What % of FF buyers just want "the best"

I see this phenomenon with "L" lenses too. If it is not an "L" it is garbage, etc. Really clever product strategy on Canons part. I'ts all you need to know about a lens - the red ring.

NeonStar wrote in post #16255467
I can expose properly, I can't expose properly fast enough. And there's nothing to be ashamed of about that.

It just doesn't make any sense to me why ANYone would shoot jpeg let a lone an event photog.

Sports, you'll get a lot more burst out of jpeg than a series of raw. Quite applicable to the 7D and 1DX. The 1DX is used by all the sports pros, and will do a burst of 400 jpeg shots at 14FPS.

NeonStar wrote in post #16255313
Well there you go. Exactly why you want to shoot RAW. The camera will get you in the ballpark in a fast happening situation way faster than I will. You don't get to sit there for 20 minutes or get to do test shots.

Exactly why you need knowledge and experience. Then you can shoot raw or JPG and get consistent results.

jbrand wrote in post #16255856
I see this phenomenon with "L" lenses too. If it is not an "L" it is garbage, etc. Really clever product strategy on Canons part. I'ts all you need to know about a lens - the red ring.

On dear. I shoot JPEG and am not using L lenses. I will never get a paid gig in this town again!

And what about FF vs. crop? Is FF JPEG better than raw crop?

Back in the film days, mid line and up wedding photographers all used medium format. I suspect that stopped with digital due to the prohibitive-for-many cost (20k+ I believe) of digital medium format. My old Bronica or RB67 (yes, we carried these monsters with flash mounted at weddings) would toast any current FF camera, raw or JPEG, in IQ. But we shoot FF and its quite good enough for the majority of shooters and work (but not all).

*runs*

- g

Gobeatty wrote in post #16255980
On dear. I shoot JPEG and am not using L lenses. I will never get a paid gig in this town again!

And what about FF vs. crop? Is FF JPEG better than raw crop?

Back in the film days, mid line and up wedding photographers all used medium format. I suspect that stopped with digital due to the prohibitive-for-many cost (20k+ I believe) of digital medium format. My old Bronica or RB67 (yes, we carried these monsters with flash mounted at weddings) would toast any current FF camera, raw or JPEG, in IQ. But we shoot FF and its quite good enough for the majority of shooters and work (but not all).

*runs*

- g

500 C/Ms to.

My clients hire me for my vision not the tools I use. They don't worry about what camera or settings I use. They only are concerned with results. It makes no difference to an art director if I soot FF or crop. Leica, Canon or Hasselblad. Raw or JPG. I have a strong client base and I can fully support my family because I consistently exceed my clients expectations no matter what equipment or settings I use.

Ah, RAW vs. jpeg.

The funny thing to me is that the people who are probably the most likely to want to shoot jpeg files will be working photographers. Anyone who is shooting a high volume of pictures and has time constraints (or just understands that time spent processing RAW files = money) has a good incentive to shoot jpeg.

A hobbiest like me can happily shoot RAW. I can give at least one really good reason for hobbiests to shoot RAW, and that is that the conversion software keeps on getting better.

So I shoot RAW files and while I will create a jpeg in order to print, once I've made the prints I keep just the RAW files. Lightroom remembers my processing decisions for me so that I can make more jpegs any time I want them.

But the cool thing is that I have some old pictures I took from 2008 that were kind of noisier than I liked at the time. When I run them these days with the latest version of ACR, the software is able to fix the noise so much better than it could back in 2008. By keeping my RAW 'negatives' I can make better prints now with the files than I could make back when I first shot them.

That's handy for a hobbiest like me, but useless for a commercial photographer.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16249716
Probably a good 90% of Leica's consumerbase.

I would say that she is a small percentage of Leica's consumer base. There are people who wear Leica cameras as jewelry but most Leica M buyers are fans because they like rangefinder cameras and Leica glass. Besides, most Leica buyers actually know something about focusing and depth of field and aperture. Judging from some of the questions on this forum many Canon users do not. Just saying . . .

Jeffrey, this is a false premise for this discussion. It's not whether RAW post-processing is more/less powerful than jpeg post processing. Everybody knows that.

It's whether you turn up your nose at photographers who choose to use jpegs for their workflow. The forum is full of condescending hobbyists who think that spouting the attitude '...if you ain't shooting FF, you ain't s%!t and I only shoot RAW...'

The amusing part is that you look at their post processing efforts and you agree with them...

literally...

Airfrogusmc has published in the past some photos from an exhibition he participated IIRR. He can sell a jpeg any day. He's got talent!

Seeing photos of magenta babies is not art... and no amount of posturing will make it so...

A competent photographer on the other hand, can land a jpeg close enough, that Photoshop or GIMP can take him exactly where he wants to be.

I shoot both RAW and jpeg in 10-20% of my photos. Normally for low light-high ISO ETTR shots. There my workflow goes through Darktable.

The rest of the time I don't really need RAW post processing... So I don't clog up the card with useless megabytes.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16256012
Ah, RAW vs. jpeg.

The funny thing to me is that the people who are probably the most likely to want to shoot jpeg files will be working photographers. Anyone who is shooting a high volume of pictures and has time constraints (or just understands that time spent processing RAW files = money) has a good incentive to shoot jpeg.

A hobbiest like me can happily shoot RAW. I can give at least one really good reason for hobbiests to shoot RAW, and that is that the conversion software keeps on getting better.

So I shoot RAW files and while I will create a jpeg in order to print, once I've made the prints I keep just the RAW files. Lightroom remembers my processing decisions for me so that I can make more jpegs any time I want them.

