SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,720
Re: "Courage"?

Ergo607 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

Lay it to rest. There is no way you can win this dissuasion, and frankly I don't come to this forum to read about this silly discussions.

And yet, you're the first to reply.

Sue me.

Whatcha got? 

If you want my short answer: I knew about the strengths (!) and weaknesses of the MFT format.



A pleasure.

If you want the long answer: I am a salesperson, and by definition 90% of the people don't have a clue what they are buying into.

Did you mean to say "my experience is" instead of "by definition"?

I don't see what's your point, but not being a native English speaker, let me say what I meant, which is that a lot of people believe (or want to believe) that they know what they are buying, when in fact they don't...

Ah, OK -- sure.  Didn't know you were not a native English speaker, which, of course, is something of a complement, no?

More so if they are C*n*n or N$k$n users. Because it takes courage to buy into a system that is less popular, you will find more informed people in the FT/MFT world.

Hmm, so I guess it takes "courage" to buy a Suzuki over a Honda or Nissan, for example?

If Suzuki is less popular than honda or Nissan, then exactly. You wouldn't believe how many people buy into mass market because they feel more comfortable with it.

Maybe it's a language thing, then -- I sure wouldn't call that "courage".

That said: there is no such thing as full frame, because by the very definition of it, there is no lens that I know of that uses the whole frame of the sensor (quite rightly so, because it would have severe vignetting.)

Funny you say "because by the very definition of it":

A full-frame digital SLR is a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) fitted with an image sensor that is the same size as a 35 mm (36×24 mm) film frame

That definition is plain wrong, and someone should rewrite it, and you know it.

Really?  'Cause I didn't find the "correct" definition when I googled it:

Probably the least informed people buy 135mm format anyway, because they have the money, don't know what the are buying, but because they can and because they want to show off they buy a 135mm format camera.

So it's the "least informed" that buy Ferrari and Lamborghini?

Quite rightly so.

Huh.  I hope it's a language thing, again.

Sth like most people who buy an iPhone: they don't know sh*t what it can do, but they buy it to stand out in the crowd...

But those who buy, say, an S3, know all about it?

I think that people who buy and use a Fuji S3 (I had that camera, loved it) know a lot about good gear...

I meant the Samsung S3 phone, but, well... 

All I wanted to say is that the discussion between 135 format and smaller formats is fairly clinical and still only exists because people want to defend what they bought even if (I say that from my 'experience' as a salesperson) that was overkill for them.

Thing is, though, people say things like "FF is overkill", which I don't disagree with, but you rarely, if ever, hear people saying things like "the 75 / 1.8 is overkill" or "the 35-100 / 2.8 is overkill".  I mean, where is the line between "killed just right" and "overkill"?

I see it like this (also speaking from my experience as a sales person): a lot of people (and I let others decide how many that would be) buy gear because they want to show of; others follow because they want to belong to the crowd. Taking your example of Lamborghini/Ferrari, if you think about it objectively no one in his right mind would buy a car of those: they are far from comfortable, there is no room for luggage, you can't take more than one person with you, the things burn gasoline like hell and you cannot enter a garage park, because they sit too close to the ground. As for speed: where exactly can you run these cars at full throttle? And how much exactly do you have to pay for these privileges? You don't have to agree with me, but every time I see sth like that I can't help but think that the person behind the wheel has something serious to compensate for...

So, can we assume the same for someone who has a 75 / 1.8?

I don't think the same way about 135mm format because in the hands of an experienced person it will deliver some astonishing results. But you will agree with me that is not the majority of 135mm format users, and you will also agree that it also comes with its compromises.

It's long been my opinion that, in terms of IQ, even a good compact is "good enough" for the vast majority in the vast majority of shooting conditions.  Indeed, even a cell phone is overkill for many.

And to conclude: yes, MFT comes also with its compromises; we know them. Sure enough we know them, because if we don't there will always be some sort of 135mm format user which just has to pay us attention to our compromises. These kind of people I would categorize as the Ferrari riders described here above...

All you have to say is that mFT satisfies your needs, is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than a FF kit, and that you are happy that they are such talented photographers that only FF will do for them.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow