wayno wrote:theres a national geographic photo exhibition on where i live. poster size prints.. most taken with cameras with aps-c sensors some as old as the nikon D200 and theres nothing wrong with the prints. the images havetn reached their limitations by being blown up....
Great point wayno, I believe the submission requirements for anyone wanting to send photos in to National Geographic for publication is that the file must be no less than 6mp (or 1600 pixels on the longest side). 6mp!
I have a friend who owns and runs an art gallery and he uses an old 6mp Nikon and easily makes prints up to 1 or 1.5m wide... and they are as sharp and detailed as you would want from a fine art print and I doubt anyone could tell that he is not using the latest 20mp camera or would care, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. How many people even print their photos I wonder? I'd say most of them are displayed on 72dpi monitors whch works out to what, 2mp or something silly...
I think the problem is that too many gear heads are focused on, not taking good photos, but on 'gear'. Quite simply they are gear freaks, not photographers, and its disappointing that most people who feel like they should satisfy their creative need to get out and take nice photos are caught up in the whole confusing mess. There are endless discussions like this one where all the experts rant about their gear but personally I'm only interested in seeing photos that show empathy for their subject or tell a good story or are just plain beautiful.
Your camera has nothing to do with making a great photo. I'd like to visit the online gallery of all the experts and see their photos, it seems that most of them have $10 000 worth of the latest gear but the best they can do is crap on about 100% crops of their dogs whiskers and how bad the noise is at ISO 25, 600 and how the camera manufacturers better pull there socks up etc... Show me the
money errr pictures!
photohiker wrote:On the other hand there is far more difference between the two than just the max print size capabilities.
I don't know about
far more but there is
some difference
Its easier to get a shallow DOF for instance (there are some pretty fast lenses out for aps-c or micro 4/3 though which provide a nice bokeh), there may be an advantage in dynamic range (is it seriously going to make that much of a difference n your photos though?) and also with noise at higher ISO's but it wasn't all that long ago people were making breathtaking photos in tough conditions with only ASA400 film...
A significant disavantage (for me) is size, compare m4/3 vs aps-c vs FF. when my 40d gives up the ghost I'll seriously consider something like an OMD, its half the size and has superior IQ compared to the 40d and the 40d is already a great camera
As to the original post, I would go with an entry level DSLR or mirrorless system thats within your budget and has manual adjustments so that you can do lots of experimentation and still take great photos without breaking the bank. The sensors in the latest crop of available cameras are pretty amazing and if you get a nice versatile kit lens (an 18-55 or so) the only limits will be you!
and then after two weeks when you decide to be a 'pro' like everyone else you can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the best gear and go chasing your dog around the house to your hearts content
ALWAYS be yourself.
Unless you can be outside, then ALWAYS be outside.