schuchmn wrote:
FF vs APS has been debated here endlessly. I came across this recently published article by Thom Hogan:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-full-frame-debate.html
The point here is not to start the whole debate up again, but to ask the question "How good is good enough?" or "How good does your equipment have to be before you won't notice an improvement with more expensive gear?"
I think this needs to be asked whenever we see categorical statements like "FF is better than APS" or "Primes are sharper than zooms" or "The new YaddaFlex 101 has newer technology than the old YaddaFlex 100". Do these things really make a difference in actual pictures?
My contention is that there's no absolute answer to this question, that what's good enough for you may be different than what's good enough for someone else.
If you're shooting with a P&S and you're viewing the images on a computer screen or doing small prints, buying an FF DSLR isn't going to make better pictures even though it would be a "better" camera. In fact, it might do worse if you don't spend the time to learn how to make it work. On the other hand, professionals and serious amateurs who need higher quality to publish or make large prints couldn't make do with a P&S. They need high-end cameras AND lenses AND tripods AND good technique. Let's not forget that last one because without it your FF DSLR isn't going to give you better pictures than an APS-sensored camera would.
Or many amateurs are happy with consumer grade long-range zoom lenses. Of course they're not as sharp as good primes but their users aren't doing work critical enough to see a difference.
This has ended up sounding sort of like a tirade, but that's not my intent at all. I'm definitely NOT trying to pick on anyone for the opinions they've expressed on UHH.
I just want to put out the question "How good is good enough?" Having asked it, I'll sit back and enjoy reading everyone's answers.
FF vs APS has been debated here endlessly. I came... (
show quote)
It's always going to be does it fit the need, the purpose of the photograph. It's all about not what format or equipment or name but does it give you what you want. Ansel Adams used maybe a dozen cameras, Henri Cartier-Bresson mainly used a leica, both produced amazing photographs. It's all to do with the photographer and the moment and their art.
Good enough is when you have your print in hand after all the processing and it is everything you wanted it to be. I do know that is an all too often rare event, more often it will do is close.