need that are not met by smaller sensor cameras. Btw. I know plenty of publisher who also think bigger and better and who don't have a problem with the Nikon D800 file because they are accustomed to even bigger files from pro Backs.
The pixel count isn't all that important these days pixel size on the other hand is.
Dominik
Pro journalist (incl. Nat. Geo) are often better off with a smaller camera for them the advantages are obvious more depth of field, smaller more portable, steathier etc..
A museum photographer, architecture photographer or a product photographer etc... has other need that are not met by smaller sensor cameras. Btw. I know plenty of publisher who also think bigger and better and who don't have a problem with the Nikon D800 file because they are accustomed to even bigger files from pro Backs.
The pixel count isn't all that important these days pixel size on the other hand is.
Dominik
emraphoto
Mentor
Again, and all due respect to Cosmo, magazine work needs clarification. There are thousands upon thousands of magazines we could be talking about here.
My work appears in magazines. My work appears in papers, big papers vs. The Mayberry News. My work appears online. My work appears in galleries and museum collections. Never once, ever, has an editor/purchaser cared about or inquired about what kind of camera I use. Never. I have many good friends whose work we celebrate here on RFF. Their work appears all over the world in magazines and I assure you they will echo this. I have a great friend who shoots sports, all day every day including sports illustrated. 2 x 8 megapixel crop sensor 1D MKIIN and I only know this because he is a good friend.
The Internet is terrible for this constant need to create doctrine. There are folks here on RFF that work in this world every single day. For big time editors with big time publications and no matter how much they tell you otherwise the 'rules' keep flowing.
I am on with two of the largest agencies in North America for the next month shooting day rate, expenses submitted work. It will appear all over the place including magazines. Big magazines.
2 x aps-c cameras
1 x digital point and shoot
The desk folks are more interested in captions being right then what camera I am using.
I am not one to say these sorts of things as it sounds egotistical. It is not meant as such. The construction of these all encompassing rules about what canikonsony you HAVE to use to be a pro is purely an amateur forum sideshow.
So, enough from me on the matter.
My work appears in magazines. My work appears in papers, big papers vs. The Mayberry News. My work appears online. My work appears in galleries and museum collections. Never once, ever, has an editor/purchaser cared about or inquired about what kind of camera I use. Never. I have many good friends whose work we celebrate here on RFF. Their work appears all over the world in magazines and I assure you they will echo this. I have a great friend who shoots sports, all day every day including sports illustrated. 2 x 8 megapixel crop sensor 1D MKIIN and I only know this because he is a good friend.
The Internet is terrible for this constant need to create doctrine. There are folks here on RFF that work in this world every single day. For big time editors with big time publications and no matter how much they tell you otherwise the 'rules' keep flowing.
I am on with two of the largest agencies in North America for the next month shooting day rate, expenses submitted work. It will appear all over the place including magazines. Big magazines.
2 x aps-c cameras
1 x digital point and shoot
The desk folks are more interested in captions being right then what camera I am using.
I am not one to say these sorts of things as it sounds egotistical. It is not meant as such. The construction of these all encompassing rules about what canikonsony you HAVE to use to be a pro is purely an amateur forum sideshow.
So, enough from me on the matter.
gavinlg
Mentor
^ Nuff said
filmfan
Well-known
One of the more irksome and misunderstood words used in photography = "pro"
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Cosmo,
How long have you been using E-M5?
Do share with us the moments (as in which photo and what date) when the camera didn't deliver the quality expected by those magazines you mentioned.
Last time I check, people just *got started* evaluating that one.
Which is why I think the article I refer to is relevant.
As for battery life? get a grip, or two.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
It does not have to be.
I'll repeat my definition in the context of this thread.
Pro = Anyone who depends on their photo-gear to make a living.
Of course there are many types, subtypes, classes, categories, and so on. That comes naturally with the idea of "making a living."
But the idea presented by the article applies to any kinds of pro-photographers. One must decide if the smaller sensor is now enough for their work.
It's a simple proposition guys, don't make it complicated.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Not exactly trying to be funny; just trying to be technically accurate. Yes, sometime in the early days of digital camera development, someone grabbed onto the term "full-frame" to mean a digital sensor having roughly the same size as a 35mm film frame (24x36mm).
However, a large-format photographer could say that using a lens designed for 8x10 film coverage on a 4x5 camera finds that he/she is no longer shooting "full-frame". There would then be a "crop factor" of 2. The 150mm full-frame 8x10 lens would now be a 300mm lens on 4x5.
So the term full-frame really, technically, means one is using a lens designed to cover the full sensor (digital, film, whatever) and no more.
However, a large-format photographer could say that using a lens designed for 8x10 film coverage on a 4x5 camera finds that he/she is no longer shooting "full-frame". There would then be a "crop factor" of 2. The 150mm full-frame 8x10 lens would now be a 300mm lens on 4x5.
So the term full-frame really, technically, means one is using a lens designed to cover the full sensor (digital, film, whatever) and no more.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
RIGHT! That's why HCB and Koudelka shot reportage with a Speed Graphic.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'd ask to see his portfolio.
cosmonaut
Well-known
My bad then. I understand everyone has different needs. Your work is stunning. You also will still shot film like I said you are so good any camera you pick up you will find a way to make it work. In my town if I covered the news yes I could get away with anything. But when I watch the Super Bowl all I see are big Canons on the side lines. I am sure after the game in the locker room almost any camera would work.
If I had a chance to shoot landscapes in the Amazon or Africa I wouldn't worry about size. I would carry a pro weather sealed camera. I have a E-M5 on pre order but given the chance to do something major and given the choice full frame or m4/3rd I would pick the full frame everytime.
If I had a chance to shoot landscapes in the Amazon or Africa I wouldn't worry about size. I would carry a pro weather sealed camera. I have a E-M5 on pre order but given the chance to do something major and given the choice full frame or m4/3rd I would pick the full frame everytime.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I agree... its NOT important. That's the point I was trying to make.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Really. Tell me, then, where I can buy a FF DSLR with a backside-illuminated sensor.
kievman
Kievman
Some folks have complained about legacy wide angle lens on APS-c cameras and losing the character of the lens besides the going from super wide angle to just a wide or normal lens, my big complaint is the distortion on wide angle zooms on APS-c cameras. The wide angle distortion is way off the charts and is total unacceptable to me with most of the wide angle zoom shots I have seen. ( Maybe some folks like photos with distorted heads and landscapes in them but not me...... unless I am using a fisheye lens......) This wide angle distortion is less of a problem with most of the FF frame wide angle zooms (such as my Tokina 19-35mm F3.5- 4.5) I have used. I believe that the larger sensor size is easier to design and manufacture wide angle lens that have less wide angle distortion. my 2c - Kievman
willie_901
Mentor
Are you saying it's physically impossible to implement backside illumination as sensor size increases?
If you can't buy it, then it's because the vendors are stupid... or maybe the cost:benefit ratio decreases as sensor size increases because of the larger sensor's inherent advantage.
But it dosn't matter. A backside large surface area sensor will collects more data than a backside sensor with a smaller surface area. When large sensor vendors loose market share to vendors with back lit small sensors, what do you think the large sensor vendors will do to regain market share.
willie_901
Mentor
RE: Single Wafer Sensors
RE: Single Wafer Sensors
That's a fair criticism of my post.
I eagerly await the day when enhancements you refer to overcome the surface area advantage of sensors that can't be manufactured using single wafer methods.
RE: Single Wafer Sensors
That's a fair criticism of my post.
I eagerly await the day when enhancements you refer to overcome the surface area advantage of sensors that can't be manufactured using single wafer methods.