Should serious photographers forget APS-C cameras?

The argument is not about glass ... this time. It's about the movement to eliminate the APS-C sensors from higher-end DSLRs. I am of the belief that intro-cameras will eventually be determined by their use of APS-C sensors ... and anything higher will be Full Frame of whatever "type" the future brings. The tide has shifted. Just watch what the market does. :cool:

So stop the lens comparisons ... they do not apply, other than the use of APS-C lenses eventually being eliminated on the non-intro DSLR cameras.

They said the A900 would never be able to image-stabilize ... yeah, 'jekostas' ... sound like a familiar song? That sure shut up a host of SONY "non-fans" right quick. Nothing new from Canon, that was for sure.

And 'Rooz' ... if you are going to quote me, do it right ... "Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera, that gives you the most improvement in your photography. Refrain from "INTRO" lenses."

"Usually" being the operative word in this discussion ... meaning, "not always"

u⋅su⋅al
  /ˈyuʒuəl, ˈyuʒwəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-zhoo-uhl, yoozh-wuhl] Show IPA
Use usually in a Sentence
–adjective
1. habitual or customary: her usual skill.
2. commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary: the usual January weather.
3. commonplace; everyday: He says the usual things.

Related forms:
u⋅su⋅al⋅ly, adverb
u⋅su⋅al⋅ness, noun

Synonyms:
1. accustomed. Usual, customary, habitual refer to a settled and constant practice. Usual indicates something that is to be expected by reason of previous experience, which shows it to occur more often than not: There were the usual crowds at the celebration. Something that is customary is in accordance with prevailing usage or individual practice: It is customary to finish up with a bonfire. That which is habitual has become settled or constant as the result of habit on the part of the individual: The merchants wore habitual smiles throughout the season. 2. general, prevailing, prevalent, familiar, regular. 3. expected, predictable.

Everyone needs a little wiggle room. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonSchap

And 'Rooz' ... if you are going to quote me, do it right ... "

---

Don, if you are going to quote ME, do it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elisha82

Then you're obviously clueless. Sony may not have as many lenses as Canon or Nikon but they have only started manufacturing DSLRs since 2006.
apart from the kit-lenses, all the rest are quality lenses.
such as the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 70-300, 70-400, 35, 85, and 135mm are all top notch.
the only reason most of us opt for Minolta glass is because there are about 16 million Minolta AF lenses out there and they used to be cheap until Sony started pumping out bodies!

---

Price was included in those metrics. I would suggest that you look up the price of Sony glass when compared to equal quality glass from other manufacturers before you call me "clueless". Otherwise, well, you'd be shooting Sony, not Minolta, wouldn't you?

I never said there wasn't quality glass in the Sony lineup.

Thanks for the personal insult, by the way. Really gives your argument that extra "oomph".

Oh, and DonSchap, just bloody well forget it. You continually refuse to respond to reasonable arguments yet you claim you want a "discussion" on the merits of your proposal.

It wasn't a "proposal", per se ... it was more of a climate observation. Watching the trends ... and trying to catch the wave.

"Full (Frame) Speed Ahead!"

I mean, if you do not see it that way ... you might want to revaluate the overall picture. Things are changing ... and it is happening, right about ... NOW!

And in suggesting someone has blinders on: Look at the USA ... the political 'founding rug' is being yanked right out from under the people, as I type. Yet ... the majority tends not to believe it. Then, it's gone!

And disbelief is all that remains. :eek:



'Rooz' ... reread the thread ... and I apologize for attributing that requote coming from you. It was from 'jekostas' and "usually" is still the operative word, despite how it was interpreted.

I'm not all that old (okay my spouse say I AM), but I seem to remember there was a time when the average Joe camera schlub could only afford a 110 film camera and 35mm SLR's were for advanced and professional photographers. Then in the recent years before digital the price of 35mm SLR's came down into the affordable range for most people and 110 seemingly disappeared.

I think APS-C will continue for years to come as the commuter car of the camera world ... appealing to the greatest number of people who want the benefit of being able to change out lenses for a reasonably low introductory price. As long as FF cameras are above $1,500 for the body, I think APS-C will continue to dominate.

