Full Frame Hysteria - a Reality Check (be happy with m43 - I am)

[Moti]

A little subject separation from the background does not a dimensional image make. Still incredibly flat in comparison with what can be done with FF. But as you seem to be happy with it then that is all that matters!

I admire Roel for two reasons. First for his photography and then for his diplomacy. I would have given you a different answer but you may not have liked it.

So instead, let me show you some of my photos that were exhibited in an art gallery in France last month. The series is called the Mannequins. They are 20"x16" printed on Hannemuhle Barita FB paper and the selling price was 300$ each. I sold 4 pictures.

you can watch them here: The Mannequins

FYI, I used four different camera formats for this series. FF, APC, 2/3" and 1/1.8" which of course, you will have no problems to identify because "everything is incredibly flat in comparison with what can be done with FF" as you claim.

So here is the deal. Find out which is which and you'll get one framed photo of your choice. Remember it is a 300$ value present. It is you to play now.

Moti

 

[amalric]

I had my new X-E1 because there is tons interesting to shoot in NYC, but I was quite surprised by the sea of DSLRs (and a couple of Speed Graphic 4x5 users making images of tourists). So all this talk about camera size/weight is perhaps less important than we think. Photographers will shoot with the camera systems they prefer, and all this talk about "sea change" and "tidal wave" is basically just forum fan talk. Reality doesn't always match what you read on these forums. The overwhelming majority of pros are still using FF DSLRs, enthusiasts are using lots of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, and the rest of the people are using mostly smartphones and a few compacts.

Lastly, "calking" mention the X-E1 vs D600, I have the X-E1 and a D800, and the D800 is for me a much easier camera to shoot with due to its two command dials, confident and fast AF performance, not to mention the big, bright VF. It is the epitome of a no-nonsense camera. To describe a 675 g camera like the D600, really very small and lightweight for a FF DSLR, as "luggage" is a wild exaggeration. I don't know one adult male who would consider such a camera heavy, so I don't know why mirrorless fans keep repeating these kinds of wild exaggerations. I saw women yesterday in NY with their shinny 5D III and 16-35 f/2.8s, and they didn't seem to be having any problems with weight, nor did their camera bags have any luggage tags.

Anyway, it's just funny to read a quote billed as the "real story" that is basically HIS story, his experience, a Fujifilm fan trying to convince others that his way is the best way.

Well again a case of pot calling kettle black. The US are actually the worst sample country, penetration of mirrorless being the lowest in the World.

It would be a different story if you were in Tokyo, but also in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore. Perhaps there you could see a 'tidal wave'.

Besides the OP is not about FF35 cameras in general, but about FF 35 mirrorless and the disproportionate attention that their worshippers try to raise in forums that have nothing to do with them.

It is this worshipping that is suspect since they cannot have shot even a single image with the new Sonys. Is it a Sony viral campaign?

Besides early reporters document already in the new As quite a few misgivings, essentially related to the short distance to flange in relation to sensor size. There are AF and exposure problems which might perhaps be solved later, but not the mount problem.

It is therefore another tidal wave obfuscation that which FF 35 non mirrorless owners are performing across forums, adding OT material for their own egos. Mirrorless and non mirrorless FF 35 have very distinct problems.

It is as ridicule as seeing old geezers going hand in hand with juveniles.

Give it a rest

Am.

 

[Ulric]

I doubt that there be any samples from lazyboy. Too bad; the sample flinging is always the most rewarding part of these threads. Speaking of which, where is LTZ470?

 

[Richard]

I just came across an absolutely brilliant postost shown below.) - caver3d

Calking (fujirumors.com - October 29, 2013)

Ever notice when a new APS-C model camera is announced, forum whiners bemoan the lack of a full frame model? When the full frame model is announced, the same whiners declare their loyalty to APS-C and extol the virtues of modern APS-C IQ.

There would be no debates if good FF were in the 1000 dollar price range.

