I've been here a while and still don't get it.

[Grandpa Ron]

Boy, you folks are way overthinking this.

Some folks delight in the latest and most expensive highest precision gear. The spend their creative juices taking and post-processing excellent art work. Others like myself, delight is tweaking out the most from a 1915 Seneca view camera. Sure, I own a nice digital camera and a set of lenses but to me it is more fun to diddle. Neither approach is right or wrong just a different forms of entertainment.

As humans we may be pack animals but most of the folks I know are highly individualist, only conforming to the pack when necessary for economic or safety reasons; and perhaps to keep out of jail. Most of them could careless what folks think of their hobbies.

Always remember that, no matter how passionate and involved you are in a subject; unless you depend on it as part of your livelihood... it is only a hobby.

 

[Original katomi]

I could not do photography as a living, it would spoil it for me. My style is .....different... if I had to conform to rules and time slots/deadlines ....pressure to do what others want.....
no not for me.

 

[jonnybaz]

There is a general sense about sensors that "bigger is better". I don't believe it anymore. I don't know. Maybe my opinion is influenced by my last purchase. The Nikon Coolpix P1000. It's an example of a camera where the small sensor turns to advantage cause provides you a crop factor of ~5x which comes to a final optical zoom of 125x. This fact opens up - to my opinion - a whole new world of photographic opportunities since you can bring - in breath distance to you - many subjects otherwise unreachable. Of course it comes to a price,in terms of image quality. It depends what kind of quality is adequate to you. I find the level good. But that's just me.

Now let's leave aside a certain camera. Let's talk about light efficiency. With a camera with a sensor smaller than a full frame you can achieve results close to a full frame camera - or even the same! It depends of course of how much smaller is the sensor from the full frame competitor. You just need longer exposure time. Buy a tripod for night shooting and stabilize your camera upon it. Then leave the shutter open more time than you would if you had it handheld. That's an example for good results with a smaller than full frame sensor.

Then there is AI in the sector of smartphones especially. It makes rapid progress and in some cases you can have results comparable to the ones of much bigger sensors. I have a lot of respect to the Xiaomi M11 ultra 1" sensor, although I don't have this phone. Together with good AI you see very good sample photos.

And last but not least it does matter how big you want your printings! Perhaps the standard size is okay for you. You don't have to purchase an enormous sensor at this case! Or you maybe are fine with printings till the next size. You are okay as well. It always depends from your demands.

Finally I have uploaded two photos which make my point. The first one I call it the "ghost" photo. It was taken a long time ago with an APS-C camera which I let on a table for a long time to gather light in a dark room. And the second is from the aforementioned p1000. It couldn't be so detailed if it didn't have that little sensor.

 

[flyingPhoto]

the

There is a general sense about sensors that "bigger is better". I don't believe it anymore. I don't know. Maybe my opinion is influenced by my last purchase. The Nikon Coolpix P1000. It's an example of a camera where the small sensor turns to advantage cause provides you a crop factor of ~5x which comes to a final optical zoom of 125x. This fact opens up - to my opinion - a whole new world of photographic opportunities since you can bring - in breath distance to you - many subjects otherwise unreachable. Of course it comes to a price,in terms of image quality. It depends what kind of quality is adequate to you. I find the level good. But that's just me.

Now let's leave aside a certain camera. Let's talk about light efficiency. With a camera with a sensor smaller than a full frame you can achieve results close to a full frame camera - or even the same! It depends of course of how much smaller is the sensor from the full frame competitor. You just need longer exposure time. Buy a tripod for night shooting and stabilize your camera upon it. Then leave the shutter open more time than you would if you had it handheld. That's an example for good results with a smaller than full frame sensor.

Then there is AI in the sector of smartphones especially. It makes rapid progress and in some cases you can have results comparable to the ones of much bigger sensors. I have a lot of respect to the Xiaomi M11 ultra 1" sensor, although I don't have this phone. Together with good AI you see very good sample photos.

And last but not least it does matter how big you want your printings! Perhaps the standard size is okay for you. You don't have to purchase an enormous sensor at this case! Or you maybe are fine with printings till the next size. You are okay as well. It always depends from your demands.

Finally I have uploaded two photos which make my point. The first one I call it the "ghost" photo. It was taken a long time ago with an APS-C camera which I let on a table for a long time to gather light in a dark room. And the second is from the aforementioned p1000. It couldn't be so detailed if it didn't have that little sensor.

moon photo is ok at small size. Enlarge it and it SUCKS..... no offense but massive distortion.

