Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
retro76
Regular MemberPosts: 163
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

I think Olympus is paying people to review their cameras. Ever notice Olympus pictures are taken at some fancy event and most of the pictures are staged in ideal conditions ? All the reviewers are elevating m43rds bodies as if their the greatest thing since sliced bread and yet they are way overhyped. I had the OMD EM5 - the screen on back cracked (well documented), shutter shock meant a large percentage of my pictures were out of focus, the buttons were too small, menu system was a mess, the OLED screen wasn't color accurate, the famous Olympus JPEGs were a mess - over saturated color, red skin tones, warm white balance, too sharp and too much NR. The highlight dynamic range was also poor compared to what reviewers noted. And yet this camera was picked as camera of the year by so many camera review sites - hmmm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marksee
Forum MemberPosts: 61Gear list
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to borax, 10 months ago

I am also 67 and I would compare this discussion to the 35mm VS medium format of yesteryear. They were tools then and are tools now.  Most professionals need equipment that out-performs the armature and as a wedding  photographer a bigger camera also looks better. As far as out-of-focus bokeh etc. there are programs now that imitate it and will probably match it in the near future.

 marksee's gear list:marksee's gear list
Canon PowerShot S120 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RS_RS
Senior MemberPosts: 1,516
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 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.

I know I still value the low light, high ISO of my Canon full frames and the high quality of the lenses, not to mention the obvious advantages of an optical viewfinder in low light or fast movement.. As a wildlife photographer nothing offered to date can match the tracking AF of my 5D III, certainly not the OM E1 or the Sony.

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. If I ever do switch to a mirror less camera system, someone is going to have to make some good fixed focal length telephotos. As for now, I assume the excellent quality of my photos would be hard to give up.

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

-- hide signature --

Colin Smith

Whilst I would never describe Michael Reichmann's writings as a rant, this article, which I have read, is clearly deliberately provocative – nothing wrong with that – but in order to be so it is very selective in the arguments that it uses. It says little or nothing about AF, perhaps not surprising from a man whose main interest in the Sony A7/A7r is putting his Leica M lenses on it.

There are two quite separate issues here, namely the future of FF sensors and the future of the mirror-and-prism system of the SLR camera.

Some types of professional photography used, and perhaps still uses, 8"×10" plate cameras, but AFAIK no-one has any plans to make a LF digital back of that sort of size except perhaps for some exotic scientific purposes. But there are plenty of MF digital backs with sensors considerably larger than 24mm×36mm, and it is illogical to suppose that the FF sensor will disappear for as long as there is still a demand for even larger sensors. It's not going to happen soon, if at all.

The mirror and prism are a different matter. It is an inherently clumsy system that has been refined to become workable, a bit like the steam railway engine, and any such system is vulnerable to replacement when something better comes along. The two issues that need to be dealt with to allow EVFs to replace mirror-and-prism viewfinders are finder quality and AF performance. Typical phase-detect AF systems are in a sense parasitic on the mirror-and-prism system, stealing a small amount of the incoming rays, and they are very effective. As yet, AF systems using the sensor fall well short in performance, although the dual-pixel system of the Canon 70D may well point the way forward. And it is very hard to take seriously systems that re-introduce the pellicle mirror, like the Sony Alpha (I write as a former Canon Pellix user). As for VF quality, reports suggest that the A7/A7r is a big step nearer to competing with a direct optical VF than any previous EVF system, and I have little doubt that it will not be long before this ceases to be an issue.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CrashE3
Contributing MemberPosts: 820
Like?
The Music Still Matters..
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

My older brother, Rick, is an audiophile, of sorts. I have watched him go through all sorts of gear over the years. In the last several years, we have together observed an interesting phenomena when it comes to stereo headphones vs earbuds. Smaller, lighter, stick 'em in your ear. It got to the point where you could not go into anything but the finest of music stores and buy a traditional set of "headphones".

But, during that time, companies still made headphones. Big, Expensive, can hear the crack in the high-hat glorious headphones. They never went away. Professionals in studio environments still needed them. Audiophiles like my brother still wanted them. And now, they are "cool" again with kids shelling out $300 a pop just to have the cool guy's name on the side. (During the recent bowl game hype, I watched all of the players arrive at the stadium. As they got off the bus, the guys with full headphones vs the guys with earbuds was 5 or 6 to 1.)

I suspect that our gear is much the same. It will go through trends. There always be those who want small and light. There will always be those who want and need performance that you simply can not get from the small and light. And there will always be the cool guys willing to shell out big bucks for the big name.

I am not worried about obsolete..

-- hide signature --

Visualize Whirled Peas.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,079Gear list
Like?
Re: Obsolete? Really?
In reply to Robemo, 10 months ago

Robemo wrote:

I'm not sure what came into the respectable Reichmann to write such a silly article. And I'm not sure why anyone bothers about this question. In fact there is nothing new to discuss. I guess people become confused by the plethora of 'new' camera models and formats.

But as you should know (you have the age to remember) it's all history repeating itself. In the film days the image quality of cameras was decided by the film size, the optics and the photographer (as the person taking the picture, but also as the person that developed and printed the film). There were different models for different film sizes. Most 'amateurs' chose not to walk around with a Linhof, but went for 35mm cameras.

But even within that segment the manufacturers tried to reach specific customers and created markets for specific users with pocket 35 mm, 35mm interchangeable lens cameras, SLR's, bridge cameras and what have you. All to get people to buy the camera they 'needed' or wanted.

Biggest difference with digital are all these sensor sizes which make things confusing. But for the rest it's quite the same. Most people don't print large size prints, not in the film days and not in the digital days. Most of them never needed a DSLR no matter what sensor size in the first place. Yet, they buy DSLR's. Again, nothing new.

There has always been this group of photographers, pro or non pro, that needed the quality of bigger sensors. They didn't suddenly disappear. So why should this group suddenly stop using full frame DSLR? I don't get it. Certainly not because of the Sony A7's. With lenses still the same size, with a bulky lens adapter if you want to use your old glass making the combo just as large as a DSLR and with some serious limitations this is not the revolution that will change everything either. A nice niche camera at best. Will there be a game changer tomorrow? Who knows and who cares if you want to make photos now?

As long as the manufacturers make money with full frame cameras, they will stay. And as my sales rep tells me, the budget full frame DSLR's of the big two are selling very well. Despite the Reichmann rant. And yes, lots of the buyers are upgraders coming from smaller sensor size cameras and probably lots of them won't print large ever. They just fell for the marketing slogans that promise better image quality. Just like in the old days.

I mostly agree but the image quality is better, not in leaps and bounds as of old but still better in terms of tonality and colour etc, particularly as you raise ISO. A property often ignored is the fact the files are more malleable, so if you're into heavy post processing, and sometimes I am, then there is a distinct advantage to a larger sensor.

As for whether anyone non-professional needs a full frame DSLR, Do I detect a slight note of condescension? Most people don't need the performance of a BMW, and in fact can't even take advantage of their top speed etc, yet BMW sell millions of them. Do I, as a non professional need a full frame camera? well if my criteria of image quality is at that level then yes I do. If I want a nice full body shallow dof effect at 35mm or less then yes I do. Full frame cameras are not even that expensive anymore, you can pick up a 5D or 5D2 for less than many smaller format cameras. Lets try to avoid stereotyping people who buy full frame cameras, most people don't need huge TV's yet they also sell in their millions and I don't see people worrying about that. All a user of full frame wants is the same look you can get with the 35mm film but without the hassle, because that's what many of us grew up with, so it's the norm really, there's nothing inherently special or wrong about it, they're just more affordable these days, so why not?

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,431
Like?
How could they be obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

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.

I know I still value the low light, high ISO of my Canon full frames and the high quality of the lenses, not to mention the obvious advantages of an optical viewfinder in low light or fast movement..  As a wildlife photographer nothing offered to date can match the tracking AF of my 5D III, certainly not the OM E1 or the Sony.

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.  If I ever do switch to a mirror less camera system, someone is going to have to make some good fixed focal length telephotos.  As for now, I assume the excellent quality of my photos would be hard to give up.

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

-- hide signature --

Colin Smith

Nothing comes close in performance, especially in low light grab shots. I can get a low light shot off on a second from hip to eye, camera off to photo taken, and take over a thousand shoots on one battery. By definition, no other camera type can match this performance. I'm in my 4th week of travel through Asia with my 5d, and it hasn't left my hand for a minute.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joema1
Regular MemberPosts: 371Gear list
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to RS_RS, 10 months ago

RS_RS wrote:

...The mirror and prism are a different matter. It is an inherently clumsy system that has been refined to become workable, a bit like the steam railway engine, and any such system is vulnerable to replacement when something better comes along.