There are over 1800 posts on DPR regarding the new Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera and its M4/3. Care to speculate on how many of those posts are bitchin and cryin about the camera not being APS-C, much less FF?

They are too busy trying to tell everyone how OMDs are better than FF, because they are insecure in their purchase. Just like the person producing this post.

And let’s put the whole f1.2 DOF thing to bed too — how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower.

This poster clearly does not understand how to use this feature. Which is why he does not understand the value of it.

If I want to isolate the subject using DOF I can do 2 things. I can walk closer, the subject will be closer, backgroud fasther away, background more blurry. The other is to open the aperture.

I don't want the subjects nose blurred (though you could use a 1.2 for that) but I want to blur the background but I cannot get any closer to the subject.

As a professional photographer commented recently, “You’ll find yourself in trouble more often than not shooting full frame wide open.”

In most cases ALL cameras and lenses have lesser quality when shot wide open.

But enough with the fight.

There is no fight, you are the one "bringing it" I don't care about fuji, you don't care about FF, I am not telling you Fuji is a bad thing or a lesser thing. It is you telling everyone FF isn't that great, when in fact, it is great, it is just expensive. I call sour grapes.

If Fuji makes a full frame camera in 2014 or 2015 or whenever, we can count on it being poo-poo’d by more people than applaud it, despite how stupid that is.

I would not poo poo something I don't care about. But obviously this guy has a hard on for Fuji and feels the need to promote it and take a swing at FF. He is insecure.

People just want what they can’t have.

Yes, this poster wants a FF but can't have it so he tries to diminish FF in some way

 

[Richard]

And let’s put the whole f1.2 DOF thing to bed too — how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower. As a professional photographer commented recently, “You’ll find yourself in trouble more often than not shooting full frame wide open.”

All at f/1.2 on FF, if for no other reason than to give a context for "how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower":

Those pics rock and they destroy stupid debates.

 

[Brian Caslis]

...

More specifically, if a FF system were the same size, weight, and price as an mFT system, and they also had the same operation (AF, frame rate, etc.), build, and ergonomics, I'm pretty sure most would opt for the FF system.

In other words, deeper DOF isn't the reason to choose mFT over FF, except for those that need DOFs beyond what f/11 on mFT can offer.

I do agree mostly with first comment here. But there are applications where the DOF for mft is an advantage. Specifically I can get much better macro shots much easier with the mft than FF.

 

[DonSC]

More specifically, if a FF system were the same size, weight, and price as an mFT system, and they also had the same operation (AF, frame rate, etc.), build, and ergonomics, I'm pretty sure most would opt for the FF system.

In other words, deeper DOF isn't the reason to choose mFT over FF, except for those that need DOFs beyond what f/11 on mFT can offer.

Truer words were never written than those in the first paragraph. But it's sort of like saying if you could put twenty pounds of potatoes in a five pound sack you'd prefer carrying the twenty pounds rather than five cause it would weigh less. LOL

Generally I don't think you want a m43 lens stopped down beyond f/5.6. Too much diffraction.

 

[Great Bustard]

...but the size, weight, and price. For example, you could have taken the photo above at 35mm f/1.8 1/15 ISO 12800 and gotten then same DOF and noise. But then what's the purpose of FF?

So? There are always different ways to get athe same results.

Depends on the results you are after.

But he is the photographer, he has his own preferences as far as gear is concerned. Anything wrong with it?

Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it is as things should be.

More specifically, if a FF system were the same size, weight, and price as an mFT system, and they also had the same operation (AF, frame rate, etc.), build, and ergonomics, I'm pretty sure most would opt for the FF system.

But it is not.

Your observations skills are tip-top. ;-)

In other words, deeper DOF isn't the reason to choose mFT over FF, except for those that need DOFs beyond what f/11 on mFT can offer.

That depends on what you do.

