Why insist on FF format?

Started Sep 22, 2012 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
kelly15
kelly15 Regular Member • Posts: 224
Why insist on FF format?

There is no reason at all, unless you are a pro, and a very spacialized pro.
The quality of m43 is more than what is really needed for any kind of use.
Which is the reason to click at 12800 ISO?
Which is the reason to enlarge the screen to 1:1?

Look at the pictures you may take with the 45 and 75 oly, with the 25, 7/14 pana and so and compare them with the pictures you took at the film era.
No comparison.

Of ourse if you decide to walk heavy and bulky, to spend more money for nothing ( or so), you can do that, but you loose the possibility to have you camera set always with you with a quality level which is a dream.

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

Ciao

 kelly15's gear list:kelly15's gear list
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
IrishhAndy
IrishhAndy Contributing Member • Posts: 868
Re: Why insist on FF format?

My om-d is noisy at base iso. I have smoother compacts.
--
Without the darkness the light would be nothing !

photobeans Regular Member • Posts: 165
the RX1 shows the promise of small bodies

this RX1 can show the way to small FF bodies. When they build one that can have interchangeable lenses, the body might only be slightly better than m43. I'm not sure how big the lenses will be, that's the only question in my mind. If they can shrink the size of FF lenses down, and prices come down to the $1,000 mark we will see a lot of people going FF.

Landscapephoto99 Senior Member • Posts: 2,736
Re: APS-C the loser

My opinion is that APS-C will be struggling in the long run, not FF. FF will always be the biggest for those that like it. And m43rds / NEX will increasingly have 99.99999% of the quality of FF for common sense people like me and so will increasingly capture the rest of the market. APS-C DSLRs, on the other hand, are neither fish nor fowl and so at some point will start to seriously lose market share, maybe when PDAF becomes the norm for mirrorless.

kelly15 wrote:

There is no reason at all, unless you are a pro, and a very spacialized pro.
The quality of m43 is more than what is really needed for any kind of use.
Which is the reason to click at 12800 ISO?
Which is the reason to enlarge the screen to 1:1?

Look at the pictures you may take with the 45 and 75 oly, with the 25, 7/14 pana and so and compare them with the pictures you took at the film era.
No comparison.

Of ourse if you decide to walk heavy and bulky, to spend more money for nothing ( or so), you can do that, but you loose the possibility to have you camera set always with you with a quality level which is a dream.

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

Ciao

woof woof
woof woof Senior Member • Posts: 1,656
Re: Why insist on FF format?

kelly15 wrote:

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

Ciao

Not a chance.

I think you're forgetting that the point is to get you to spend your money so the marketing departments will be sat thinking about what they can sell next and FF is something to market, to push and to sell. Of course even without a marketing push there'll be plenty of people waiting for a 35mm sensor in a compact body.

Far from FF becoming a niche I'm sure we'll see more models including more compact bodies and more sales.

I can't really see MFT, APS-C or FF disappearing in the near future. People here might not see a reason for APS-C but in the world outside of this forum Nikon and Canon aren't going to join MFT, they're going to continue to make and market both FF and APS-C.

Olymore
Olymore Senior Member • Posts: 1,610
Re: APS-C the loser

I think that's highly unlikely given that Canon, Pentax, Fuji and Sony have APSC mirrorless cameras.

And based on that logic Nikon is going to be the winner as they will have sufficent quality for 98% of the time with potentially even smaller lenses.
Or will it be smart phone cameras with ....

 Olymore's gear list:Olymore's gear list
Olympus E-M1
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 43,241
Re: Why insist on FF format?

kelly15 wrote:

There is no reason at all, unless you are a pro, and a very spacialized pro.

There are significant reasons. But the reasons might not be of importance to everyone.