A more accurate analogy might be an automotive piston engine. They are inherently clumsy, have many moving parts, and create lots of vibration. However they are extremely refined, building on a century of R&D and manufacturing advances. There are other engine designs which have far fewer parts, produce less vibration, and theoretically should be cheaper to manufacture. But they must overcome the huge lead in development refinement of piston engines, and the economies of scale in manufacturing them.

Also while full-frame mirrorless cameras are being further developed, full-frame DSLRs will not be standing still. It's true refinement of electro-mechanical aspects of DSLR development are more constrained than non-mechanical mirrorless equivalents. However the purely electronic (sensor, CPU, algorithms, autofocus) aspects of DSLRs are not constrained and will continue to progress. So the mirrorless full-frame competitors face a moving target.

 joema1's gear list:joema1's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SaltLakeGuy
Forum ProPosts: 10,652Gear list
Like?
Welcome to my world
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

As I entered my 60's this old former wedding, portrait and landscape photographer began to tire of lugging around the FF gear. At one point, before my shoulder surgeries, I had a 50lb bad full of pro Nikon or Canon bodies, pro lenses and dual flashes and accessories I would take around the country with me in a large backpack as I traveled. I also did catalog/product photography as well. I enjoyed using that gear to be sure. But now a days it's just a burden and I no longer travel. I got to try my first mft camera with the Olympus PL1 when it was released several years ago. I was headed on a vacation and thought "gee wouldn't it be nice to just leave the big stuff at home".

I picked up lenses that would give me the equivalent of 24-70mm and 90-400mm. When I got home and processed the shots from RAW in Photoshop then I was astonished that low and behold side by side one could NOT distinguish the differences between my FF output and the little PL1's in prints coming off of my Epson Pro3880 printer at 22x17. I have a wall full of them at work all different cameras side by side and nobody ever thinks they were taken with different cameras (even if I know they do indeed look near alike). These are shots taken at ALL times of the day and light scenarios.

NO I'm not a birder so I'll say that up front. These are shots of mostly landscape and some people shots. Migrating along the line, I ended up parting with my FF gear, lenses and bags to move into the EM5 Olympus when it was released. I just updated that with a EM1. As many on this forum know I also did some side by side comparisons with the 6D recently (great camera by the way) and once again for MY purposes when critically evaluating full sized images, the ONLY place the 6D went ahead of the EM1 was in next to NO light (which I would expect). Now since I don't shoot in those conditions I made the only logical decision I could, I sent the 6D back.

To those arguing "depth of field" let me tell ya. If I want that I can snap on one of my fine f1.8 Zuiko lenses and adjust my distance from subject to get  a background that literally disappears, so it's no worry. When you know your subject AND your gear you can adjust most things to accommodate your desired output. It's called photography. With all that said if I still had the body I had when I was 40 in a heart beat I would have pro FF gear once again. But as I said for ME "that ship has sailed". Everyone has to evaluate what their specific needs are and buy accordingly. This most certainly isn't a discussion about "which is better period" but rather which is better for what purpose and end file result. I stand by the statement if one isn't printing HUGE prints beyond 22x17 or cropping heavily the Mft stuff does just fine thank you. If you want easy depth of field control without buying specialized lenses, have a bug about not having a non electronic view finder (which by the way the EM1's is astoundingly good) or have an ego where by you feel naked if you don't have a huge DSLR body behind a large white lens, the Mft is something to consider very strongly.

 SaltLakeGuy's gear list:SaltLakeGuy's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Epson Stylus Pro 3880
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,079Gear list
Like?
Re: Welcome to my world
In reply to SaltLakeGuy, 10 months ago

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

As I entered my 60's this old former wedding, portrait and landscape photographer began to tire of lugging around the FF gear. At one point, before my shoulder surgeries, I had a 50lb bad full of pro Nikon or Canon bodies, pro lenses and dual flashes and accessories I would take around the country with me in a large backpack as I traveled. I also did catalog/product photography as well. I enjoyed using that gear to be sure. But now a days it's just a burden and I no longer travel. I got to try my first mft camera with the Olympus PL1 when it was released several years ago. I was headed on a vacation and thought "gee wouldn't it be nice to just leave the big stuff at home".