With the exception of macro, I don't know why you'd be using DOFs greater than f/11 on mFT (f/22 on FF). Even for those "smooth water" pics in good light, better to use an ND filter at a wider aperture (less diffraction softening for the portions of the scene that aren't in motion) than narrow apertures.

In my case, it was one of the reasons to move from FF to MFT.

I didn't know you were shot macro a lot, thus using f/22 and more narrow on FF so often that it made mFT the better choice.

 

[Great Bustard]

...

More specifically, if a FF system were the same size, weight, and price as an mFT system, and they also had the same operation (AF, frame rate, etc.), build, and ergonomics, I'm pretty sure most would opt for the FF system.

In other words, deeper DOF isn't the reason to choose mFT over FF, except for those that need DOFs beyond what f/11 on mFT can offer.

I do agree mostly with first comment here. But there are applications where the DOF for mft is an advantage. Specifically I can get much better macro shots much easier with the mft than FF.

I think that people who shoot FF are often trying for max IQ. Thus, a FF photographer probably would not want to stop down past f/22 (f/11 on mFT) due to the effects of diffraction softening. Instead, they would opt for focus stacking. Otherwise, even mFT is even overkill, for DOFs that deep, and many compacts will do as well in a smaller, lighter, and less expensive package.

 

[Danielvr]

If you have a bit too much time on your hands -as I suspect most who participate in threads like these do- you may enjoy watching this mildly amusing bit of photo gear comedy from the Pro Photo Supply Inc people:

Video: Top Photo Gear Episode 1 - "Flagships" (Nikon D4 vs. Olympus OM-D E-M1)

 

[Great Bustard]

More specifically, if a FF system were the same size, weight, and price as an mFT system, and they also had the same operation (AF, frame rate, etc.), build, and ergonomics, I'm pretty sure most would opt for the FF system.

In other words, deeper DOF isn't the reason to choose mFT over FF, except for those that need DOFs beyond what f/11 on mFT can offer.

Truer words were never written than those in the first paragraph. But it's sort of like saying if you could put twenty pounds of potatoes in a five pound sack you'd prefer carrying the twenty pounds rather than five cause it would weigh less. LOL

I prefer to think of it as if you could have a Lexus for the same price as a Civic, you'd probably choose the Lexus.

Generally I don't think you want a m43 lens stopped down beyond f/5.6. Too much diffraction.

Indeed. However, there are times that the deeper DOF (which will also result in greater noise if a sufficient shutter speed cannot be had at base ISO) outweigh other considerations. That said, I suspect such situations are rather rare for most photographers.

 

[Great Bustard]

And let’s put the whole f1.2 DOF thing to bed too — how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower. As a professional photographer commented recently, “You’ll find yourself in trouble more often than not shooting full frame wide open.”

All at f/1.2 on FF, if for no other reason than to give a context for "how many photographs do any of us aspire to shoot where only the tip of someone’s nose in in focus, or one leg on a grasshopper, or one petal on a flower":

Opinions about the utility of large apertures benefit from the context of actual photos, methinks.

Excellent examples showing m4/3 users with their heads buried in the sand what their precious m4/3 cameras will never be able to produce.

...that is simply going way, way, way too far. I've seen absolutely stunning pics from all formats, including phone cams, and absolute garbage from FF.

The gear does play a role, but the photographer's skills (including processing skills) and vision matter more than the differences in the equipment 99% of the time, if not more.

Photos with depth and a 3D sense to them. Believe me, if I could get the same image quality in a system smaller than my D4 with 200VR or my D800E with 85.14G, etc I would be all over it. I have tried the EM-5 and the fastest available primes and the results are the same as everyone else's in regards to flat, one dimensional images.

The whole 3D thing is worthy of a thread all its own, and not synonymous with shallow DOF, as I've discussed and demonstrated in the past:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36904837

 

[Martin.au]

Believe me, if I could get the same image quality in a system smaller than my D4 with 200VR or my D800E with 85.14G, etc I would be all over it. I have tried the EM-5 and the fastest available primes and the results are the same as everyone else's in regards to flat, one dimensional images.

Well, then I guess you were trying not really hard.

Or if you consider this to be flat and one-dimensional, then we are talking about other concepts and discussion is pointless (BTW, I did not have to try very hard for these) :

--
Roel Hendrickx
lots of images: www.roelh.zenfolio.com
my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

A little subject separation from the background does not a dimensional image make. Still incredibly flat in comparison with what can be done with FF. But as you seem to be happy with it then that is all that matters!

Of course, if the exif said FF then lazy would happily point out the 3d effect.

 

[marike6]

I had my new X-E1 because there is tons interesting to shoot in NYC, but I was quite surprised by the sea of DSLRs (and a couple of Speed Graphic 4x5 users making images of tourists). So all this talk about camera size/weight is perhaps less important than we think. Photographers will shoot with the camera systems they prefer, and all this talk about "sea change" and "tidal wave" is basically just forum fan talk. Reality doesn't always match what you read on these forums. The overwhelming majority of pros are still using FF DSLRs, enthusiasts are using lots of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, and the rest of the people are using mostly smartphones and a few compacts.

Lastly, "calking" mention the X-E1 vs D600, I have the X-E1 and a D800, and the D800 is for me a much easier camera to shoot with due to its two command dials, confident and fast AF performance, not to mention the big, bright VF. It is the epitome of a no-nonsense camera. To describe a 675 g camera like the D600, really very small and lightweight for a FF DSLR, as "luggage" is a wild exaggeration. I don't know one adult male who would consider such a camera heavy, so I don't know why mirrorless fans keep repeating these kinds of wild exaggerations. I saw women yesterday in NY with their shinny 5D III and 16-35 f/2.8s, and they didn't seem to be having any problems with weight, nor did their camera bags have any luggage tags.

Anyway, it's just funny to read a quote billed as the "real story" that is basically HIS story, his experience, a Fujifilm fan trying to convince others that his way is the best way.

Well again a case of pot calling kettle black. The US are actually the worst sample country, penetration of mirrorless being the lowest in the World.

In England and in much of Europe I have read there is a similar high ratio of DSLRs to mirrorless, but in New York City, at the largest camera shop in the country where people have the opportunity to buy any camera imaginable, I think it's telling that so many by and large still choose DSLRs.

It would be a different story if you were in Tokyo, but also in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore. Perhaps there you could see a 'tidal wave'.

Besides the OP is not about FF35 cameras in general, but about FF 35 mirrorless and the disproportionate attention that their worshippers try to raise in forums that have nothing to do with them.

It is this worshipping that is suspect since they cannot have shot even a single image with the new Sonys. Is it a Sony viral campaign?

Besides early reporters document already in the new As quite a few misgivings, essentially related to the short distance to flange in relation to sensor size. There are AF and exposure problems which might perhaps be solved later, but not the mount problem.

It is therefore another tidal wave obfuscation that which FF 35 non mirrorless owners are performing across forums, adding OT material for their own egos. Mirrorless and non mirrorless FF 35 have very distinct problems.

It is as ridicule as seeing old geezers going hand in hand with juveniles.

I'm just giving you anecdotal evidence to help put things in perspective. Lots of people carrying 5D III and L lenses, a couple of women one with a 5D / 24-70 f/2.8 the other with a D700 / 24-70 f/2.8. Strapped over their shoulders, walking around near B&H / Madison Square Garden. Nobody, man, woman, young or older, seemed to be struggling or giving it much though at all. The overwhelming majority of people had DSLRs both inside and out on the street. And as usual at B&H camera department, the most crowded (really the only crowded kiosks) were Nikon and Canon.

Unless you are a professional, technically nobody needs a FF. But other than Medium Format, clearly FFs offer great IQ and high end build quality. If amateurs can afford them, they will buy them. I do a lot of copy work for artists in NY, so I needed an SLR system with good IQ, and a good choice of macro lenses.

Give it a rest

If everybody "gave it a rest" this thread would be one post long. Just telling you want I saw at NYC in and around the largest camera store in the country.

 

[amalric]

Makes me smile that you still believe that NY is the center of the World and the dSLR is its prophet

Wake up: m4/3 and the camera business thrives and prospers in ASIA, your experience is worthless.

Therefore I wonder only if you are a conscious or unconscious troll. let me say it with Susan Sontag: "America is the grave of the Occident... It is a discredited dream of cultural revolution... and a witty program of despair"

LOL

Am.

 

[Digitall #107280]

Great quote.

Maybe the MF guys can blame the FF(35mm) too?

There are many people who suffer from G.A.S., and have not found the right pair move and stabilize within this hobby, I say hobby rather than profession, which is a good bit different.
Generically speaking, many people use FF or spend $ 1,696.95 on a 58mm 1.4 lens or more, nothing to put ~800x600px photos on the internet and to be seen with 72pp. Because psychologically so they feel more comfortable in doing so. And the vast majority do not make large prints prints.
But there is a market for everyone, is to continue to make unreasonable comparisons with completely different formats and with different purposes and users. Each one has to wonder what is the way forward. I prefer the large format of the medium format, and I prefer the medium format than 35mm. I know it's pointless. Each tool serves different needs. So, a matter for us to ask ourselves what we really need? and do exclusions parts.

 

[Ulric]

There would be no debates if good FF were in the 1000 dollar price range.

That's not it, because good FF is not prohibitively expensive.

There would be no debates if good FF were the size of good M43.

 

[Derek Dean]

I enjoy discussions about the differences between the various camera formats, but I very much dislike how they often turn into personal attacks.

Look, folks, we all come here because we have a COMMON love for photography, in all its varied forms. So, how about if we try to keep our discussions on a more respectful level.

There is NO right answer to the FF vs. m43 debate, because each format has it's strengths and weaknesses based on the users needs and desires.

There is no NEED to defend m43. Some folks will love it, and some won't, just like some will feel they can't do with anything less than FF while others feel there is no need for it.

There are no rights or wrongs, just opinions. Yes, you can point to specific examples as to what each system can achieve, or not achieve in a particular instance, but a person's satisfaction with a system is made up a many variables, not just one.

In any case, all I really wanted to say was that I hoped we could bring the discussion back to a more civilized tone, without all the personal attacks and challenges.

Now, go shoot some photos : )

 

[Moti]

More specifically, if a FF system were the same size, weight, and price as an mFT system, and they also had the same operation (AF, frame rate, etc.), build, and ergonomics, I'm pretty sure most would opt for the FF system.

In other words, deeper DOF isn't the reason to choose mFT over FF, except for those that need DOFs beyond what f/11 on mFT can offer.

Truer words were never written than those in the first paragraph. But it's sort of like saying if you could put twenty pounds of potatoes in a five pound sack you'd prefer carrying the twenty pounds rather than five cause it would weigh less. LOL

I prefer to think of it as if you could have a Lexus for the same price as a Civic, you'd probably choose the Lexus.

This is an excellent example but the answer is not that simple as you think. Although a lexus at the price of a civic sounds great, I'd still choose a Civic if live in Paris for example (which I did) so as I always said, at the end of the day, it always comes down to needs and preferences, even for photographic gear.

Generally I don't think you want a m43 lens stopped down beyond f/5.6. Too much diffraction.

Indeed. However, there are times that the deeper DOF (which will also result in greater noise if a sufficient shutter speed cannot be had at base ISO) outweigh other considerations. That said, I suspect such situations are rather rare for most photographers.

Not necessarily. I encounter such situations for more than 50% of my photography.

Moti.

 

[Digitall #107280]

Correction: I meant 72dpi and not 72pp.