In general I agree with you, but with lenses like the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 the compromise on wide angles is pretty small. Most of the time I prefer an ultra-wide-to-wide-normal zoom, so in M43 I own an 8-18mm. In so-called "full frame," unless I have a specific shot in mind I'll pack my 17-35mm f/2.8 instead of anything wider.
Plus, you can always do panoramic stitching, which produces gorgeous wide angle views that are also richly detailed; far more detailed than any single wide angle lens can deliver.
It's quite simple. Faster lenses will always be larger than slower lenses, regardless of format. It looks like you are willing to compromise on maximum aperture - f/4 to f/8 zoom - to have a smaller lens for FF format.
At a magnification of 10:1 you’re going to be diffraction limited even on a so-called “full frame sensor” so all higher pixel densities gain you is oversampling.
I actually like some overlap. But it depends with whom I'm around or what I'm doing. When traveling with my partner I try to avoid lens switches and wanna be able to quickly in taking the photo. If I'm alone and can go with my own pace, it's a different story.
Sometimes less is more
that's the status quo. Like said, I would love to get some compactness for my FF kit, and I guess I'm not alone. A7c is selling quite good, as far as I know, and there are some more compact ff cams from other brands. Some more compact ff (zoom) lenses would be a logical next step.
Hard to comment without seeing the pictures and knowing the exact circumstances. Of course, factors like light, metering, the actual T-stop of the lens (F-stop doesn't tell the actual light gathering, but should normally at least give a good hint) and exposure times (assuming apertures are set to equivalent values). And of course jpeg settings/raw processing, shutter mode (e.g. mechanical first curtain shutter costs another ~1/3 stop of light, afaik), raw compression settings and bit depth - there might be many more. But actually those details shouldn't make any camera walk all over the other in this scenario, unless you didn't use comparable ISO settings at comparable light or didn't display the photos at the same size.Forget about the theory. before Christmas i shot a formal couple. my a7iv with a 2.8 lens and my a6700 with a 1.4 lens, just to set the record straight. the a7iv walked all over the a6700 for IQ and lower noise. both cameras provided professional results and i sold images from both cameras as it was a 2 camera shoot so no lens changes. but dont kid yourself that smaller sensors can equal larger, and that includes macro. as for Richard's comment im still waiting for anyone to prove that MF can outperform FF at 10:1
Do you have the images to support this statement?
5 micron pixels pixels are boarder line, so 33 meg FF sensor produces the cleanest images i have seen. my microscope objectives are f4 eq to f16 at 10x , even my a6700 is showing diffraction , but more so, noise is the biggest killer to a clean stack, FF 33 meg i have found is the sweet spot. at 15 x the a6700 26 meg produces near the same detail as the a7iv in crop mode 14meg. they are that close when viewing at 300% but the apsc sensor is just not as clean, that's at base iso.
i shot identical images on the day just to test the theory. i think 17 years of professional photography trumps a techHard to comment without seeing the pictures and knowing the exact circumstances. Of course, factors like light, metering, the actual T-stop of the lens (F-stop doesn't tell the actual light gathering, but should normally at least give a good hint) and exposure times (assuming apertures are set to equivalent values). And of course jpeg settings/raw processing, shutter mode (e.g. mechanical first curtain shutter costs another ~1/3 stop of light, afaik), raw compression settings and bit depth - there might be many more. But actually those details shouldn't make any camera walk all over the other in this scenario, unless you didn't use comparable ISO settings at comparable light or didn't display the photos at the same size.Forget about the theory. before Christmas i shot a formal couple. my a7iv with a 2.8 lens and my a6700 with a 1.4 lens, just to set the record straight. the a7iv walked all over the a6700 for IQ and lower noise. both cameras provided professional results and i sold images from both cameras as it was a 2 camera shoot so no lens changes. but dont kid yourself that smaller sensors can equal larger, and that includes macro. as for Richard's comment im still waiting for anyone to prove that MF can outperform FF at 10:1
Could be all done correctly and there's still a difference. I would still rather take this as "exceptions confirm the rule", unless someone (or better, some more) can explain me why this is
No insult intended. I'm a technician. Debugging and being skeptical is second nature to me
heres a another good example , i shot the same dance concert with both the a74 and a6700 brighter lens on the a6700, i sold the a6700 4k video as it recorded a very professional result. but i used the a7iv video to extract professional quality stills due to the image quality and lower noise. both great cameras and work side by side.I would not have put it as you put it, but yes, it would be nice to once again have a lens with a reasonable zoom range that can be popped in a pocket.
I didn't very vaguely hint my profession to prove I'm right, I just wanted to make sure to not offend someone. I know from experience that sometimes it makes people uncomfortable when I keep asking questions, and I wanted to avoid that.i shot identical images on the day just to test the theory. i think 17 years of professional photography trumps a techHard to comment without seeing the pictures and knowing the exact circumstances. Of course, factors like light, metering, the actual T-stop of the lens (F-stop doesn't tell the actual light gathering, but should normally at least give a good hint) and exposure times (assuming apertures are set to equivalent values). And of course jpeg settings/raw processing, shutter mode (e.g. mechanical first curtain shutter costs another ~1/3 stop of light, afaik), raw compression settings and bit depth - there might be many more. But actually those details shouldn't make any camera walk all over the other in this scenario, unless you didn't use comparable ISO settings at comparable light or didn't display the photos at the same size.Forget about the theory. before Christmas i shot a formal couple. my a7iv with a 2.8 lens and my a6700 with a 1.4 lens, just to set the record straight. the a7iv walked all over the a6700 for IQ and lower noise. both cameras provided professional results and i sold images from both cameras as it was a 2 camera shoot so no lens changes. but dont kid yourself that smaller sensors can equal larger, and that includes macro. as for Richard's comment im still waiting for anyone to prove that MF can outperform FF at 10:1
Could be all done correctly and there's still a difference. I would still rather take this as "exceptions confirm the rule", unless someone (or better, some more) can explain me why this is
No insult intended. I'm a technician. Debugging and being skeptical is second nature to me
I don't want to prove your observation wrong, but for me it needs more to change my general opinion and understanding on something I've spent some brain power thinking about. That's not how it works. There are some trustworthy sources (e.g. photonstophotos) out there as well which support the theory that e.g. APS-C sensors trail FF sensors in dynamic range by about 1 1/3 stops (which is what the crop factor of 1.5 tells us). And the plus in dynamic range is achieved by a better signal to noise ratio. dxomark supports this theory as well. I guess there is much more.
I get the impression the Tamron 28-200 is one of the most loved lenses out there
. It's on my list since quite some time, and I might eventually buy it as well. It's just that I feel it would be nice to have a smaller lens for city travels, which is less obtrusive, that's why I'm hesitating. Hm, I thought companies try to lock in customers into their system. So it doesn't really make sense for the FF companies to not give us those options. I mean there is the 28-60 "pan/cupcake" for Sony FE, which is kind of the counterpart to the 24-50 in Nikon Z, I would say, but it still feels kind of lackluster.
buy the 2 said cameras and test for yourself like i haveI didn't very vaguely hint my profession to prove I'm right, I just wanted to make sure to not offend someone. I know from experience that sometimes it makes people uncomfortable when I keep asking questions, and I wanted to avoid that.i shot identical images on the day just to test the theory. i think 17 years of professional photography trumps a techHard to comment without seeing the pictures and knowing the exact circumstances. Of course, factors like light, metering, the actual T-stop of the lens (F-stop doesn't tell the actual light gathering, but should normally at least give a good hint) and exposure times (assuming apertures are set to equivalent values). And of course jpeg settings/raw processing, shutter mode (e.g. mechanical first curtain shutter costs another ~1/3 stop of light, afaik), raw compression settings and bit depth - there might be many more. But actually those details shouldn't make any camera walk all over the other in this scenario, unless you didn't use comparable ISO settings at comparable light or didn't display the photos at the same size.Forget about the theory. before Christmas i shot a formal couple. my a7iv with a 2.8 lens and my a6700 with a 1.4 lens, just to set the record straight. the a7iv walked all over the a6700 for IQ and lower noise. both cameras provided professional results and i sold images from both cameras as it was a 2 camera shoot so no lens changes. but dont kid yourself that smaller sensors can equal larger, and that includes macro. as for Richard's comment im still waiting for anyone to prove that MF can outperform FF at 10:1
Could be all done correctly and there's still a difference. I would still rather take this as "exceptions confirm the rule", unless someone (or better, some more) can explain me why this is
No insult intended. I'm a technician. Debugging and being skeptical is second nature to me
No profession trumps the other here, that's not even the question. it's about a well established "common sense", which cannot be easily declared wrong without further prove and verification.
I don't want to prove your observation wrong, but for me it needs more to change my general opinion and understanding on something I've spent some brain power thinking about. That's not how it works. There are some trustworthy sources (e.g. photonstophotos) out there as well which support the theory that e.g. APS-C sensors trail FF sensors in dynamic range by about 1 1/3 stops (which is what the crop factor of 1.5 tells us). And the plus in dynamic range is achieved by a better signal to noise ratio. dxomark supports this theory as well. I guess there is much more.
dynamic range is not a measure of noise, both these cameras produce near identical beautiful colour transitions in shaded skin tones.( thats the torture test not Photons to Photos )
Not just DR (DR and photonstophotos risk being a red herring, here).
