Gary A.
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 22,357
- Reaction score
- 7,540
- Location
- Southern California
- Website
- www.garyayala.com
If your goals are to "launch" a "photography business", sometime in the future, "... and need to upgrade" your camera. I think this is a fair/honest/legitimate/good question. If you think you are ready to be a professional, that type of question speaks to you not being ready to fairly address the needs of your clients in a professional manner.
So, assuming the former, good question because many people 'waste' a lot of money purchasing equipment which eventually gets dumped in favor of hardware which better/best serves the clients and the photographer.
Types of photography genre tends to dictate camera and sensor size (see above).
Again, assuming that your chosen field of professional photography lends itself to a 35mm type of camera, you have two basic choices in dSLR's:
1) Full Frame (FF) dSLR; or
2) APS-C (crop sensor) dSLR.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. In a nutshell, (and being brief to the point of opening up the discussion for a lot of pushback). Generally, it is easier to go wide with a FF. Generally, it is easier to go long with an APS-C. That being said, most pros that I know use FF dSLR's because, in the past there was a significant difference between the build quality, shooting performance and Image Quality (IQ) of FF cameras and lenses when compared to APS-C camera and lenses. As time and technology marches-on, those distinctions are rapidly becoming less and less. (Many FF enthusiasts will hop up and down talking of paper thin DOF of a FF or the ultra high usable ISO of FF, but unless you are shoot a specialty genre, a la jewerly product or bats in a cave ... those differences are not significant for most pro photographers.)
But, I think you're are really wondering about manufacturers ... what manufacturer crafts the best 'pro' camera? My experience that the top of the line Canon is pretty much equal to the top of the line Nikon. Presently, Nikon may have an edge in sensor technology, but next year it may be Canon. Sony may have the best all-around sensor out there, but their lens lineup pales in comparison to Nikon and Canon. Et cetera. (I am attempting to address the question without diving into minutia.)
All in all, I think that there is very little performance difference between Canon/Nikon and very little IQ difference between FF/APS-C. But I would definitely buy FF lenses regardless of sensor size. That way, I could use the same lens on different sensored bodies.
Again, in a nutshell, I used to be a pro. What, more expensive equipment did for me, was it made it easier to capture the exceptional image and that was my job. Again, it was easier with greater consistency, (consistency increases with ease), to capture the image I needed with more expensive equipment than less expensive.
I think both Canon and Nikon will deliver pretty much the same quality image with the same level of performance.
So, assuming the former, good question because many people 'waste' a lot of money purchasing equipment which eventually gets dumped in favor of hardware which better/best serves the clients and the photographer.
Types of photography genre tends to dictate camera and sensor size (see above).
Again, assuming that your chosen field of professional photography lends itself to a 35mm type of camera, you have two basic choices in dSLR's:
1) Full Frame (FF) dSLR; or
2) APS-C (crop sensor) dSLR.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. In a nutshell, (and being brief to the point of opening up the discussion for a lot of pushback). Generally, it is easier to go wide with a FF. Generally, it is easier to go long with an APS-C. That being said, most pros that I know use FF dSLR's because, in the past there was a significant difference between the build quality, shooting performance and Image Quality (IQ) of FF cameras and lenses when compared to APS-C camera and lenses. As time and technology marches-on, those distinctions are rapidly becoming less and less. (Many FF enthusiasts will hop up and down talking of paper thin DOF of a FF or the ultra high usable ISO of FF, but unless you are shoot a specialty genre, a la jewerly product or bats in a cave ... those differences are not significant for most pro photographers.)
But, I think you're are really wondering about manufacturers ... what manufacturer crafts the best 'pro' camera? My experience that the top of the line Canon is pretty much equal to the top of the line Nikon. Presently, Nikon may have an edge in sensor technology, but next year it may be Canon. Sony may have the best all-around sensor out there, but their lens lineup pales in comparison to Nikon and Canon. Et cetera. (I am attempting to address the question without diving into minutia.)
All in all, I think that there is very little performance difference between Canon/Nikon and very little IQ difference between FF/APS-C. But I would definitely buy FF lenses regardless of sensor size. That way, I could use the same lens on different sensored bodies.
Again, in a nutshell, I used to be a pro. What, more expensive equipment did for me, was it made it easier to capture the exceptional image and that was my job. Again, it was easier with greater consistency, (consistency increases with ease), to capture the image I needed with more expensive equipment than less expensive.
I think both Canon and Nikon will deliver pretty much the same quality image with the same level of performance.