But the cool thing is that I have some old pictures I took from 2008 that were kind of noisier than I liked at the time. When I run them these days with the latest version of ACR, the software is able to fix the noise so much better than it could back in 2008. By keeping my RAW 'negatives' I can make better prints now with the files than I could make back when I first shot them.

That's handy for a hobbiest like me, but useless for a commercial photographer.

I shoot raw but again, I don't think anything but consistent results matter in the end. I have seen amazing photographers making incredible images that shoot FF. I have seen amazing photographers making incredible images crop. I have seen amazing photographers making amazing images with JPGs. I have seen amazing photographs making incredible images from raw files. I've seem amazing photographers making incredible images with film. And I've seen amazing photographs from all kinds of different equipment and even some amazing things from Holga's and Diana's. The ability to see and capture that vision is what really matters. Find stuff that works for you, the way you see and the way you work because as aladyforty said earlier it's the final image that matters.

Just answering the initial question:

NeonStar wrote in post #16249682
Do you feel like there are a lot of consumers out there that like photography but aren't into photography, but still want to go to the store and see hey that has the highest price tag, it must be the best and get that?

In other words people who probably don't even realize there is a crop factor etc?

Sure, there are those with money who think the most expensive is best, or may have even read reviews, or talked to a couple people they know who take decent shots and own nice gear... so they'll go buy a 5DIII, or whatever, thinking they'll get great photographs. Then they get it home, see all the dials, buttons, numbers, letters, maybe even look at the menu, are are immediately befuddled. So they read the manual enough to insert batteries and go to green box, but don't want to be bothered to learn more, or to go further into the manual; too complex. A lot of it has to do with impatience, laziness, and the need for immediate gratification/results.

That being said, photography isn't a high priority for a lot of folks, even those who buy expensive gear. If they do ok by leaving everything in auto and getting mediocre results and being happy with it, why should I get my banana hammock In a twist over it?

Heres an admission, I bought the 5D3 because I like the FF image quality. I like the better low light ability to get a shot. I think the AF system is better than my 7D was. I like the build quality.
I like the fact that being a 2012 onward camera lets me do more with flash, like on camera control with the 600EXs ( yeah and I even use ETTL2 ) etc.
Another confession I shoot JPEGs and the people, who want my photos are happy and so am I .
I actually don't like faffing around with computers, yes I to use Photoshop to clean up unwanted background clutter, remove the odd skin imperfection etc.
Are my picture brilliant probably not, are they sharp with good IQ - yes, well good enough for me!
So I am happy as are hundred of other 5D3 users.
Thats the real point isn't it. It is a hobby, a pleasure. it makes me a bit of money now and then and lets me shoot what I want to shoot.

I don't get the jealousy angle, if you are that good, why are you not making so much money from your preciously brilliant images; that you could easily afford a 1DX?

I think tolerance is a pretty nice attribute!
Just let people get on and enjoy their hobby.

After all if the critical posters thought about it; if people like me didn't buy 5D3s; without the demand and the economy of scale, the price of top range kit would be exorbitant!

^^
+1

In terms of sharpness, for the same lens, the FF will put more line pairs into the frame of the photo... it's just physics.

In terms of pixels on target ('reach') the crop will put more of those on target. Physics again.

The photographer has to decide how he wants to capture the target...

...and have the ability to do it in a manner that is appealing...

...and help himself with some post-processing...

The last 3 items are subjective and discretionary.

Great thread. Really interesting opinions all-around.

Bottom line is people who have the money will spend it on the best money can buy. I had a friend who would show me his stuff and finish it off with "it's top of the line". Be it a camera or something in his home theater. Like I said before, more power to them. I feel sad for those that drown in debt and constantly have to break the bank just to keep up with the Jones' and not realizing that they can get similar results with cheaper gear for their kind of photography.
My cousin bought a Prius a few months ago on sale for $22K and I remembered a doctor who was first in line to purchase the same car for around $42K. we need people like them to keep innovation going and allow that technology to be filtered down to the rest of us.

How many times have we seen extremely ordinary photos with a $6K camera, a $3K lens and a $600 flash and said he took THAT with THAT? It happens. I personally believe letting someone else make a mistake and profiting from that mistake and buying it cheap. It's a WIN-WIN for everyone!

Gobeatty wrote in post #16249929
My kids are 8 and 10 now and I shoot a lot of school events. I see the Rebels everywhere, most on green box. My niece is in this category and speaking to a few of these folks I get a different story. I hear they are interested in photography and got the kit for themselves or as a gift. "I told my husband I was interested in photography and wanted to make pictures of the kids and he got me this camera for Christmas and I havn't taken a photography class." This isn't mad money IMHO, although most I see are Rebels - rarely a ful frame, which the OP is about.

Do not diss the green box!

My first SLR experience was around 1998 with a (of course non digital) EOS I borrowed from my father in law to shoot the vacation in Greece with my wife. I have absolutely no idea about the lens, but I'd assume it was the cheapest Canon EOS with equivalent lens (still awesome back in that day!). I shot everything on auto.

Long story short: The photo's were absolutely terrific. I knew that when I had the cash I would buy an SLR.

Also; a rebel at the green Box is much better than a P&S. Better sensor, better ergonomics, better viewfinder (note that liveview is diminishing that advantage), better responsiveness, all great advantages for the casual shooters. The green box is where we start and it's results are not nearly as bad as we tend to say. It's when we reach "challenging" situations where manual shines.