nerd2: Two facts:
1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.
2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)
10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....
1. A 28mm lens on a 6x6 medium format camera, gives the same angle of view as what on a FF Nikon/Canon?
2. You shoot wide open the equiv. lens, and I shoot wide open, will the resulting photographs (and backgrounds) look the same?
DotCom Editor: What's most informative here is the vast amount of mirror bounce and shutter-curtain bounce. If you ever needed a demonstration of why mirror lock-up is essential when shooting on a tripod and you want to achieve the best-possible results, this is your proof.
.. and it's a really small mirror. I wish they would've shown the mirror of a medium format camera (e.g. Hasselblad 500 series) bouncing.
Please be cognizant that one huge reason to shoot full frame, or various medium and large formats is because of the angle of view can make a HUGE difference in what you can fit into a single frame.
1. Go into your bathroom, have someone sit in the bathtub and while you're facing the tub, from a tripod, take a photo with an DX Nikon (1.5x) or a 1.6x crop Canon; getting as much into the frame as possible.
2. Take the same photograph from the same spot using a FF camera; getting as much into the frame as possible.
3. Using a medium format 6x7 or 6x9 camera (film) take a photograph from the same place; getting as much into the frame as possible.
The difference between the formats alone can be huge! The smaller the format, the harder to get everything in the frame. Even if you have a 1,500 square foot bathroom, you get the point :)
The benefit goes FAR beyond just resolution, high iso, and image quality attributes.
Paul Gordon: The whole article is virtually irrelevant to serious photographers who migrated to a DSLR from FF and medium format film cameras. For us migrating to digital via an APS-C DSLR was a downgrade forced on us because at the time manufactures could not economically produce a FF sensor. So now moving back to affordable FF DSLR's is merely a welcome restorative step.
Digital APS-C came about because of a technical necessity not due to some preferred development path. The APS specification as a film size was struggling to make any serious market impact even with the larger APS-H format.
I have never owned anything other than FF lenses as I always considered APS-C a temporary necessity. My lens selection was totally compatible with all the photography I wished to do with an APS-C body but the path back to FF was maintained. That path is not a myth.
The myth for many is the belief that migrating from APS-C to FF is always an upgrade but that is a completely different topic.
A lot of truth in your post. I consider digital APS-C as an "upgrade" from film for the most part. Even today if *I* could only chose one, and had a choice between my old D2hs and my film cameras, I'd choose digital hands down.
I too have only owned FF lenses; I recommend not buying DX lenses as they don't work across the board (film, all digital, and even other brands w/adapters.)
Whether something is an upgrade (as you point out) depends on the individual. I'd rather use a 50mp, FF digital camera over MF (medium format) film any day of the week for *general* needs, however there's nothing digital on the market that can replicate a 6x7 range finder... which for me, offers a preferred angle of view, so there are many situations where film is the only way to get everything you want captured easily into a single frame.
You nailed it. For many the belief is that APS-C to FF is an "upgrade" by default, when what "is" or "isn't" (upgrade) depends on the photographer.
SirSeth: I think the article is well articulated. What I picked up is that many people think that buying FF lenses for a crop sensor will future proof them, but in reality as soon as those lenses are mounted on a FF, you're using "new" lenses that don't behave as they did and may be less useful (or more useful) on the new format. Meaning if you enjoyed the reach, now you need to add reach on the top end...
That is true. Many people opt to stitch. I have never fancied stitching, but it for many as an alternative solution to larger formats. Good point.
@SirSeth I don't think FF is everyone's goal, that is why I specifically mentioned certain types of photographers and needs. My mindset doesn't have anything to do with f-a-c-t.
The fact is that if you shoot broad vista-like landscapes, using a 35mm camera is like using a $20 cheap socket wrench set if you plan on regularly fixing cars on the side whether you're getting paid or not; It's simply a poor tool for the intended job. If a person wants great quality, then 35mm is not generally an option if your "thing" is landscape photography. Always exceptions of course.
The *reality* is the fact that many budding photographers haven't a clue about the other formats and their benefit and the vast difference in quality, light latitude, and angle of view.So many people just wanting to shoot family gatherings would benefit from FF but don't know it.
For the serious photographers not wanting to compromise (or the pro) every one of my previous made statements are true.
@SirSeth, Please don't lecture me about "privilege". While cohorts were spending money partying, *eating out*, cruising the beach, clubbing, buying beer, taking road trips & enjoying spring break; I was busting a-- mowing lawns/baby sitting/slaving at minimum wage, while creating my own business designs and spending nearly every penny I had on pilot's license/ratings.
I chose to ride the bus to school instead of paying gas, car payment, insurance & maintenance. Later I was driving German sports car... then Italian. I sold utility programs written in BASIC, digitized photos using an Amiga computer and busting my hump hawking glamour shots sold via magazine and newspaper ads, taken with an old Pentax during college years.. I am also a Veteran.
Today I shun SEO, & google ad craap, and focus on putting money where it really counts, getting far away from antiquated photography business models; reinventing how I get paid. I know privileged when I see it and I'm not it.
Teila Day: Darn right no DX lenses! I still think it's foolish for most people who ultimately want to use their photography to make regular income (enough to pay the mortgage + bills) to invest in DX lenses. I STILL maintain that the 14-24 (or 17-35) f2.8; 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200VR or IS f2.8 are the 3 working lenses that will cover nearly every job that a working photographer will be hired for and I would highly recommend budding photographers looking to earn money or a living with their Nikon/Canon to spend money on those lenses first and skip the dx lenses and 3rd party stuff unless it came with your kit.
24mm yields an effective 36mm on a crop sensor? So, step back. The reach the 17-55dx has over the 17-35 is the equiv. of 1 step forward. I chose the 17-35 because it made business sense; it offered max versatility; film and digital bodies (including my Canon w/adapter). Spending near $2k for a dx lens is ludicrous w/few exceptions.
The author is setting people up for failure.
Smart to spend $2000 for a 300mm DX lens that you can't fully use on film/FF digital, over an arguably more versatile $2300 70-200vrII f2.8 better lens that you can use on most Nikon film cameras, all Nikon digital bodies (and canon w/adapter)... then be my guest.I think the smarter people will opt for the former and add a 1.4 tc for reach. If you're THAT into birding, buy proper gear and get at least a 500 f4.
You might think it's smart to spend $1400 for a 17-55 f2.8 DX... I think it's nuts, poor accounting, and stunted common sense, instead I recommend the FF 17-35 f2.8 (same prince for the import) that you can use on film/digital cameras across the board.
People like me are tight wads; believe in spending, not *wasting* cash, and buy the good stuff from the start; don't worry about selling lenses because we bought for our future *needs* as opposed to letting money burn a hold in our purse. Want "reach"? Save money for a long lens and don't buy into the BS nikon is shoveling.
Joed700: Major differences that really matter when it comes to choosing between APS-C or FF is the DOF. If shallow DOF is a must for you, FF is the only way to go. For example, my Fuji XF 56mm f1.2 can produce shallow DOF that's equivalent to an 85mm F1.8 only. Most people don't realize that 56mm f1.2 (85mm equiv) is somewhat misleading. It should be read as 56mm f1.2 (84mm f1.8 DOF in FF). A typical DX lens with an aperture starting at f3.5 at 16mm can give you max shallow DOF of a 24mm @ f/5 in FF. By the time you get to f5.6 at 55mm, you would have the same DOF as a FF 85mm @ f/9. Camera manufacturers should label their product as such: 16-55mm f/3.5 -5.6 (24-85mm f/5 - f/9 DOF in FF). Anyone who's serious about isolating their subjects will think twice when they see the DOF equivalent--f/5 - f/9....
Forget DOF, even though that is a noticeable difference between crop and FF... but a benefit that is often overlooked is the sheer increase in width that is afforded by shooting film or FF digital. Even a camera like the Pentax 654 is the equiv. of shooting a small sensor medium format body... the larger Phase sensor is noticeably different with respect to how much of a scene you can fit into the frame.
McFern: This same conversation was happening 35 years ago when the upgrade path went from the amateur full frame (35mm) format up through the various medium formats to arrive eventually at the 'truly' professional sheet film formats. In 1985, an RB67 kit would cost you 10 grand or more (in todays dollars) whereas a "pro" 35 kit was less than 1 grand. So here is the point; I have some great shots from 4x5 down to 110 (read smart phone) but what I noticed was it was hard to see a difference between the different formats unless they were enlarged to the same size and then side by side. (Unless you compare 110 to 4x5) Digital between FF and 4/3 is even closer. So it is choice alone. None of these formats will make a bad photo a good one. Galen Rowell took his 35mm into the mountains during the days that 8x10 reigned and took some wonderful photos. If he were alive today he could do the same with point and shoot. A photographer is still the same skill level with a better camera.
