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

slimandy · Oct 30, 2013

Perhaps you should tell the author he's still getting it wrong because he should be using MFT then?

Hang on, you were saying he's right. Should we switch to APS-C then? Confused....

(f.y.i. I'm not really confused, other than to why we need to keep bringing this up. Shoot what suits you best; don't tell other people they've got it wrong. Reality check - be happy and let others be happy. This is a pointless post).

GaryJP · Oct 30, 2013

amalric said:
GaryJP said:

amalric said:

Most of these trolls must be very young, with no prior experience of 35mm, and all set to destroy the forums which do not have the format.

The poor darlings do not realize that almost all of us middle agers went through 35mm in film, and therefore know very well the limitations in perspective and DOF, that such a format entails.

Click to expand...

Actually, over the years, I have found just as many of the worst trolls are disgruntled and embittered retirees. Particularly many of the ones who no longer have the strength for a DSLR.

I use m43 (have the EM5 and the EM1) and love my full frame 5D MkIII, particularly for my video work, so I have no side to take in this childish battle.-

Click to expand...

You and Mr. Hendrikx, are not v. perceptive, are you? We are talking about the present FF frenzy unleashed by the mirrorless Sony. Those trolls couldn't care less about your old junk.

There are plenty of the older ones still around. Selective myopia is one of their features too.

As I said elsewhere: "For every full frame zealot there's a corresponding M43 shooter with short-man-in-a-bar-syndrome yelling "DSLRs are dead", and "knock this off my shoulder, I dare ya"."

In fact it seems several threads along those lines began on this forum just yesterday.

Rob Sims · Oct 30, 2013

I thought the biggest benefit of 35mm FF vs smaller sensors was the lovely rich dynamic range, low noise right into the high ISOs and for, landscape photographers, the high pixel level detail. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's the reason I used to lug my Nikon D700 around with me for 5 years.

The opening post barely mentions that.

In fact the opening post makes it appear as though small DOF was the only reason photographers continue to lug such large FF dSLRs around, and then goes on the attack saying it's not necessary to use such low DOF, and m43 users don't need it. Yet how many posts in this forum do we see people buying the Nokton F0.95 and such like for exactly that reason? If it's just for low light work, well then surely any one of the FF offereings would have done as good a job (or better) simply by cranking up their ISO to 3200, 6400 (or even 12800) which would still match most m43 sensors two stops lower AND continue to provide higher resolution.

That post might as well have switched the words mFT for Nikon's 1 system (excellent system, especially for telephoto work), based on the arguments it used.

n3eg · Oct 30, 2013

GaryJP said:
GaryJP said:

I use m43 (have the EM5 and the EM1) and love my full frame 5D MkIII, particularly for my video work, so I have no side to take in this childish battle.

Click to expand...

dennis tennis · Oct 30, 2013

That guy owns a Fuij not an mFT, hence he is wrong. He not smart enough to pick mFT hence everything he says is wrong.

I am tired of these FF vs APS-C posts. We should all rejoice in the perfection that is mFT now that FT is almost dead.

amalric · Oct 30, 2013

GaryJP said:
amalric said:

GaryJP said:

amalric said:

Most of these trolls must be very young, with no prior experience of 35mm, and all set to destroy the forums which do not have the format.

The poor darlings do not realize that almost all of us middle agers went through 35mm in film, and therefore know very well the limitations in perspective and DOF, that such a format entails.

Click to expand...

Actually, over the years, I have found just as many of the worst trolls are disgruntled and embittered retirees. Particularly many of the ones who no longer have the strength for a DSLR.

I use m43 (have the EM5 and the EM1) and love my full frame 5D MkIII, particularly for my video work, so I have no side to take in this childish battle.-

Click to expand...

You and Mr. Hendrikx, are not v. perceptive, are you? We are talking about the present FF frenzy unleashed by the mirrorless Sony. Those trolls couldn't care less about your old junk.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of the older ones still around. Selective myopia is one of their features too.

As I said elsewhere: "For every full frame zealot there's a corresponding M43 shooter with short-man-in-a-bar-syndrome yelling "DSLRs are dead", and "knock this off my shoulder, I dare ya"."
In fact it seems several threads along those lines began on this forum just yesterday.

Since we are talking about system cameras, not everybody can afford two systems, certainly not beginners.

They will naturally head towards mirrorless as the latest, more portable technology, hence the main battle between Sony and the other mirrorless camera companies. Older dual system users are certainly not in the front line.

In the end what matters is the photographs you take, with the equipment you have, so more power to you if two systems help you better.

However it seems to me that we are talking about people who want ONE system win-it -all, it being 35mm mirrorless, without even having shot one picture with it. Quite a different psychological case., perhaps a pathological one.

Might even be viral marketing, with money the sole object. Photographer being inessential and the machine taking over.