I picked up lenses that would give me the equivalent of 24-70mm and 90-400mm. When I got home and processed the shots from RAW in Photoshop then I was astonished that low and behold side by side one could NOT distinguish the differences between my FF output and the little PL1's in prints coming off of my Epson Pro3880 printer at 22x17. I have a wall full of them at work all different cameras side by side and nobody ever thinks they were taken with different cameras (even if I know they do indeed look near alike). These are shots taken at ALL times of the day and light scenarios.

NO I'm not a birder so I'll say that up front. These are shots of mostly landscape and some people shots. Migrating along the line, I ended up parting with my FF gear, lenses and bags to move into the EM5 Olympus when it was released. I just updated that with a EM1. As many on this forum know I also did some side by side comparisons with the 6D recently (great camera by the way) and once again for MY purposes when critically evaluating full sized images, the ONLY place the 6D went ahead of the EM1 was in next to NO light (which I would expect). Now since I don't shoot in those conditions I made the only logical decision I could, I sent the 6D back.

To those arguing "depth of field" let me tell ya. If I want that I can snap on one of my fine f1.8 Zuiko lenses and adjust my distance from subject to get a background that literally disappears, so it's no worry. When you know your subject AND your gear you can adjust most things to accommodate your desired output. It's called photography. With all that said if I still had the body I had when I was 40 in a heart beat I would have pro FF gear once again. But as I said for ME "that ship has sailed". Everyone has to evaluate what their specific needs are and buy accordingly. This most certainly isn't a discussion about "which is better period" but rather which is better for what purpose and end file result. I stand by the statement if one isn't printing HUGE prints beyond 22x17 or cropping heavily the Mft stuff does just fine thank you. If you want easy depth of field control without buying specialized lenses, have a bug about not having a non electronic view finder (which by the way the EM1's is astoundingly good) or have an ego where by you feel naked if you don't have a huge DSLR body behind a large white lens, the Mft is something to consider very strongly.

Good luck finding any lens that can give the wide angle full body full frame look in m4/3's, of course if you don't need that look it's not a problem. M4/3's can do 90% of what you can do in full frame, but if you want that other 10% then you're stuck.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,265Gear list
Like?
Re: Welcome to my world
In reply to papillon_65, 10 months ago

papillon_65 wrote:

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

As I entered my 60's this old former wedding, portrait and landscape photographer began to tire of lugging around the FF gear. At one point, before my shoulder surgeries, I had a 50lb bad full of pro Nikon or Canon bodies, pro lenses and dual flashes and accessories I would take around the country with me in a large backpack as I traveled. I also did catalog/product photography as well. I enjoyed using that gear to be sure. But now a days it's just a burden and I no longer travel. I got to try my first mft camera with the Olympus PL1 when it was released several years ago. I was headed on a vacation and thought "gee wouldn't it be nice to just leave the big stuff at home".

I picked up lenses that would give me the equivalent of 24-70mm and 90-400mm. When I got home and processed the shots from RAW in Photoshop then I was astonished that low and behold side by side one could NOT distinguish the differences between my FF output and the little PL1's in prints coming off of my Epson Pro3880 printer at 22x17. I have a wall full of them at work all different cameras side by side and nobody ever thinks they were taken with different cameras (even if I know they do indeed look near alike). These are shots taken at ALL times of the day and light scenarios.

NO I'm not a birder so I'll say that up front. These are shots of mostly landscape and some people shots. Migrating along the line, I ended up parting with my FF gear, lenses and bags to move into the EM5 Olympus when it was released. I just updated that with a EM1. As many on this forum know I also did some side by side comparisons with the 6D recently (great camera by the way) and once again for MY purposes when critically evaluating full sized images, the ONLY place the 6D went ahead of the EM1 was in next to NO light (which I would expect). Now since I don't shoot in those conditions I made the only logical decision I could, I sent the 6D back.

To those arguing "depth of field" let me tell ya. If I want that I can snap on one of my fine f1.8 Zuiko lenses and adjust my distance from subject to get a background that literally disappears, so it's no worry. When you know your subject AND your gear you can adjust most things to accommodate your desired output. It's called photography. With all that said if I still had the body I had when I was 40 in a heart beat I would have pro FF gear once again. But as I said for ME "that ship has sailed". Everyone has to evaluate what their specific needs are and buy accordingly. This most certainly isn't a discussion about "which is better period" but rather which is better for what purpose and end file result. I stand by the statement if one isn't printing HUGE prints beyond 22x17 or cropping heavily the Mft stuff does just fine thank you. If you want easy depth of field control without buying specialized lenses, have a bug about not having a non electronic view finder (which by the way the EM1's is astoundingly good) or have an ego where by you feel naked if you don't have a huge DSLR body behind a large white lens, the Mft is something to consider very strongly.

Good luck finding any lens that can give the wide angle full body full frame look in m4/3's, of course if you don't need that look it's not a problem. M4/3's can do 90% of what you can do in full frame, but if you want that other 10% then you're stuck.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Well, for my aps-c gear, the Sigma 8-16 is very wide.  I don't need to see behind me in the photo.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,079Gear list
Like?
Re: Welcome to my world
In reply to The Davinator, 10 months ago

Dave Luttmann wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

As I entered my 60's this old former wedding, portrait and landscape photographer began to tire of lugging around the FF gear. At one point, before my shoulder surgeries, I had a 50lb bad full of pro Nikon or Canon bodies, pro lenses and dual flashes and accessories I would take around the country with me in a large backpack as I traveled. I also did catalog/product photography as well. I enjoyed using that gear to be sure. But now a days it's just a burden and I no longer travel. I got to try my first mft camera with the Olympus PL1 when it was released several years ago. I was headed on a vacation and thought "gee wouldn't it be nice to just leave the big stuff at home".

I picked up lenses that would give me the equivalent of 24-70mm and 90-400mm. When I got home and processed the shots from RAW in Photoshop then I was astonished that low and behold side by side one could NOT distinguish the differences between my FF output and the little PL1's in prints coming off of my Epson Pro3880 printer at 22x17. I have a wall full of them at work all different cameras side by side and nobody ever thinks they were taken with different cameras (even if I know they do indeed look near alike). These are shots taken at ALL times of the day and light scenarios.

NO I'm not a birder so I'll say that up front. These are shots of mostly landscape and some people shots. Migrating along the line, I ended up parting with my FF gear, lenses and bags to move into the EM5 Olympus when it was released. I just updated that with a EM1. As many on this forum know I also did some side by side comparisons with the 6D recently (great camera by the way) and once again for MY purposes when critically evaluating full sized images, the ONLY place the 6D went ahead of the EM1 was in next to NO light (which I would expect). Now since I don't shoot in those conditions I made the only logical decision I could, I sent the 6D back.

To those arguing "depth of field" let me tell ya. If I want that I can snap on one of my fine f1.8 Zuiko lenses and adjust my distance from subject to get a background that literally disappears, so it's no worry. When you know your subject AND your gear you can adjust most things to accommodate your desired output. It's called photography. With all that said if I still had the body I had when I was 40 in a heart beat I would have pro FF gear once again. But as I said for ME "that ship has sailed". Everyone has to evaluate what their specific needs are and buy accordingly. This most certainly isn't a discussion about "which is better period" but rather which is better for what purpose and end file result. I stand by the statement if one isn't printing HUGE prints beyond 22x17 or cropping heavily the Mft stuff does just fine thank you. If you want easy depth of field control without buying specialized lenses, have a bug about not having a non electronic view finder (which by the way the EM1's is astoundingly good) or have an ego where by you feel naked if you don't have a huge DSLR body behind a large white lens, the Mft is something to consider very strongly.

Good luck finding any lens that can give the wide angle full body full frame look in m4/3's, of course if you don't need that look it's not a problem. M4/3's can do 90% of what you can do in full frame, but if you want that other 10% then you're stuck.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Well, for my aps-c gear, the Sigma 8-16 is very wide. I don't need to see behind me in the photo.

Good luck getting shallow dof with that lens.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Phil M Winder
Regular MemberPosts: 121
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to joema1, 10 months ago

joema1 wrote:

RS_RS wrote:

...The mirror and prism are a different matter. It is an inherently clumsy system that has been refined to become workable, a bit like the steam railway engine, and any such system is vulnerable to replacement when something better comes along.

A more accurate analogy might be an automotive piston engine. They are inherently clumsy, have many moving parts, and create lots of vibration. However they are extremely refined, building on a century of R&D and manufacturing advances. There are other engine designs which have far fewer parts, produce less vibration, and theoretically should be cheaper to manufacture. But they must overcome the huge lead in development refinement of piston engines, and the economies of scale in manufacturing them.

Also while full-frame mirrorless cameras are being further developed, full-frame DSLRs will not be standing still. It's true refinement of electro-mechanical aspects of DSLR development are more constrained than non-mechanical mirrorless equivalents. However the purely electronic (sensor, CPU, algorithms, autofocus) aspects of DSLRs are not constrained and will continue to progress. So the mirrorless full-frame competitors face a moving target.

Automotive induction systems are another good analogy. Electronic Fuel Injection has replaced the mechanical carburetor. Also try to recall when was the last time you had to manually crank open/close a car window!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Victor Engel
Forum ProPosts: 15,348Gear list
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

Maybe it's time for camera manufacturers to work on nanotechnology designs. A stated issue with large sensors is the cost associated with defects in larger hunks of silicon. Then don't use larger hunks of silicon. Use nanite sensels that assemble themselves. Stuck pixel? No problem. A cache of replacement nanites waiting in the wings expunges the errant one and takes the position.

-- hide signature --

Victor Engel

 Victor Engel's gear list:Victor Engel's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cpkuntz
Contributing MemberPosts: 735
Like?
Re: Erm no...
In reply to tinternaut, 10 months ago

It may be the case that cameras with mirrors become a niche, but in my view 35mm format sensor cameras will likely become *more* common, and will likely become dominant in devices that are dedicated to photography (as opposed to multifunction devices with included camera functions - which will be the dominant tools people use to take pictures).  Dedicated cameras themselves will be the niche product, and in my opinion they will be segmented from phone cameras by large sensors.
The reason large sensors will become more common is simple:  they are getting cheaper, and this trend will continue.  If anything, we may see medium format sensor cameras becoming more common (relatively speaking - that is, within the world of dedicated cameras).

I think that mirrorless cameras will become more common among enthusiasts but there will always be a place for SLRs among certain segments.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The Davinator
Forum ProPosts: 13,265Gear list
Like?
Re: Welcome to my world
In reply to papillon_65, 10 months ago

papillon_65 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

As I entered my 60's this old former wedding, portrait and landscape photographer began to tire of lugging around the FF gear. At one point, before my shoulder surgeries, I had a 50lb bad full of pro Nikon or Canon bodies, pro lenses and dual flashes and accessories I would take around the country with me in a large backpack as I traveled. I also did catalog/product photography as well. I enjoyed using that gear to be sure. But now a days it's just a burden and I no longer travel. I got to try my first mft camera with the Olympus PL1 when it was released several years ago. I was headed on a vacation and thought "gee wouldn't it be nice to just leave the big stuff at home".

I picked up lenses that would give me the equivalent of 24-70mm and 90-400mm. When I got home and processed the shots from RAW in Photoshop then I was astonished that low and behold side by side one could NOT distinguish the differences between my FF output and the little PL1's in prints coming off of my Epson Pro3880 printer at 22x17. I have a wall full of them at work all different cameras side by side and nobody ever thinks they were taken with different cameras (even if I know they do indeed look near alike). These are shots taken at ALL times of the day and light scenarios.

NO I'm not a birder so I'll say that up front. These are shots of mostly landscape and some people shots. Migrating along the line, I ended up parting with my FF gear, lenses and bags to move into the EM5 Olympus when it was released. I just updated that with a EM1. As many on this forum know I also did some side by side comparisons with the 6D recently (great camera by the way) and once again for MY purposes when critically evaluating full sized images, the ONLY place the 6D went ahead of the EM1 was in next to NO light (which I would expect). Now since I don't shoot in those conditions I made the only logical decision I could, I sent the 6D back.

To those arguing "depth of field" let me tell ya. If I want that I can snap on one of my fine f1.8 Zuiko lenses and adjust my distance from subject to get a background that literally disappears, so it's no worry. When you know your subject AND your gear you can adjust most things to accommodate your desired output. It's called photography. With all that said if I still had the body I had when I was 40 in a heart beat I would have pro FF gear once again. But as I said for ME "that ship has sailed". Everyone has to evaluate what their specific needs are and buy accordingly. This most certainly isn't a discussion about "which is better period" but rather which is better for what purpose and end file result. I stand by the statement if one isn't printing HUGE prints beyond 22x17 or cropping heavily the Mft stuff does just fine thank you. If you want easy depth of field control without buying specialized lenses, have a bug about not having a non electronic view finder (which by the way the EM1's is astoundingly good) or have an ego where by you feel naked if you don't have a huge DSLR body behind a large white lens, the Mft is something to consider very strongly.