Yeah you might have the "magnification" created by tiny sensor size in that bridge camera, but i have sensor QUALITY. Ever noticed that on your camera, when you take a shot with it on auto, it looks alright, but if you switch to manual and ptu the same setting in, the image is total crap/

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I will admit my bias for simply using a photo "as shot" puts me in the minority. You get what you see with little or no post processing. This is probably because I worry less about the image quality and more about capturing the "content". Plus, I find digital manipulation boring.

However, based on the images produced by some of my photographic club members and some recent photography books at my local library, the real digital magic happens in post processing. I have seen some very good post processed photos, and the people producing them deserve a lot of credit.

Concerning the OP's comments of camera X being better that camera Y. Yes, the better the image captured by the camera, the easier the digital manipulation to get the image you like. But once you have entered the world of "RAW" digital processing ... I suspect your post processing abilities, out weight the slight differences in hardware.

 

[jonnybaz]

the

moon photo is ok at small size. Enlarge it and it SUCKS..... no offense but massive distortion.

Yeah you might have the "magnification" created by tiny sensor size in that bridge camera, but i have sensor QUALITY. Ever noticed that on your camera, when you take a shot with it on auto, it looks alright, but if you switch to manual and ptu the same setting in, the image is total crap/

Okay mate. I'll pass the language and with honesty and good temperament I will answer you. Believe me the zoom of the camera is more than okay. Don't forget; you saw a thumbnail of a moonshot. With the maximum of the optical zoom (125x), handheld. Now I'll attach a snapshot of the same photo, enlarged to the screen of my smartphone so that you can distinguish the details on the surface of the moon such as the Copernicus crater and other craters near the edge. To be honest it's not the entire photo! Just a part of it. Because - although I wanted to include it - it was impossible because of my smartphone's screen size. I understand that a larger sensor gives you better quality. But - even with smaller one's - you can have a very good quality and I can send you more shots to make you understand that. I don't claim that you did a bad choice if you have chose a full frame or any other camera with a bigger sensor than mine. It all comes down to what you want to achieve.
P.S The language on the screen from the snapshot is Greek. Cheers!

 

[jonnybaz]

the

moon photo is ok at small size. Enlarge it and it SUCKS..... no offense but massive distortion.

Yeah you might have the "magnification" created by tiny sensor size in that bridge camera, but i have sensor QUALITY. Ever noticed that on your camera, when you take a shot with it on auto, it looks alright, but if you switch to manual and ptu the same setting in, the image is total crap/

Although I have already responded I want to add something I missed to my previous answer. I was wrong. The optical zoom you are seeing at my first thumbnail is not the total zoom (125x). I attach another moonshot where I use the total optical zoom of the camera. ISO100,539mm,f8.0, shutter speed 1/60.

 

[petrochemist]

I feel much the same about any thread about what's best. The question is usually left completely open rather than what's best for a very specific role. We get if for hardware, apertures, ISO, etc.
If one value was really best for everything why would manufacturers give the options to change that value?

 

[jonnybaz]

I feel much the same about any thread about what's best. The question is usually left completely open rather than what's best for a very specific role. We get if for hardware, apertures, ISO, etc.
If one value was really best for everything why would manufacturers give the options to change that value?

That's the point. There are different cameras for different photographers. For example I wouldn't judge someone that purchases an underwater camera. It has not the biggest sensor of the market but it permits you to take unique shots.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Again, keep in mind that with digital pictures, the end product is the results of the numerous, nameless, photo processing guru's that write the algorithms for the processing of the sensor images, including the downloading, post processing and uploading to the web or your monitor.

 

[BrentC]

I have long since learned to ignore posts from camera snobs about sensor size and other camera related threads that argue fullframe vs everything else. It's all BS. They all take great quality pictures and they all have their pros and cons and there is enough out there to fit everyones needs. It's one reason I avoid sites like DPReview. Let me share two experiences I had that showed me there are just as many snobs and assholes just like every other hobby or profession.

Not long after buying my first camera, an Olympus EM5 MKII, I decided to join our local photography club. I was standing around a group of five people, introducing myself. I was asked what camera I am using. Once I told them I got smirks from two of them and another said I couldn't possibly do any wildlife photography with it. One of those that smirked at me and the one that said I couldn't do wildlife left and joined another group of people to talk to. The one who said I couldn't use my camera for wildlife uses a Nikon D500. I looked at his flickr later and saw that his wildlife photos were not that great at all. I would even say most were worse than what I produced even at my start.
Suffice it to say I never returned, it was so off putting being dismissed like that.

