Hi,
I am no wildlife photographer myself, more landscape… Anyway, here is my take on the issue:
- If you print really large, more pixels is a good thing. Andy Biggs prints large and can get close enough to his subjects.
- Ergonomics and AF plays a role of course, but Tom's bird shots shows that manual focus also works.
- Personally, I use mostly the APS-C camera for reach. It is my "wildlife camera".
- Lenses play a role. Tom has some pretty impressive tele lenses. Pentax ED glass is usually excellent.
- The Pentax 645 D or Z are the most SLR like MF cameras. The 645Z has a similar sensor to Nikon D800 and Sony A7r, but almost twice the size. The size alone gives some significant advantage.
- The larger the sensor, the longer the lens needed to fill the image.
Personally, I typically shoot landscape with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo, even if I feel that it offers little advantage the sizes I print. I have five lenses for it 40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 120/4 and 180/4. My general purpose camera is the Sony Alpha 99, normally used with a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-400/4-5.6 and an 1.4X converter. The kit is completed with extension tubes for the Hasselblad and/or couple of ultra wides for the Sony. The ultra wides may be the Sigma 10/3.5 fisheye, the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 or the Samyang 14/2.8. The Samyang 14/2.8 is very sharp. This is what I normally have in my Gura Gear Kiboko bag.
I obviously don't take that equipment for long walks, a couple of km in easy terrain is OK. Anything longer the Hasselblad stays behind.
For walks I have Sony Alpha 99, 24-70/2.8, 70-400/4-5.6, 1.4X extender, Sony Alpha 16-80/3.5-4.5 and Sigma Fisheye 10/3.5 as normal equipment.
If I shoot "street" it is just a Domke west with a 70-300/4.5-5.6 in one pocket, a Sigma 10/3.5 in another and the 16-80/3.5-4.5 mounted on the Alpha 77.
Alpha 77
Alpha 77
Hasselblad 555ELD/P45+
Best regards
Erik
So "no contest" between K5 and 645D, same goes for APS-C and upwards, but not such a huge difference perhaps between 645D and P45+... am I interpreting this wrong or does the law of diminishing returns come into play as the sensor gets bigger ie a lot more difference between eating one or two icecreams (APS-C - full frame DSLR) than between eating 86 and 87 icecreams (645D - P45+)? Obviously I am no economist! What I would like to know is what actually does one lose by moving from a legacy MFDB with a larger sensor like the P45+ to a newer neoMFDB with a somewhat smaller sensor like the 645D, since apart from IQ there appears to be plenty to gain from such a move, right?
Or to return to the good question that started this thread: what effect if any does a wildlife or any other photographer run into by moving up or down from one type of camera to another one with a little but not a lot of difference in sensor size and a heck of a lot of other differences in ergonomics etc?