Gearheads...! <shakes head sadly>
These kinds of threads - nitpicking about gear - annoy me. Thankfully, RFF is a peaceful haven compared with sites like DPReview, where "fanboys" (very few "fangirls", I suspect!) of camera marques and form factors attack each other with religious fervour.
Full frame, crop factor, mirrorless: who cares, providing the photograph obtained meets your or your client's requirements? Unless you've got special needs that have yet to be met - such as having to shoot at f/0.00001 or making 30-foot prints to be viewed from 6 inches - get off the technological treadmill of buying the latest camera, whether it's megapixels or form factor being pushed!
Today's technological turnover of models with lifespans of a mere 12-18 months is bad in all kinds of ways. Bad for photography (encouraging the myth that better equipment = better photographs = a better photographer), bad for the planet (piling up electronic waste and reducing our dwindling mineral resources), bad for society (widening the "digital divide": my elderly parents no longer take photographs - they can't buy or develop film easily, don't own a computer, and are now completely bewildered by technology such as touch screens).
Take Canon's G series cameras: there have been 14 models in 14 years - that's a model life-span of only a year! The 12 MP Canon G16 (which came out in 2013) is undeniably a more versatile camera than the 3 MP Canon G1 (2000), but what about compared with 2009's 12 MP Canon G9? Would the G9 or even the G5 be sufficient for most people? Of course it would!
And that's the point: how many people who upgrade their cameras absolutely require the new features? How many owners of a Nikon D800 or Sony A7r need 36 MP because they must make huge prints? How many who bought the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art always shoot at f/1.4? Was what they had before simply not up to the job? Were large prints from, say, their "obsolete" Canon 5D utter crap, were photos taken with a Canon 35mm f/1.4 (or the f/1.8) blurred messes? Do prints from their new mirrorless Sony a7s blow away those from their Nikon D700? I don't think so...
Obviously, camera equipment must meet certain requirements for a photographer: a mirrorless camera may suit them better than an SLR because they photograph in way that requires small, lightweight gear. But most photographers I know use kit that goes far beyond their needs.
Buying new gear because it will give better image quality (assuming your previous camera had sufficient megapixels for the size you printed) is often just an excuse for wanting more electronic heroin...
Take SLR lenses. Excepting the very cheapest, the sharpness of lenses made in the last 3-4 decades is good enough for anyone. Make that 20 years if you want autofocus. Yes, there are minor differences - but the acid test is: will these be noticeable in the final image (whether on a website or as a print)? If not, then having bought the newer, "better" camera or lens or whatever hasn't improved your photographs, only your bragging rights. No one needs a £3000 Zeiss Otus because of image quality - if I showed large prints taken with that and my 30-year-old, £50 second-hand Nikon lens, I doubt few could tell them apart, and if they did, it would be because of inconsequential differences in appearance not variation in quality.
I take my photography seriously. But I just don't get this obsession with gear (except to ensure it'll do what I need it to). When shooting digitally, I use a Nikon D800E because I print large - but I couldn't care less about lenses (excepting the lowest quality "consumer-grade" ones, which I do avoid; but even those, I suspect, would be good enough for most of my work - even for my large gallery prints costing £1000). My lenses are cheap and cheerful, from the 1970s to 1990s. Would new lenses be sharper with less distortion? Without doubt. Would using them improve my photographs? Only in a sense akin to considering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: my images using "obsolete" lenses are already sharp and distortion free, so additional image quality is pointless - but I would of course gain bragging rights.
I despair of people who must have the latest tech or jump on the current gadget bandwagon (aka mirrorless cameras) without needing it - especially if it's clear they couldn't use what they had before properly. Those who must have the latest phone, console or other gadget, camping outside Apple shops to be the first to buy one ... they're gullible fools sucking up the spew of rampant consumerism! The camera industry epitomises this malaise in Western capitalism.
Do you really need "better" images? If you're a pro, would your clients notice the difference?
Get off the technological treadmill!