Then again, a client of my firm who is a noted photographer and inventor, acknowledged that his new I-phone actually take pretty damn good macro photos and he can send them instantly where ever he wants and even up load them instantly to his web site. :o I can see it now the Sony Alpha phone. ;) Coming to your new and improved (namely darker web page) SonyStyle Store. :p

Oh Boy, there's a war going on!

Don, you gotta give this one up. If your main contention is that APS-C will disappear in favour of FF, it won't.
Why don't you own an a900 already? It's the high price.
Even if FF becomes cheaper there will still remain a price advantage, weight advantage and jekostas has an AF advantage for preferring APS-C even if I don't agree with him.
Finally, are APS-C shooters "serious photographers"? Of course they are! Well, some of them. If size were the only measure, you would have to be shooting 4"x5" Large Format to earn the title, "serious photographer" .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peekayoh

Oh Boy, there's a war going on!

...
Finally, are APS-C shooters "serious photographers"? Of course they are! Well, some of them. If size were the only measure, you would have to be shooting 4"x5" Large Format to earn the title, "serious photographer" .

---

I dream of owning a medium format digital camera ... does that count?

"Serious Dreamer". Why not?

Okay ... let's see what happens when the sales of a low cost FF hit the market.

Obviously, there is a line that will smear a bit, as high end APS-C and low-end FF cross. But, once the FF becomes truly available ... I see relatively little interest in the continued shooting on an APS-C sensor. I know I am seriously anxious to return to the "Standard" frame. Give me a camera I can afford ... and I will be there.

Perhaps SONY is finally meeting the masses half way. If so, as a not-so-serious photographer ... see you on the "other side." http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j1.../ththumbup.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jekostas

So, I heard Sony has this TOTALLY AWESOME Live View thingy.

In all seriousness, Don, Sony cannot compete with any other major manufacturer in terms of glass from a price/quality standpoint. You said it yourself in your signature:

"Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera, that gives you the most improvement in your photography"

I mean, it took Sony what, 3 1/2 years to replace the embarrasingly bad DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6? And they still have the gall to ship the equally bad DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 with the A700, when the other manufacturers with bodies in that range (Canon 50d, Nikon D90, Olympus E-30) ship substantially higher quality glass for the same price?

Yet they're "traditionalists". Oooookay

---

ugh, where to begin?

The 18-70mm was not that bad of a lens. Many reviews praised it for being longer than the standard 18-55mm, and I like the extra zoom, not that I use it that much. But yes, granted, it's a kit lens, can't expect much from it.

Now, the 16-105mm is actually a semi-favorite amongst alpha shooters. I've seen it compared many times against the 16-80mm CZ. I'd have to say the CZ is better, but many people really like the 16-105mm. But you're right, in comparison, I'd say it's not that great of a lens, which is why kit lenses generally suck anyway, and we all know where the good glass can be found.

Now, not all the Sony alpha lenses are expensive and overpriced (in comparison to Nikon). In comparison to Canon, Nikon and Sony are just both expensive. Take the new Sony 70-400mm, even with the $100, it is still comparable to the Nikon 80-400mm and Canon 100-400mm IS in price and is a sharper lens.

Another lens to compare is the 24-70mm CZ which is now a good bit cheaper than the Nikon 24-70mm. In terms of quality, they're equivalent.

Then there's the new 70-200mm VRII at $2400 USD, now that's outrageous. Talk about price/quality, how much better can they make it? Sharpen out the corners a bit on FX and speed up the AF? But I will reserve my judgment a bit since it's not out. But the old one (VRI) is $100 more than the Sony variant, but both are good performers.

Two other lenses that are priced fairly are the highly coveted 85mm F/1.4 and the 135mm F/1.8 Zeiss Plannar and Sonnar. They are in-line with Canon and Nikon's high end primes, who actually do not offer the same aperture for 135mm (They have F/2.0). As for the 85mm, the Canon and Nikon variants as of now are older designs, but equally priced.

So you see, even Sony Zeiss glass isn't overpriced and they can indeed compete at the price/quality standpoint. Please don't group all the lenses together and call them a rip off.

But it is true that some lenses are WAY overpriced and other slightly more expensive. The Sony 300mm F/2.8, the 16-105mm @ $599, and the 70-300mm G SSM at $849, which used to be more affordable, but is known for being the best 70-300mm.