I am rather in the other camp believing that hype is inversely proportional to the art. I just read that great photog. Diane Arbus preferred to shoot with old cameras, in order to concentrate better on what she was doing. She was not the only one, but of course it didn't bring any money to camera companies

Am.

Zenjitsuman · Oct 30, 2013

The whiners are the ones without good manual focus lenses, and the others want to AF but Sigma

and the other 3rd party lens makers never ported their AF lenses to E mount so AF is going to be just a few very slow primes, and an expensive pro lens that probably doesn't perform as well that the equivalent Sigma FF lens at a far cheaper price.

caver3d · Oct 30, 2013

slimandy said:
Perhaps you should tell the author he's still getting it wrong because he should be using MFT then?

Hang on, you were saying he's right. Should we switch to APS-C then? Confused....

(f.y.i. I'm not really confused, other than to why we need to keep bringing this up. Shoot what suits you best; don't tell other people they've got it wrong. Reality check - be happy and let others be happy. This is a pointless post).

cameron2 · Oct 30, 2013

GaryJP said:
I use m43 (have the EM5 and the EM1) and love my full frame 5D MkIII, particularly for my video work, so I have no side to take in this childish battle.

With such a little 864mm^2 sensor, no wonder you don't want to go to battle. My Leica S could eat a few of those and still have room left over

Harold66 · Oct 30, 2013

Things are quite simple. With recent technology improvements in sensor and procession image software there is a VERY small portion of people on these forums whose photography actually justify the use of a camera with a 35mm sensor ( aka the misnamed FULL FRAME)

Some photographers feel the need of a big camera to impress their clients . Some others buy it for bragging rights among their friends. LOTS of people here buy it because they think or hope that it would improve their photography ( in 95% of the cases it won t)

Last but not least , there are the camera collectors who change cameras three or four times a year ( if not more) and who also maybe suffering of the " Mine is bigger than yours" syndrom

When you meet photographers who view their cameras as a tool to make pictures that matter, you do not get all that non sense you get here

I can think of several good reasons to work with this format or with this one , but they are not listed here very often

Harold

Great Bustard · Oct 30, 2013

caver3d said:
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.

amalric · Oct 30, 2013

Here:

Loading…

www.thephoblographer.com

Seems the ran into problems both with exposure and AF. Say they need a tripod all the time

Also, I can't stop laughing at the size of Zeiss 551.4 Otus:

Loading…

www.thephoblographer.com

Is the Otus a new marine mammal?

Am.

Great Bustard · Oct 30, 2013

RoelHendrickx said:
caver3d said:

(Disclaimer: I am not Calking. I did not write the post shown below.) - caver3d

Calking (fujirumors.com - October 29, 2013)

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.”

Click to expand...

Let me start by saying that I like fast lenses and primes.

My Olympus 35-100F2 and 15F2 and my Panaleica 25F1.4 and Rokinon 85F1.4 are among my favourite lenses, and let's not even get started on how I enjoy my Voigtländer Nokton 17F0.95.

And yes, occasionally I use those to get as shallow DOF as I can get on FT, isolating a subject (or even a part of it, like an extended hand, from the background etc. For my Nokton, I bought a variable ND filter, so I should not pretend that I only bought it for light-gathering : I want to use that lens occasionally also wide open in good light. So shallow DOF was and is an artistic consideration. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that it isn't ever.

And thus I am fully aware that if shallow DOF was my main concern, I would be better off with FF.

But it is not.

I like those fast lenses mainly because I hate to use flash. For my documentary work, a flash is just a nuisance, ruining the intimate atmosphere of a scene in which I am immersed and in which I try to remain the unnoticed fly on the wall.

So I do almost 99% of my work with available light, even if that available light is very limited. In my images I like to not only USE available light, but also to SHOW the light itself at work, as part of the composition.

Fast lenses are (for at least 95%) about light-gathering for me.

And for those purposes, the somewhat deeper DOF of (µ)FT versus µFF is a blessing, because it allows me to focus manual lenses more easily (handheld in dynamic situations) and because it shows just enough of my subjects in focus (not just the nose but the whole face), even when shot wide open.

Like here (almost completely dark scene, shot at ISO 3200 with F0.95 and 1/15th sec handheld:

Circus backstage scene with Nokton 17.5mm on E-M5

...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?

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.

Chanthis · Oct 30, 2013

I especially like the photo of the tea kettle lid. What isolation from the rest of the kettle! What could that mean? The lid wants independence or recognition of its own? You're an artiste!

Great Bustard · Oct 30, 2013

Chanthis said:
I especially like the photo of the tea kettle lid. What isolation from the rest of the kettle!

Kind of you to say!

Chanthis said:
What could that mean? The lid wants independence or recognition of its own?

Oh wow -- that's just too deep. I thought it meant that I shot wide open because I lacked the skills to compose the scene with greater DOF. ;-)

Chanthis said:
You're an artiste!

If by "artiste" you mean someone whose hobby costs them money rather than makes them money, you are 100% correct! :-D

Rob Sims · Oct 30, 2013

What are you trying to do Great Bustard, trying to dispel hocus pocus opinion with actual real life examples? You should be ashamed of yourself!

You clearly haven't taken 'internet forum etiquette 101'. Firstly, your post lacks enough spelling and grammar mistakes, you didn't use the triple exclamation mark !!!, you forgot to state your opinion as fact using a % (try something like "95% of photographers think..."), you didn't manage to personally insult anyone else in the forum and lastly you appear (by accident I'll have to assume) to have given a rational argument and real examples. Shame on you indeed.

/s

By the way, gorgeous photos.

Great Bustard · Oct 31, 2013

Rob Sims said:
What are you trying to do Great Bustard, trying to dispel hocus pocus opinion with actual real life examples? You should be ashamed of yourself!

You clearly haven't taken 'internet forum etiquette 101'. Firstly, your post lacks enough spelling and grammar mistakes, you didn't use the triple exclamation mark !!!, you forgot to state your opinion as fact using a % (try something like "95% of photographers think..."), you didn't manage to personally insult anyone else in the forum and lastly you appear (by accident I'll have to assume) to have given a rational argument and real examples. Shame on you indeed.

/s

;-)

Rob Sims said:
By the way, gorgeous photos.

Thank you kindly! On a more serious note, of course photos such as I posted will not appeal to all, or even most. I just feel that opinions, especially hyperbolic ones, are best given a context, and, in photography, the preferred context is a photo.

slimandy · Oct 31, 2013

caver3d said:
slimandy said:

Perhaps you should tell the author he's still getting it wrong because he should be using MFT then?

Hang on, you were saying he's right. Should we switch to APS-C then? Confused....

(f.y.i. I'm not really confused, other than to why we need to keep bringing this up. Shoot what suits you best; don't tell other people they've got it wrong. Reality check - be happy and let others be happy. This is a pointless post).

Click to expand...

marike6 · Oct 31, 2013

Some good points, but problem with the diatribe by the user "calking" as quoted above is that he is claiming to end all format fanboy debates by using anecdotal evidence about HIS camera preferences and unsubstantiated claims about "a tidal wave of former DSLR-pros" who have switched or are in the process of switching to small mirrorless m43 or APS-C mirrorless.

If there were a "tidal wave" I'm pretty sure DSLRs wouldn't still outsell MILCs by such a big margin.

There is evidence in the forums of users who have switched, but "tidal wave" among the general populace is just bluster. There are a bunch of different gear forums of various users all who seem to own a lot of different cameras of all types. It is impossible to draw any conclusions from visits to random web forums about what the overwhelming majority of photographers shoot with.

But I have some of my own anecdotal evidence based what what I saw with my eyes yesterday at B&H in Manhattan. For all this talk lately about "big, heavy DSLRs" the overwhelming majority of people I saw were carrying DSLRs either FF with high grade zooms, or APS-C.

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.

Moti · Oct 31, 2013

Great Bustard said:
RoelHendrickx said:

caver3d said:

(Disclaimer: I am not Calking. I did not write the post shown below.) - caver3d

Calking (fujirumors.com - October 29, 2013)

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.”

Click to expand...

Let me start by saying that I like fast lenses and primes.

My Olympus 35-100F2 and 15F2 and my Panaleica 25F1.4 and Rokinon 85F1.4 are among my favourite lenses, and let's not even get started on how I enjoy my Voigtländer Nokton 17F0.95.

And yes, occasionally I use those to get as shallow DOF as I can get on FT, isolating a subject (or even a part of it, like an extended hand, from the background etc. For my Nokton, I bought a variable ND filter, so I should not pretend that I only bought it for light-gathering : I want to use that lens occasionally also wide open in good light. So shallow DOF was and is an artistic consideration. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that it isn't ever.

And thus I am fully aware that if shallow DOF was my main concern, I would be better off with FF.

But it is not.

I like those fast lenses mainly because I hate to use flash. For my documentary work, a flash is just a nuisance, ruining the intimate atmosphere of a scene in which I am immersed and in which I try to remain the unnoticed fly on the wall.

So I do almost 99% of my work with available light, even if that available light is very limited. In my images I like to not only USE available light, but also to SHOW the light itself at work, as part of the composition.

Fast lenses are (for at least 95%) about light-gathering for me.

And for those purposes, the somewhat deeper DOF of (µ)FT versus µFF is a blessing, because it allows me to focus manual lenses more easily (handheld in dynamic situations) and because it shows just enough of my subjects in focus (not just the nose but the whole face), even when shot wide open.

Like here (almost completely dark scene, shot at ISO 3200 with F0.95 and 1/15th sec handheld:

Circus backstage scene with Nokton 17.5mm on E-M5

Click to expand...

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

Great Bustard said:
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.

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

Moti

--

http://www.pixpix.net

http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

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

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts