I just wanted to ask people about something I've noticed.
When I look at the gear advice on forums and talk to local professional photographers there is an insistence on full-frame DSLR and associated lenses as essential tools for any professional. Then, I read some of the big high-profile photographer singing the praises of recent innovations like the Olympus OM-D, other CSCs, high-end compacts and other equipment like that.
Now, the local guys could be perfectly right and justified in what they say, but when I point to the articles by these guys there is a certain amount of scepticism.
Why do the really big names feel able to embrace stuff other than the Canon/Nikon full-frame hegemony when others don't?
I am genuinely interested in understand the cultural, practical and psychological stuff at play.
When I look at the gear advice on forums and talk to local professional photographers there is an insistence on full-frame DSLR and associated lenses as essential tools for any professional. Then, I read some of the big high-profile photographer singing the praises of recent innovations like the Olympus OM-D, other CSCs, high-end compacts and other equipment like that.
Now, the local guys could be perfectly right and justified in what they say, but when I point to the articles by these guys there is a certain amount of scepticism.
Why do the really big names feel able to embrace stuff other than the Canon/Nikon full-frame hegemony when others don't?
I am genuinely interested in understand the cultural, practical and psychological stuff at play.