Another time I was at a popular pond area for photographers. There were a lot of photographers that day photographing Wood Ducks flying in and out and other smaller birds. There wasn't much room and there was about 20+ photographers there. I had a good spot that I just got. Then I guy came up to me and asked me to move and let him take my spot. His reasoning was that my camera would not be able to capture the birds at that distance and I shouldn't waste my time. Proceeded to explain to me if I really wanted to do wildlife photos I would need a DSLR with a long lens. I shut him up after explaining that I had more reach with my setup than he did. He just walked away without saying a word.

With some bad experiences and stupidly getting involved in some threads I decided I had enough and refuse to get involved in these types of discussions anymore. I don't even try recommending anything to those that ask. I am glad there isn't a lot of this happening on this forum.

 

[mrca]

One of the reason I shoot mf 67 film is the huge negative gives incredibly smooth tonal transitions. 42 square mm compared to 8.6 in a 35 mm. Sorry, a FF digital won't and most digital "MF" is a crop compared to this size. Size does matter. As for editing, hasn't this dead horse been beaten enough for 20 years?

 

[jonnybaz]

I have long since learned to ignore posts from camera snobs about sensor size and other camera related threads that argue fullframe vs everything else. It's all BS. They all take great quality pictures and they all have their pros and cons and there is enough out there to fit everyones needs. It's one reason I avoid sites like DPReview. Let me share two experiences I had that showed me there are just as many snobs and assholes just like every other hobby or profession.

Not long after buying my first camera, an Olympus EM5 MKII, I decided to join our local photography club. I was standing around a group of five people, introducing myself. I was asked what camera I am using. Once I told them I got smirks from two of them and another said I couldn't possibly do any wildlife photography with it. One of those that smirked at me and the one that said I couldn't do wildlife left and joined another group of people to talk to. The one who said I couldn't use my camera for wildlife uses a Nikon D500. I looked at his flickr later and saw that his wildlife photos were not that great at all. I would even say most were worse than what I produced even at my start.
Suffice it to say I never returned, it was so off putting being dismissed like that.

Another time I was at a popular pond area for photographers. There were a lot of photographers that day photographing Wood Ducks flying in and out and other smaller birds. There wasn't much room and there was about 20+ photographers there. I had a good spot that I just got. Then I guy came up to me and asked me to move and let him take my spot. His reasoning was that my camera would not be able to capture the birds at that distance and I shouldn't waste my time. Proceeded to explain to me if I really wanted to do wildlife photos I would need a DSLR with a long lens. I shut him up after explaining that I had more reach with my setup than he did. He just walked away without saying a word.

With some bad experiences and stupidly getting involved in some threads I decided I had enough and refuse to get involved in these types of discussions anymore. I don't even try recommending anything to those that ask. I am glad there isn't a lot of this happening on this forum.

You have a very good camera. If you use an appropriate lens to keep a good distance from the animals not to scare them, you are okay.

 

[mrca]

Jonny, I'm not sure why you say comments re sensor size are BS, but taking "quality" pictures and getting the absolute best capture are not necessarily the same thing. Believe me, I know having won and judged professional competitions. A larger sensor simply gives more area for incredibly smooth tonal transitions. If you have facts to dispute my comments on the benefits of large sensor/film size, I am open to them. Yes, like in the over all public, there are jerks out there with cameras. Some that don't have a clue and don't know what they don't know or are just camera collectors who NEVER show their photos, unless it is a photo of their gear. And learn to recognize a collector vs an actual photographer. I always point out that my most awarded photo was taken with a 10 mp camera with one of nikons 10 worst lenses. So I tell folks, NEVER let anyone diss you because of your gear. In my case it was an on field NFL photographer who when he saw my photo come up, jumped out of his chair and wanting to know who made this image and how it was done. When my name was called for best in class and him awarding me the speakers award and I stood up, his jaw hit the floor. Priceless. This is called photo graphy, not camera graphy.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Brent that was rather rude of the fellow. I am afraid that an old guy like me would tell someone who criticized my gear, "If I wanted cheap, I would have bought what you have." But hey, I already know I am old and opinionated.

Equipment does not a good photograph make.