Actually the difference between the formats can be as different as night and day in some of the most common situations. Stand 2-4 ft. in front of your bath tub with a model (or client) in the tub.
1. Use a 35mm film camera or FF digital camera and take a shot at waist level in attempt to get the entire tub and model in the frame at 17mm or so.
2. Do the same with a 6x7 medium format film body and wide lens.
3. Do the same with 8x10 film, wide lens.
That pretty much wraps the whole point up right there... and we haven't even talked about the depth of field differences and creative latitude afforded by the larger formats in such a real world scenario. I shoot a lot of clients in bathrooms... having to deal with Nikon's 1.5x sensors back in the D100/D2hs days was a... well, you know ;)
FF lenses is perfect future proofing. The bottom line is that if you want the best performance and latitude when shooting at-a-distance, then you've no other choice but FF + pricey telephoto lenses, especially when the light gets dim.
You can compromise using 3rd party + teleconverter/extender but that stuff does't compare to a proper fast long telephoto lens. Same goes for landscapes. If you're serious about it, then 35mm format is absolute puny and dreadful for vast landscapes. The the larger formats are FAR better suited compared to 35mm format; likewise, there is no substitute for long proper lenses... if you're that serious about your work.
Many say 500 f4 is too $, yet they'll spend $5k on dx lenses, and $500 teleconverters... senseless.
When working, most professionals will make more use of wide vs really long ends, so FF is usually the advantage opposed to disadvantage. Yes, using a crop Nikon is great with say a 300mm prime but it gets so much better than that.
Darn right no DX lenses! I still think it's foolish for most people who ultimately want to use their photography to make regular income (enough to pay the mortgage + bills) to invest in DX lenses. I STILL maintain that the 14-24 (or 17-35) f2.8; 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200VR or IS f2.8 are the 3 working lenses that will cover nearly every job that a working photographer will be hired for and I would highly recommend budding photographers looking to earn money or a living with their Nikon/Canon to spend money on those lenses first and skip the dx lenses and 3rd party stuff unless it came with your kit.
MPA1: I used to have the 300 f2.8 and sold it because I had no real use for it. I doubt I'll buy this version either, although I am sure it is very good.I never really felt that 300 was a useful FL - too short for wildlife and too long for most general uses.
The 300 focal length is popular and great on a FF body for portraiture. It's generally too long for such on a 1.5 crop, however on smaller sensors it truly comes into its own for sports and wildlife without breaking the bank; a TC on the 300 makes it even more useful. Hopefully this lens will be fast focusing and sharp with buttery bokeh... if not, the price will make less sense than it seems to make already.
chj: To Sony (and all camera manufacturers)
Put a damn touchscreen on your cameras. It is by far the best way to choose a focus point. Anyone that says otherwise has simply not used one and is exalting their "skill" in getting around their camera's limitations. Technology trumps skill. You can't get faster, more reliable autofocus than my GM1 (unless you have another Panasonic). Don't tell me about workarounds. The GM1 nails focus more often.
OK, manual focus can get tighter focus on a stationary subject that's willing to wait for you to set up. But with that kind of time, ANY camera can get tight focus.
So stop listening to photo geeks that equate touchscreens with bad phone photos. On a GOOD camera, a touchscreen is an immensely powerful tool that has more impact on photos than pixel peeping details.
Feedback from DPR photo geeks is 0.005% of the market. The other 99.095% are using touchscreen phones. The camera market is shrinking, because you are listening to the wrong market.
Wrong on so many points. Just because your screen is bathed in light making it virtually unreadable does not mean your subject is in the same light. Some photographers don't like taking their faces away from the viewfinder, or don't like using screens/live view for focusing when not on a tripod.
There are times when I really like having my face to the viewfinder when I'm shooting commentary stuff in tense situations, and don't want anyone knowing where I'm looking, or what I'm photographing. Using a WA lens, I can aim the camera in one direction, but can be actually putting the focus point on the actual subject matter that I want to photograph.
Were you err is thinking that just because you happen to fancy something, others will by default. I don't mind touch screen for playback, but when I want to change iso, focus points, etc., I prefer dedicated buttons. Everyone isn't having trouble getting focus on moving targets anyway.
Jogger: I wonder if we will ever see a true 645 medium format sensor. The one in this is not 645.. the sensor in the "MF" Leica S2 is marginally larger than FF.
(NAwlins Contrarian) You're right, the P65 digital back is what, nearly 7 years old now? It's think it's hard to seriously consider the Pentax (thought I think it's a great camera at a very attractive price) once you've shot with larger sensors. The crop is considerable! I couldn't go the Pentax route if I shot landscapes.
What a fantastic camera though! Pentax got it right.
ozturert: I'm impressed with the fact that there still exist people who say "I see no point in spending money on a MF camera which has a smaller sensor than real MFs. Real MFs have ... sensor".Go and buy whatever you like. Why whining here? Trying to prove something? This is the king of price/performance cameras with excellent body, DSLRlike ergonomics, good UI, state-of-the-art AF system and nice lenses (not the best, but still very good). If you like bigger sensors, go and buy a camera with a bigger sensor and use them.
I don't think people are "whining" per se' but rather making it known that there can be a huge difference between MF sensor sizes which many photographers looking into buying a MF system do not know. Many have found out by perusing medium format forums, etc..
So while I'm sure there is some whining, I think most good folks are just passing on information that might inform someone who isn't familiar with MF cameras/backs. The difference between sensor size and sync speeds can be substantial between systems and having the info out there isn't hurting anything and might even benefit someone who's seriously thinking about taking the plunge.
zakaria: It is pentax answer to any one asking for a full frame.
... and when it comes to medium format, this Pentax isn't as "full frame" as it gets either with a lack luster 43.8 x 32.8 mm sensor size; It's like a cropped body medium format camera compared to people using say, a Phase p65 digital back with a 40.4x54.9mm sensor. Comparing those two medium format sensors as it relates to "crop factor" is kinda like comparing a Nikon D7100 and a "full frame" D4s.
So what's the benefit that many people don't think about? You get a benefit of getting more scene into the frame at a given focal length when compared to a 35mm camera when shooting in cramped spaces, or when you want a wide view... you're also able to get closer which in some situations can affect the DOF dramatically.
An awesome camera- keep in mind that in the land of MF, it still gets considerably better with an even wider view with some other sensors and much higher sync speeds with some of the other systems.
Verdict? I think Pentax did one heck of a great job.
jaykumarr: readers who are angry about the pricing should see the pricing of 80-400mm II Nikon AF-S. That is 20% higher. ( As per the feedback from users, that Nikon lens is extremely fast focusing and almost as sharp as prime. So I neither blame that price).
(bananasplit) No, I do not think that everyone thinks as I do (I address that very specifically in another post in this thread)... because if you thought like I did, then you would've have purchased the 7D in the first place and would've got a camera that gave you at *least* 5-8 years worth of easy room-to-grow. Same with lenses- I buy lenses that I know I'll be able to use a decade from now unless there's some huge tech advancement on the order of what digital was to film... and the likelihood of that happening is slim.
I do my research very well before I open my purse and plunk down my money (actually before I click "buy"). I only purchase what makes solid business sense not just for today, but for years to come. I upgrade when I need to, not when I want to. I buy premium lenses that will grow with me and that offer me the most options/latitude while I'm shooting in addition to not having to worry about replacing them for about 10 years. Yes. I know people don't think as I do ;)
mais51: Look - this Canon lens is smaller than the new Nikon 80-400, focus much closer @ ~1m against the Nikon 1.75 m, shorter and cheaper, if I were a Canon shooter it would definitely be on my wish list - let's see how it performs
Yes, that extra 20mm on a telephoto lens makes it a lot more "versatile" for the price that Nikon's asking. Question: How many steps forward would makeup the difference between 80 and 100mm for such versatility? ;)
steelhead3: I wish Canon would return to dirty white, this looks just like a Sony.
In the photograph above the lens looks grey, just like my other Canon lenses. If that colour of the sky was the colour of that lens I would call it grey, because it sure looks "dirtier" than the white background that it's photographed against.