To say what needs to be said first, everything mFT can do, it does as well as 135FF will do. But 135FF does things that mFt as a system will not do.

i) Lenses. I have a 50/1.4. Small and cheap. Does the same thing as a 25/0.7 on mFT. You can't get one. So, if you need or want that shallow DOF and that lower noise in low light, the mFT will not provide it. If you don't want to do those things mFT is fine, and is cheaper and smaller.

ii) Lenses. I have a 14-24/2.8. Big and expensive, but does the same thing as a 7-12/1.4 on mFT. You can't get one. See the above.

iii) Lenses. I have a 100-300/4. Quite big, not too expensive, but does the same thing as a 50-150/2 on mFT. You can't get one. You can get a 35-100/2 via an adaptor. It is both much bigger and much more expensive than my 100-300/4

iii) Pixels. I have 36 million. That will extract more detail from a lens than the 16 million that is the maximum you can get from mFT. That means bigger prints or tighter crops.

But, all those things cover maybe 5% of all the photos one takes. If its an important 5% for you, then you'll want 135 FF. If it isn't, you'll ask why you paid so much money, why you can't fit a decent kit in the corner of a suitcase or briefcase. Being smaller and lighter is an important advantage, you don't have to pretend the others don't exist. The old saying is 'horses for courses'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

cs hauser Contributing Member • Posts: 731
People never learn

kelly15 wrote:

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

In the mid 2000s, Olympus SLR fanatics were saying the exact   same   thing about Full Frame SLRs . Eight years later... tell me exactly which of those two has disappeared?

Go read through the hundreds of pages' worth of garbage in the Olympus SLR forum from the mid 2000s. You're not saying anything they haven't already said a thousand times over.

Thorgrem Regular Member • Posts: 471
Re: People never learn

cs hauser wrote:

In the mid 2000s, Olympus SLR fanatics were saying the exact   same   thing about Full Frame SLRs . Eight years later... tell me exactly which of those two has disappeared?

Both.

 Thorgrem's gear list:Thorgrem's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 HTC One +1 more
woof woof
woof woof Senior Member • Posts: 1,656
Re: People never learn

Exactly.

In my crystal ball (ouch!) I see full frame compact cameras from Sony and Fuji and if they do it the chances are that Panasonic, Olympus, Nikon and Canon will too even if some of them do it screaming.

revio Senior Member • Posts: 1,440
Re: Why insist on FF format?

No, that´s not very probable (your rant)

A. You can easier get shallow depth of field (= IF, I say, IF you may want that, then it is a FF advantage)

B. IF, once agan, IF, you want/need the absolutely best IQ / low noise/ lowlight performance, "FF" wil most probably still be better than smaller formats.

Personally, I have been into 4/3 since around 3 years, I came from first analog 24x36mm then digital APS-C. Now I have got into m4/3 by getting a OM-D EM-5, the 12-50 & 75mm lenses to start with (then adapter for my 4/3 glass will be added) and i am very happy with that one!!!

Still, it IS harder to get very shallow DOF (compared to with "FF") and that will not change through technological developments.

But the noise, dynamic range, and low light "issues" will be less and less prominent as time advances, and as you say, they will, for MOST people, be so small as to get insignificant for most of their uses. Fex m4/3 will suffice very very well!

I have, however, no understanding of how you so blatantly can say something like "who shoots at 12800 ISO?"

Well, few do, since their cameras doesn´t allow it, but as cameras get better to use at hi ISOs, I easily can see it will be good for a lot of situations.

Want short, I mean SHORT shutter speed (or fast if you prefer that expression) at a low light shooting event?

Want short speed AND deep DOF? ... then you must use a smaller aperture, too...here goes:

For that use, (usable) hi ISO is a must. 12800 allows only 2 steps faster shutter speed than is possible at 3200 ISO...so I find no "un usability" of a good(!) 12800 ISO performance! Or, why not give us "super clean" 3200 ISO, which we actually do not have even with the eminent EM-5!

For those in no need of GOOD, really HIGH ISO, image quality, then FF will be less tempting, even in the future, if they don´t also need super shallow DOF of course,...and if they are willing to pay by carrying heavy equipment along ....

As always, it is what YOU need or want, that is to be considered, not what MAY be enough for just anyone else, who´s needs may be quite different from yours...

kelly15 wrote:

There is no reason at all, unless you are a pro, and a very spacialized pro.
The quality of m43 is more than what is really needed for any kind of use.
Which is the reason to click at 12800 ISO?
Which is the reason to enlarge the screen to 1:1?

