Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 6,453Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Full frame still the most versatile?
In reply to vzlnc, Apr 2, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

jonrobertp wrote:

DenWil wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

zenpmd wrote:

Yes, they are big cameras, but with the constant apeture pro zoom lens they are (probably) the only lenses you will ever need. The DOF equivalent on, say, the new Tamron 2.8 24-70 will never happen on m4/3, since it would require an aperture of 1.4 throughout the zoom range, thats never going to happen!

I suppose its just a shame there is no a 2.8 constant zoom lens that extends to around 85mm on FF that allows for good portraits. 70 is too short.

It depends.

If you don't consider size, weight, or cost, then FF is the most versatile, IMO.

Size,  weight  and cost has nothing to do with the versatility of the tool itself. ...

What ???   lol...they most certainly do...have a LOT to do with the tool. Do you carry a floor jack in the trunk of your car ?   Do you take an 18 cu.ft. fridge with you on an afternoon picnic ?   Small is nearly always better...in many items, including most photographic equipment. (except reflectors)    etc....

Clearly, there is not agreement here on this thread as to how the OP defined his term "versatile".

Wrong analogy. FF vs m4/3 or DX size difference is not as big as you make it out to be.

"Small is nearly always better...in many items, including most photographic equipment." --  Think sensor? Aperture? Monitor? LCD? Viewfinder? Ergonomics? Ruggedness? Only benefit of small is that it fits most bags, easy to carry. Downside is you lose too many features.

There are many lightweight FF DSLRs now and with a variable aperture zoom lens weight can be maintained to be less than 3 lbs and no m4/3 is gonna come near the image quality or speed or features you will get with the FF combination.

FF is indeed the most versatile platform in photography, not only in terms of image quality, speed or features, but its also a kind of defacto standard now for photography. As video performance get better, the one area where FF or DSLRs lagged will also get covered.

All other photography equipment like DX, APS-C, mirrorless etc is relevent as long as the size or weight difference with FF is SIGNIFICANT.

As soon as people start using external flash, Lens adapters or non-native lenses, external viewfinders, carry 3-4 different lenses, bag, tripod, extra batteries, the size and weight difference with FF becomes smaller and that advantage no longer exists. If I have to keep the size and weight down, I would for for a good point and shoot and not m4/3 or other mirrorless or system cameras.

Most versatile system camera - FF.

Most versatile on a budget - DX/APS-C

Most smallest, cheap, easy to use, easy to carry - Good point and shoot.

Not quite.

As soon as people start building a kit by adding lenses, etc, the size/weight difference between m4/3s and FF increases, not decreases.

Maybe that doesn't happen so much with APS-C due to the temptation of FF lenses.

Also not quite sure you're up to date with current mirrorless. They certainly aren't suffering a shortage of features in comparison with DSLRs.

They would definitely lag behind the FF DSLRS and the pro level DX DSLRs.

Besides, versatile means being adaptable to any situation, which a FF or DX DSLR is, not a mirrorless or a compact

Any situation?

Like one in which you've got limited space?

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow