Honestly now..FF for image quality or for self image?

This has been bugging me for quiet a while on this forum & others as to why some people purchase full frame cameras & high end lenses, when they are obviously not skilled enough to be professional photographers? Is it for a delusional self image or can they honestly say that the "so called" superior image quality from full frame camera is a neccessity to produce great images?

Why are you so concerned with what equipment others are shooting with?

If people can afford it, why shouldn't they buy whatever kit they feel will give them the best results they can get, whether that's a full frame camera and top lenses or not, and irrespective of whether they are a professional or not.

I may not be producing results as good with my FF as a professional photographer would with a basic P&S, but I'm pretty sure they're better than anything I could produce with a P&S.

And if I'm ever worried about self image, I just go for a drive in the Lamborghini.

Miki G wrote in post #13656281
This has been bugging me for quiet a while on this forum & others as to why some people purchase full frame cameras & high end lenses, when they are obviously not skilled enough to be professional photographers? Is it for a delusional self image or can they honestly say that the "so called" superior image quality from full frame camera is a neccessity to produce great images?

I must've missed the section in the owner's manuals for my 5D and my "L" lenses that says "USE ONLY IF YOU"RE A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER"...

Why do some people drive a BMW....because they can. Same goes for just about anything else life throws our way.
I learned as a small boy - from my father - it does not matter what others are doing, be happy with what you have.

People are free to spend money on whatever they please.

Miki G wrote in post #13656281
This has been bugging me for quiet a while on this forum & others as to why some people purchase full frame cameras & high end lenses, when they are obviously not skilled enough to be professional photographers? Is it for a delusional self image or can they honestly say that the "so called" superior image quality from full frame camera is a neccessity to produce great images?

If this is really bugging you, then you should discuss it with your therapist. Nobody on this forun will be able to help you with your irrational worries about the cameras that strangers elect to use.

Thanks for the replies folks. I agree that if you can afford to buy them, then why not, but at the same time I think that they are not neccessary & that people may be misguided into thinking that if you don't own the top of the range stuff, that you will be wasting your time. Personally, I find my 7D to be ideal for what I shoot & haven't found a full frame necessary. Good lenses, to me anyhow, would be a better buy, but may not be so to everyone. I was tempted to go full frame a while ago, but then asked "Why do I need full frame?" My photography isn't going to improve just because of using a bigger sensor.

Miki G wrote in post #13656529
Thanks for the replies folks. I agree that if you can afford to buy them, then why not, but at the same time I think that they are not neccessary & that people may be misguided into thinking that if you don't own the top of the range stuff, that you will be wasting your time. Personally, I find my 7D to be ideal for what I shoot & haven't found a full frame necessary. Good lenses, to me anyhow, would be a better buy, but may not be so to everyone. I was tempted to go full frame a while ago, but then asked "Why do I need full frame?" My photography isn't going to improve just because of using a bigger sensor.

I think you also miss that FF is not always more expensive. As one example, if you really want shallow DOF then a 5D with one fast zoom or with a handful of inexpensive primes may be cheaper than matching a 1.6X with super fast L primes.

Also some lenses simply match up with FF in ways that people like. I think there is no 1.6X match to the 24-105 and the 24-70 when I consider DOF and range at the same time. I also really like how the 70-200 range works on FF. Finally, there are no fast, wide primes on 1.6x. Not all FF reasoning is for IQ.

A part of it is status symbol ... no different than people buying expensive jewelry, clothes, cars, houses, etc.

On the other hand, someone may buy an expensive FF camera and L lenses because they have a deep passion for photography and they want to develop the skills and "grow" into their equipment. Rather than spending the money to buy an inexpensive camera/lens and then having to replace it in six months, they just get the best ones that they could afford despite that they are not great photographers yet.

Other people may feel that their photographing skills is not that great and they want to stack their odds for them by getting the best camera / lens.

Miki G wrote in post #13656281
This has been bugging me for quiet a while on this forum & others as to why some people purchase full frame cameras & high end lenses, when they are obviously not skilled enough to be professional photographers? Is it for a delusional self image or can they honestly say that the "so called" superior image quality from full frame camera is a neccessity to produce great images?

Same reason I drive an A8 and will be buying an S8, because I can.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #13656413
I must've missed the section in the owner's manuals for my 5D and my "L" lenses that says "USE ONLY IF YOU"RE A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER"...

I missed that too. I guess I should sell my two 5Ds.

I wear a $6,000 wristwatch. I am able to tell time no better than someone who wears a $60.00 Casio.

Why do I wear a $6,00.00 watch? Because I want to, that's why. I don't expect anyone to understand why I wear it, nor do I ask them to understand it. I do it because I want to, and that want is coupled with the means to do so.

If it's for "status", I can assure you that it would be for status only among other photographers. When I bought my Digital Rebal lo those many years ago, non-photographers viewed me as a full on pro. They didn't know it was a crop. I wouldn't have enjoyed any more status if I'd have been standing there with a 1Ds MkIII.

I say buy the best tools you can afford. It will serve you well in the long run...

BreitlingFan wrote in post #13656976
I wear a $6,000 wristwatch. I am able to tell time no better than someone who wears a $60.00 Casio.

Why do I wear a $6,00.00 watch? Because I want to, that's why. I don't expect anyone to understand why I wear it, nor do I ask them to understand it. I do it because I want to, and that want is coupled with the means to do so.

If it's for "status", I can assure you that it would be for status only among other photographers. When I bought my Digital Rebal lo those many years ago, non-photographers viewed me as a full on pro. They didn't know it was a crop. I wouldn't have enjoyed any more status if I'd have been standing there with a 1Ds MkIII.

I say buy the best tools you can afford. It will serve you well in the long run...

To reinforce your sentiment about it meaning something only to other photogs, I'll add a couple thoughts. I went to my cousins wedding over the summer and took my T2i which is gripped. I had 4 people come to me and ask if I was the photographer for the wedding. Non-camera savvy people just don't know the difference.

Also, your Breitling watch probably doesn't garner a lot of ooh's and ahh's with people who aren't in the know with watches. I'm sure you hear all the time, "Is that a Rolex?". Honestly, if I could afford a Rolex, I still wouldn't get one. I'd rather have a Sinn, an Ocean7, an Omega or a Ball. But you say any of those brands to someone who isn't a WIS and they'll assume that a Sinn must be made by Timex or Casio.

I'm getting tired of these threads about people equating FF to "professional". Maybe FF was a big deal 5 yrs ago when the cheapest would have been the 5D at $3000, but there are a number of choices nowadays including the 1.3x crop cameras which have a similar look as FF, several of which are under $1000. A 60D costs more then that.

I bought my 5D after owning a 40D (which I thought was such as cool camera back when they were new.) And I could have bought a 7D which is a better built, fully loaded camera but for what I shoot I wanted the DOF and "look" that FF gives, as well as losing the crop factor with lenses (We could argue all day about image quality but that is not the point). With the exception of possibly 1D/s series camera being considered "professional" it's nobodies business what other people are shooting with. You could make the same argument about L lenses but look at the huge pile that many people have in their gear lists, which is usually many times more expensive than their camera body.