So this thing gives you the worst of crop sensor combined with the worst of a full frame, but sounds very appealing. The ~$4-600 these things cost are usually about what you'd need to just get a proper FF body and get the best of all worlds.
wsalopek: Full frame is, generally speaking, for ONE thing...best low-light / hi-iso / sports performance, (and to a lesser extent, for max subject isolation (but there are work-arounds for smaller sensors to achieve much the same isolation)).
If a person doesn't need that, then APS-C or MFT, or even smaller-sized sensors, do FANTASTIC, and at the same time, you almost certainly spend less money, and have much smaller/lighter hardware to haul around, which is HUGE in getting the picture you want, as the best camera is the one you have WITH you.
Haha, right? And plenty phones are waterproof today as well.
jrkliny: When I started DSLR photography, I opted for an APS-C camera and lenses. I like the smaller size, lower weight and lower cost. To me full frame is a case of high cost for diminishing returns. I am still looking to upgrade but not to something bigger. I am looking forward to the time when we can get even small lighter gear with better image quality and better capabilities. That day seems to be coming rapidly especially since we are seeing only minimal improvements in DSLR technology.
Its just like cars - unless you're a pro racer, you don't need a race car that will guzzle your money in one sitting. Sure its nice to have, but without a return on that investment its utterly unnecessary.
obsolescence: I started with Olympus Four Thirds, which is now basically obsolete and the lenses are not worth much. Obsolescence (that's my moniker) is the lifeblood of the tech industry, including photography. It's also very likely the future of the human species on this degraded planet, so we had better enjoy what we have while we still can. That means not spending all our discretionary money on photo gear just to have the latest and greatest.
All nice for a hobby.
mosc: You know, Metabones keeps the truth in the upgrade path for people who are willing to give it a go. Get a speed booster and an E-mount body and you have yourself FF glass utilized on a less expensive body.
Are these signal boosters still a way of cutting corners on getting the proper equipment for the purpose or are they relatively substantial in what they do? Else, FOV remains the same, right?
SmilerGrogan: There is only one minor quibble I have with this well-written and well thought out essay.
The "but" is that while micro 4/3rds people have lots of great f/2.8 lenses, owners of Nikon and Canon APS-C cameras don't really have much of an upgrade path...If you've grown beyond your variable aperture kit zooms, there is really nothing from either Nikon or Canon once you've bought a 17-55 f/2.8 (both of which are gigantic, but perhaps that's what it takes to get decent performance from a lens like that).
Neither Nikon nor Canon make an f/2.8 wide angle prime or f/2.8 wide angle zoom for the image circle of APS-C cameras. Yes there are nice third party lenses, but some people prefer to stick with mfr lenses for a variety of reasons.
And finally, neither company makes a telephoto option for those wishing to move up to an APS-C circle f2.8 70-200 zoom. So for those of us who own Nikons or Canons, we are stuck with either going full frame, or switching to Olympus, Panasonic, or Fuji.
Well micros /need/ higher apertures to achieve the same performance as larger sensors, so it's more of a necessity in that realm to still be competitive with the rest of the market.
And APS-C really honestly caps off at the enthusiast level these days since pros need bigger and better by the minute, so it makes perfect sense that the companies aren't investing into a cheaper market. They can make that 11-24/2.8, but costing often more than 2x the camera itself, majority of their market will never pick one up.
Its like a Honda vs Porsche debate for a daily driver- both will get you to work, just one significantly faster and more reliable at high speeds than the other. If you're an ER surgeon, that 5 minute difference makes or breaks your job. Otherwise there are simple enthusiasts who seek that cream of the crop without price being a question.
Definitely. If you encounter adverse environments enough, you want the best gear possible, but otherwise it really is unnecessary.
lera ion: My next FX will not be Nikon.
Honestly, I like my day/week long lasting batteries and OVF to even begin considering mirrorless. And the boot up time?
Ivan Azzopardi: At last Nikon think of it. Holding your camera the D750 with a 24-70 f2.8 for an hour taking video wow my hands were strained with weight. Sony taught. of it along time ago maybe now its Nikon's turn. 36/48mp no olpf like D810 with 4k video 10/12fps weight 200/300g that would be a good camera I think.
You guys don't work out, huh?
Tipsy Reactions: Nikon really doesn't need to go into the 4K market. Its not like they're known for video anyway. Like Toshiaki said, they are more worried about stills than video, which is overall a good thing.
Agreed. A DSLR will never top a proper video rig anyway, so best stick to what a certain product is designed for.