Good luck finding any lens that can give the wide angle full body full frame look in m4/3's, of course if you don't need that look it's not a problem. M4/3's can do 90% of what you can do in full frame, but if you want that other 10% then you're stuck.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Well, for my aps-c gear, the Sigma 8-16 is very wide. I don't need to see behind me in the photo.

Good luck getting shallow dof with that lens.

First off...you said nothing about shallow DOF.  You stated wide angle.  Now that I give you wide angle via the Sigma 8-16 or Olympus 7-14, you move the goal post and now ask for shallow DOF.  Good luck getting shallow DOF with a Nikon 14-24 or Canon 16-35 then.  Ultrawides are not about ulta shallow DOF.  And one can get very shallow DOF with aps-c and m43.

Anything else you needed a lesson on?

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,079Gear list
Like?
Re: Welcome to my world
In reply to The Davinator, 10 months ago

Dave Luttmann wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

SaltLakeGuy wrote:

As I entered my 60's this old former wedding, portrait and landscape photographer began to tire of lugging around the FF gear. At one point, before my shoulder surgeries, I had a 50lb bad full of pro Nikon or Canon bodies, pro lenses and dual flashes and accessories I would take around the country with me in a large backpack as I traveled. I also did catalog/product photography as well. I enjoyed using that gear to be sure. But now a days it's just a burden and I no longer travel. I got to try my first mft camera with the Olympus PL1 when it was released several years ago. I was headed on a vacation and thought "gee wouldn't it be nice to just leave the big stuff at home".

I picked up lenses that would give me the equivalent of 24-70mm and 90-400mm. When I got home and processed the shots from RAW in Photoshop then I was astonished that low and behold side by side one could NOT distinguish the differences between my FF output and the little PL1's in prints coming off of my Epson Pro3880 printer at 22x17. I have a wall full of them at work all different cameras side by side and nobody ever thinks they were taken with different cameras (even if I know they do indeed look near alike). These are shots taken at ALL times of the day and light scenarios.

NO I'm not a birder so I'll say that up front. These are shots of mostly landscape and some people shots. Migrating along the line, I ended up parting with my FF gear, lenses and bags to move into the EM5 Olympus when it was released. I just updated that with a EM1. As many on this forum know I also did some side by side comparisons with the 6D recently (great camera by the way) and once again for MY purposes when critically evaluating full sized images, the ONLY place the 6D went ahead of the EM1 was in next to NO light (which I would expect). Now since I don't shoot in those conditions I made the only logical decision I could, I sent the 6D back.

To those arguing "depth of field" let me tell ya. If I want that I can snap on one of my fine f1.8 Zuiko lenses and adjust my distance from subject to get a background that literally disappears, so it's no worry. When you know your subject AND your gear you can adjust most things to accommodate your desired output. It's called photography. With all that said if I still had the body I had when I was 40 in a heart beat I would have pro FF gear once again. But as I said for ME "that ship has sailed". Everyone has to evaluate what their specific needs are and buy accordingly. This most certainly isn't a discussion about "which is better period" but rather which is better for what purpose and end file result. I stand by the statement if one isn't printing HUGE prints beyond 22x17 or cropping heavily the Mft stuff does just fine thank you. If you want easy depth of field control without buying specialized lenses, have a bug about not having a non electronic view finder (which by the way the EM1's is astoundingly good) or have an ego where by you feel naked if you don't have a huge DSLR body behind a large white lens, the Mft is something to consider very strongly.

Good luck finding any lens that can give the wide angle full body full frame look in m4/3's, of course if you don't need that look it's not a problem. M4/3's can do 90% of what you can do in full frame, but if you want that other 10% then you're stuck.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Well, for my aps-c gear, the Sigma 8-16 is very wide. I don't need to see behind me in the photo.

Good luck getting shallow dof with that lens.

First off...you said nothing about shallow DOF. You stated wide angle. Now that I give you wide angle via the Sigma 8-16 or Olympus 7-14, you move the goal post and now ask for shallow DOF. Good luck getting shallow DOF with a Nikon 14-24 or Canon 16-35 then. Ultrawides are not about ulta shallow DOF. And one can get very shallow DOF with aps-c and m43.

Well not really, I was referring to the look you get from shooting something like 35mm F1.4 on FF at a full body (as in person), which will give you a shallow dof look you can't get with m4/3's.

Anything else you needed a lesson on?

I think you need to learn how not to jump to the wrong conclusion first and not get too excited about it afterwards. Of course you can shoot ultra-wide with either M4/3's or APS-C, that's day 1 week 1 stuff to be honest. If you couldn't work out what I meant I doubt very much you could teach me anything about photography either.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robemo
Regular MemberPosts: 379Gear list
Like?
I agree ....
In reply to papillon_65, 10 months ago

Guess I wasn't clear, but I am the silly person with the Linhof, Hasselblad (all from the studio I work for, I am not rich) who drags around a full frame with lenses on holidays because I find the image quality still visibly better than from smaller sensors with lots more leeway to post process the images if needed.

I just tried to be factual, certainly not condescending. What's condescending about the fact that many if not most people carrying around DSLR's never use the full potential? It's what marketing does to people. Buy something you don't really need.

So I stick to my point that full frame is here to stay for two reasons I mentioned.

1. Through clever marketing and decreasing prices of full frame cameras some will switch to full frame coming from smaller sensor cameras because they think they need the extra image quality even if they actually don't need it.

2. There is a stable group of people (pro and non pro) that actually does use and needs the extra quality and knows how to get it (besides idiots like me)

I am not a marketer and I don't know how large these groups are, but as long as they are large enough to make a profit manufacturers will keep making full frame DSLR's. Definitely not obsolete.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,588Gear list
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

The issue of resolution and dynamic range is moot...if those were the only two bullet points I would shoot purely MFT already.

These are the only true obstacles behind MFT for me.

Shutter shock issues at 1/60th to 1/200th shutter speed range...a range that is just too damn useful for me as most my shots fall in this range.  It often takes 'bite' off the 16MP sensor.  This can even be seen in Dpreview studio comparisons on a tripod, but is often worse in handholding and with IBIS depending on IBIS generation.  My E-PM2 was a shutter shock camera and I am not going to pay 1k for a premium version that does not absolutely *eliminate* this issue.

The GM-1 however has issues of its own with its electronic shutter having very slow 1/50th read out slower than Nikon 1s.  To this day I find the Olympus XZ-1 and all other variants as wonderful portable alternatives (I want to get a cheap Pentax MX-1).

Finally I get tons of lens choices with thinner DOF and lowlight ability for ridiculously cheap and certain choices are rather managable in weight/size.

Oh and I vastly prefer OVF over EVF.

Dynamic range and resolution are easy engineering problems.  Shutter shock with tiny/weightless camera bodies, quality lenses in smaller packages with cheaper prices, and quality EVFS etc are far more difficult problems.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
t.c. marino
Contributing MemberPosts: 613
Like?
Re: Are Full Frame SLRs Obsolete?
In reply to Colin Smith1, 10 months ago

with all due respect..full frame dslr cameras will become obsolete.. when canon and nikon decide too obosolete them.enjoy you're full frame dslr

-- hide signature --

nikonshooter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
papillon_65
Forum ProPosts: 19,079Gear list
Like?
Re: I agree ....
In reply to Robemo, 10 months ago

Robemo wrote:

Guess I wasn't clear, but I am the silly person with the Linhof, Hasselblad (all from the studio I work for, I am not rich) who drags around a full frame with lenses on holidays because I find the image quality still visibly better than from smaller sensors with lots more leeway to post process the images if needed.

I just tried to be factual, certainly not condescending. What's condescending about the fact that many if not most people carrying around DSLR's never use the full potential? It's what marketing does to people. Buy something you don't really need.

So I stick to my point that full frame is here to stay for two reasons I mentioned.

1. Through clever marketing and decreasing prices of full frame cameras some will switch to full frame coming from smaller sensor cameras because they think they need the extra image quality even if they actually don't need it.

2. There is a stable group of people (pro and non pro) that actually does use and needs the extra quality and knows how to get it (besides idiots like me)

I am not a marketer and I don't know how large these groups are, but as long as they are large enough to make a profit manufacturers will keep making full frame DSLR's. Definitely not obsolete.

Fair enough, I think we do agree, certainly full frame DSLR's will be around for a long time yet, even if they become more niche. I'll be keeping mine anyway

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

 papillon_65's gear list:papillon_65's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Fujifilm XF1 Sigma DP3 Merrill +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads