Sony mirrorless FullFrame!?!?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,772
Like?
Re: Another forecast
In reply to sean lancaster, 11 months ago

sean lancaster wrote:

amalric wrote:

sean lancaster wrote:

Olymore wrote:

For the last 150 years sensor/film size has progressively got smaller, for mainstream photography, as technology has improved.

From large plates all the way down to APSC.

I would be more inclined to put a bet on 1" size sensors being the standard for keen photographers in ten years time. The current move to 35mm size sensors is a minor blip in that sequence due to the falling price of these cameras. It won't last long and is only affecting a small part of the market (up from 5% to 8% of ILC sales so far) .

In fact as phone cameras are improving at such a rate and as the sensors are the most efficient available, even smalller sensors will likely be used and software used to create the approriate DOF requirements.

After all it was only a few years ago that using software to correct lens aberrations was frowned upon and now it is more or less accepted.

Sensor size still largely determines depth of field (along with lens) - and assuming we're shooting the same field of view and same subject. For people who like a shallow depth of field then phone sized sensors are not making progress. Neither are micro 4/3 camera. Neither are APS-C cameras. Full Frame is still the best affordable option to get shallow depth of field and subject separation and it hasn't changed as smaller sized sensors otherwise improve.

I have always wondered what people do here if they need shallow DOF. Logic would require that people chose m4/3 because they want MORE DOF.

That has been the aim of photographers for a century and more. Having less DOF has been just a special requirement for PORTRAIT, and not always. Indeed some of the best, have been Environmental Portraits, which require DOF.

Keep in mind, many of us view the "Top threads in dpreview" on the right and don't align ourselves to any one forum here. The title of this topic gave no indication that it was in the micro four thirds forum, but the title drew me in. Also, I'd also note that a lot of people buy a M4/3 camera because of price and wanting something better than a point and shoot. I did the same thing when I first bought an NEX 5N. I wanted to get serious about photography but I didn't know what I like to shoot. I bought lenses that seemed to be what I needed because I didn't yet know what I wanted to shoot so I tried to cover it all. I wasted much money and ended up selling most lenses (still, I don't feel it was wasted money since renting the lenses would have cost me about the same as what I lost in selling them). But there are surely a lot of m4/3 shooters who do desire a more shallow depth of field. There are many APS-C (e.g., NEX series) who fall into this camp as well. I know, I used to be very active on the NEX forum here. There are great debates between people who enjoy shallow depth of field shooting and other photographers who cannot seem to understand the need for shallow depth of field shooting being a key desired goal of photography. I suspect these same debates occur here. Some of us enjoy it and some people (e.g., you) clearly want a deeper depth of field. More power to all types of shooters.

I tend not to quote but this is an intelligent reply. However, consider that mine is dictated not only by old considerations but also by new ones.

For the first time here we have a new camera, the Oly E-M1 m4/3, worth 1400 $/€, which is worth a lot of money.

In ten days we'll also have the Sony A7 ff 35mm, which is rumored to be 1700 $/€.

These prices are v. close to the extent they might be called the same. So all the upper customer base, according to your reasoning, should switch to Sony.

Well I contend it won't be the case, and I am in good company:

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/2013/09/olympus-e-m1-do-olympus-need-to-go-full.html

The reason are about the same. We prefer MORE DOF (and other m4/3 advantages I mentioned).

It might even be that out of a fad, many migrate to mirrorless FF, but then they will have to decide which GENRE they prefer.

I am not interested by people who have no favourite genre, or only Brats & Pets. I doubt they are even photographers, but they are probably the first liable to fall for the FF mystique.

Since I shot 30mm for almost 30 yrs. in film I know that my desire was always to HAVE MORE DOF, not less.

The reason is also logical: wanting to document a scene, people, a situation: I need to show as much as I can.

Also, I can do COMPOSITION in depth, and I enjoy it. Some are so lazy that they ignore it.

Portrait is the only genre where I COULD use bokeh, but knowing full well that it is an old, old fashion which disappeared in the 1940s, and that has reappeared because it was forgotten by the uncultivated.

I might even be happier if those are lost to Sony. At least I'll be in the company of those who have chosen m4/3 with full awareness.

Am.

-- hide signature --

--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric/sets/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

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