For the cost of an a 70-200, you could have the 50-140 and a prime like a 56 f/1.2 or 90 f/2. If you took the best of both worlds, the full frame would win, but then you could also need to consider that every time you increase the budget, the APSC would allow for an additional lens.
I have yet to see any valid responses and I suspect the only examples they could produce is something like a 105 f/1.4 which most photographers don’t own. I cannot count the amount of times I have asked someone who insists that APSC is too limiting to show me a photo they took that could not have been taken on an APSC camera. Many current professional photographers do not upgrade model after model, they wait for their current models to stop working because the simple reality is that cameras have now reached a point where it’s more likely your skill will constrain you than the camera will. APSC image quality today is well beyond the image quality of previously generation full frame cameras and professionals of that time weren’t constrained. They ARE extremely talented, but I also believe that if these talented photographers have reached this point without being constrained by APSC, there are very few people these days who can honestly claim they are actually “constrained” by APSC. I don’t believe what these good APSC photographers are doing is magical. They are better than me, better than most full frame users, and better than 95% of the users on forums who feel that APSC is such a hindrance that they could not survive in a world of only APSC. There are many professional photographers who are not constrained by APSC.
0 kommentar(er)
