Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,438
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 6 months ago

Colin Smith1 wrote:

Writers on the Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml have stated their belief that the age of full frame DSLRs is coming to an end for basically two reasons. One, 16 meg micro 4/3s sensors have gotten very good in quality and noise reduction that they can now be printed to 16x20 (so why would anyone want the bulkier or heavier full frame DSLR ?) Second because the of the Sony mirror less full frame with excellent EVF.

The first reason is pure non-sense. IQ difference between FF and smaller format has been very steadily constant - less than area proportion would suggest, but significantly more than "merely noticeable". The difference between EM5 to D600 is exactly the same as the difference between 20D and 5D1 8 years ago.

The second reason is still in its infancy. A7 is still a mirrorless of 2013, it still uses the sensor to see and the LCd to display the view, which means more heat generated and more battery used and there is still flickr and lag is still unacceptable to many. SLR uses zero energy for viewfinding, sensor stays cool at all times and same battery can power 4 times more shots and there is zero lag too. As long as houses have glass windows, cars have glass wind screens, we uses optical prescription glasses, SLRs are here to stay.

On the other hand I wonder if I will always feel that way? At the age of 67 traveling around the world as I do with heavy gear is becoming more of a burden.

I know many people struggle with the weight issue, either for real of in their mind. My solution to the problem is quite simple - do not bring that many gear. Honestly you can still have excellent memories captured at very high quality even if you only bring 1 zoom and 1 prime with you,wherever you go. I see people get too fixated on having every lens they own with them at all times. Quite a few people I know take 2.8 trinity with them wherever they go. It really isnt necessary. In fact I found that having incomplete focal range forces me to think more, and forces me to practice a certain FL more, as a result I take better pictures. Vice versa, many people have argued that the IQ from superzooms lenses (18-200, etc) are not that bad yet you seldom see high quality image from them, why? because the photographers do not force them to think as much therefore photos come out mediocre.

Anyone think that the day is coming when even pros and advanced amateurs will be satisfied with a smaller, lighter mirror less system.

that will never happen, because by definition pros need to produce work with better quality than his customers, and advanced amateurs want to produce work with better quality than people around him, therefore as the IQ of images of "lay person cameras" get better, pros and amateurs need better cameras for even better IQ, at the same pace.

Hence d7100 did not kill off D610.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
TrueNew
SureNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow