Everything should be Full Frame

Jack Calypso said:
Eh the old memory is going ;-)

Let's see if it still works. 69mm was the length of the 6x7 format. 6x6 was usually 55 x 55mm, but Hasselblad was 54 x 54mm, I guess to accommodate the signature notches.
There is always Wikipedia to help remind us all, of all the different formats that Medium Format used to cover: Medium format - Wikipedia





P.s. If I had not looked it up, I would have said it was 56 x 56mm, just so you know ;-)

--
Cheers
Ashley
 
Last edited:
Everything should be Full frame.

This is the response I see in most forum posts.

Fuji should go Full Frame. Olympus should have went Full Frame. APS-C user? m4/3 user? Go Full Frame! iPhone user - go Full Frame! Tamron's new 17-70 for APS-C - should have been for Full Frame. X-S10 review - FF is so much better.

Apologies if this was ever brought up. It is annoying seeing this everywhere. I get it, Full Frame has it's advantages.

Perhaps I should sell my gear and go Medium Format. /s
Apple should go full frame. I'm not upgrading my phone until they do.

Crop is crap!
 
Full frame is overrated. Great camera work is done with a number of formats.
 
Last edited:
Just so long as it’s 53x40. Don’t waste your money on that 44x33 wannabe junk.

😁

Sell your gear and an organ or two. 👍
Real medium format was 69 x 69 mm.

a099ddef46da4521a4cbb076041d693c.jpg
6x6 is hardly worth the effort, real medium format is 6x9 :-)

Agfa Standard (C) Adam Greig, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agfa_Standard_Roll-Film_(3585262138).jpg

Agfa Standard (C) Adam Greig, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agfa_Standard_Roll-Film_(3585262138).jpg
 
Every so often people around here, seeing me walking about with my semi-big 70-400mm lens, assume that I know what I am doing and ask for advice on what camera to get for bird photography. (we have a lot of birds around here)

To those I typically reccomend the 1/2.3" Panasonic FZ 300 because it is relatively affordable, easy to use, light and pretty good at catching birds in flight.

My wife has a lot of fun with it and gets the shots she would not get with my camera because it is far too big and heavy for her .
 
I have 4 different hammers, why have 1 camera ? must admit the a7r2 is close, Im going to buy the sony apsc 18 135 lens over the FF tamrom 28 200 why ? because its half the weight and half the price, 18 meg crop sensor still has great image quality for stills and better iq for video.

Don

--
Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2
 
Last edited:
Every so often people around here, seeing me walking about with my semi-big 70-400mm lens, assume that I know what I am doing and ask for advice on what camera to get for bird photography. (we have a lot of birds around here)

To those I typically reccomend the 1/2.3" Panasonic FZ 300 because it is relatively affordable, easy to use, light and pretty good at catching birds in flight.

My wife has a lot of fun with it and gets the shots she would not get with my camera because it is far too big and heavy for her .
a few years back i recommended the fz 150 to a lady in our camera club. the next year she went on to win photographer of the year with it.

Don
 
No, sell your gear and go to film, the original full frame. Something so popular for 70+ years, does not need to have the wheel reinvented.
 
We all have opinions, and the manufacturers have been focusing on FF. But like any other item in any market segment, the buyers decide what succeeds and what doesn't.

While I'll never understand why some brands or formats succeed or fail, well, it is what it is. No big deal, really. Unless you get stuck with some orphaned gear that's no longer supported and rapidly dropping in value.
 
Most people carry their phone already, so nothing extra is needed. If you go for a stand-alone camera, it is already a burden. Might as well get a sweet spot for that burden which means full frame thanks to mirrorless designs. Sigma Fp is a great example how small a full frame camera body can be. Yes, it is only electronic shutter, but gives first glimpses of future. Lack of built-in EVF might mean something like eyesglasses (or shades for cooler look) integrated wireless EVF. This way you can see focus easily and do precise composition.

People who want something more than a phone, but don't want to pay too much, can get a superzoom "bridge" cameras. Convenience is high for these considering they are stand-alone cameras. Sensors like M43 and APS-C are losing their edge because of price drops and more compact bodies of full frames. If lenses are too big, there is always options to design very compact lenses for FF, but of course lose some optical quality. Then reasons for separated M43 or APS-C lens lines are going away when manufacturers are deciding new models which could just focus on FF and beyond.

Basically I mean that a future M43 or ASP-C could be just a lens choice for FF like compact lens (M43), medium lens (ASP-C) or big lens (full frame).
 
Last edited:
I sold one of those 7yrs ago and have regretted it ever since.

Just so long as it’s 53x40. Don’t waste your money on that 44x33 wannabe junk.

😁

Sell your gear and an organ or two. 👍
Real medium format was 69 x 69 mm.

a099ddef46da4521a4cbb076041d693c.jpg


--
Some Wildlife Images:
-----
————-
 
The king is dead, long live the king.
 
...

Perhaps I should sell my gear and go Medium Format. /s
If it's within your budget, Yes.

Small Sensors are at least equal to Full Frame for Focal Length Limited shooting, Macro and Wildlife, which are my two favorite subjects, so I have no reason to own anything larger than APS-C.

Outside of Focal Length Limited shots, you may as well go for the biggest sensor possible.
 
Last edited:
Most people carry their phone already, so nothing extra is needed. If you go for a stand-alone camera, it is already a burden. Might as well get a sweet spot for that burden which means full frame thanks to mirrorless designs.
The sweet spot for any person is the point where size, convenience, quality and cost reach a balance. Believe it or not, just because FF hits your sweet spot it doesn't make it everyone's. Indeed, sales show that it isn't for 90% of camera buyers.
Sigma Fp is a great example how small a full frame camera body can be. Yes, it is only electronic shutter, but gives first glimpses of future. Lack of built-in EVF might mean something like eyesglasses (or shades for cooler look) integrated wireless EVF. This way you can see focus easily and do precise composition.

People who want something more than a phone, but don't want to pay too much, can get a superzoom "bridge" cameras. Convenience is high for these considering they are stand-alone cameras. Sensors like M43 and APS-C are losing their edge because of price drops and more compact bodies of full frames. If lenses are too big, there is always options to design very compact lenses for FF, but of course lose some optical quality. Then reasons for separated M43 or APS-C lens lines are going away when manufacturers are deciding new models which could just focus on FF and beyond.

Basically I mean that a future M43 or ASP-C could be just a lens choice for FF like compact lens (M43), medium lens (ASP-C) or big lens (full frame).
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top