Sony mirrorless FullFrame!?!?

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 8,151
Re: forecast

Donny out of Element here wrote:

Moti wrote:

sean lancaster wrote:

Olymore wrote:

For the last 150 years sensor/film size has progressively got smaller, for mainstream photography, as technology has improved.

From large plates all the way down to APSC.

I would be more inclined to put a bet on 1" size sensors being the standard for keen photographers in ten years time. The current move to 35mm size sensors is a minor blip in that sequence due to the falling price of these cameras. It won't last long and is only affecting a small part of the market (up from 5% to 8% of ILC sales so far) .

In fact as phone cameras are improving at such a rate and as the sensors are the most efficient available, even smalller sensors will likely be used and software used to create the approriate DOF requirements.

After all it was only a few years ago that using software to correct lens aberrations was frowned upon and now it is more or less accepted.

Sensor size still largely determines depth of field (along with lens) - and assuming we're shooting the same field of view and same subject.

True but there is no reason to shoot the same subject with the same fov.

For people who like a shallow depth of field then phone sized sensors are not making progress. Neither are micro 4/3 camera. Neither are APS-C cameras.

That depends why people like shallow DOF. When the RX1 came out, most of the shallow DOF photos I've seen had the sole purpose - hey, look what my camera can do. It hasn't changed much since.

Now don't misunderstand me, I don't say that shallow DOF isn't important but when it becomes the subject instead of an attribut, there is a problem somewhere.

Full Frame is still the best affordable option to get shallow depth of field

That is true althoug smaller sensors can produce nice bokeh too but they need different techniques and a skilled photographer behind.

and subject separation...

You guys repeat that mantra like parrots as if it was the holy grail of photography. FYI, there are plenty of other ways to separate a subjec, most of them would even look nicer and more aesthetic then background bloor.

Moreover, many photographers, especially those who shoot environmental portraits, prefer to integrate the subject in the background and not separate it, otherwise what's the use of shooting environmantally?

And last, I can produce in a studio with my X100 more background bloor than any of you can dream of getting with your big sensors, because at the end of the day, gear is nice to have but knowing how to use it properly is more important.


LOL. No comments.

Well, I guess you don't know much about studio work because if you'd know, you would have known exactly how it is done.

P.S. People chose FF not only due to DOF reasons, but most importantly for better ability of FF sensor to perform, to gather valuable photons and light when it is really needed and appreciated, to produce wider Dynamic Range - which I like even more than just subject separation and to reproduce colors more accurately - which is indeed better than just having shallow DOF. This list can go on and on - almost in everything FF sensors excel and perform better. THAT is the main reason for people switching to FF cameras and not only stereotypically assumed shallow DOF.

Depends what you call "people" for pros and some serous amateurs with specific needs such as sportt photography or super large printing, I agree. Otherwise, Most amateurs don't really need a FF and buy it more as a show off.

Come-on, really? That is no rocket science and you guys know it, its just hard to admit that FF is better suited for most photographers due to simple physics - you can't fight physics - its useless.

No it is not rocket science. It is simply speculation vs real needs and experience and I'm not going to argue with you about that.

Let me just say that I am shooting for living and I specialise in stage and musical events photography. I've been using FF pro gear for years. For several reasons I've switched recently to EM5 and after a testing period and experience, I was convinced that the EM5 was much more suitable for my job than my FF gear and I can't wait now for the EM1 to arrive. When it comes, the rest of my FF gears goes on sale.

Of course, every camera has its pros and cons and every camera has compromises and if you want to find out which camera or format are better suited, you should check it case by case according to the specific needs of every task.

But one thing is sure, you statement that FF is better suited for most photographers due to simple physics, is simply not true, or maybe better to say - not true anymore.


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