Look at the pictures you may take with the 45 and 75 oly, with the 25, 7/14 pana and so and compare them with the pictures you took at the film era.
No comparison.

Of ourse if you decide to walk heavy and bulky, to spend more money for nothing ( or so), you can do that, but you loose the possibility to have you camera set always with you with a quality level which is a dream.

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

Ciao

-- hide signature --

Aim & Frame

 revio's gear list:revio's gear list
Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 +4 more
revio Senior Member • Posts: 1,440
Re: People never learn +1 /NT

cs hauser wrote:

kelly15 wrote:

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

In the mid 2000s, Olympus SLR fanatics were saying the exact   same   thing about Full Frame SLRs . Eight years later... tell me exactly which of those two has disappeared?

Go read through the hundreds of pages' worth of garbage in the Olympus SLR forum from the mid 2000s. You're not saying anything they haven't already said a thousand times over.

-- hide signature --

Aim & Frame

 revio's gear list:revio's gear list
Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 +4 more
revio Senior Member • Posts: 1,440
Re: People never learn

OK, he mised to set a "D" before "SLR" a couple of times but everybody knew what he meant anyway...(or?)

Thorgrem wrote:

cs hauser wrote:

In the mid 2000s, Olympus SLR fanatics were saying the exact   same   thing about Full Frame SLRs . Eight years later... tell me exactly which of those two has disappeared?

Both.

-- hide signature --

Aim & Frame

 revio's gear list:revio's gear list
Olympus E-620 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 +4 more
Gato Amarillo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,152
Re: Why insist on FF format?

A year ago I would have agreed that FF would shrink to a niche market - maybe even 6 months ago I would have thought that.

Not now, not with very competent FF cameras coming to market at $2,100 - likely to be discounted below $2,000 within 6 months. Not to mention Sony going into FF, which could push Canon and Nikon to offer even more for even less money. They already push each other hard, but Sony can up the pressure if they want to.

Meanwhile, this afternoon I am setting up files for exhibition prints. The 12x16 inch prints from m4/3 are nice, very nice. Pretty much as nice as anything I ever made from medium format film, getting close to 4x5 quality. But looking at them up close I know they could be better.

How much better would FF make them? Don't know. Would the difference be worth the money and the effort? Don't know that either. What I do know is that I plan to find out, which is to say at some point I will buy a FF camera and at least one fine lens. Then within a few months I'll know.

I suspect a lot of folks, professional and amateur, are in the same position right now. A year from now we'll know a lot more. Until then I'm retracting my predictions about the death of FF - it looks very much alive.

Gato

Portrait, figure and fantasy photography at:
Silver Mirage Gallery:
http://www.silvermirage.com

Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: Why insist on FF format?

"Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only."

NO chance of that happening!....I'm not a pro and while I shoot with m4/3 I will always have a FF camera when needed.
FF is better at isolating your subject, high iso and C-AF!.

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II +40 more
George Paulides Senior Member • Posts: 1,017
Re: Why insist on FF format?

kelly15 wrote:

Listen to me, in 3/4 years FF will disappear or limited to studio professional work only.

I do not think so.

kelly15
kelly15 OP Regular Member • Posts: 224
Re: Why insist on FF format?

M43 producers must of course make every effort to produce better, cheaper and more luninous lenses , but my assumption is that the advantage of M43 are no mirror and smaller sensor. In my opinion this gives to this format an incredible advantage as sensors improved to an unbeliveable level. How many prints larger than 50 x 75 cm did you see in your life? At this level ( and also higher, I believe) there is no reason to spend resources fot 36 or similar mpx. I own beautiful 30x40 cm prints taken with 3 mpx cameras. And don't tell me that one meke use of f. 1,4 more thn 1% of times.

 kelly15's gear list:kelly15's gear list
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
cadet stimpy Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: Why insist on FF format?

If you can't see the point of full frame you need new eyes.

 cadet stimpy's gear list:cadet stimpy's gear list
Sony RX1R Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Olympus PEN E-P5 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +2 more
kelly15
kelly15 OP Regular Member • Posts: 224
Re: Why insist on FF format?

One point I miss is the unacepptable level of the Olympus RAW software together with the missing CA correction for JPEG files. Once these two aspects are corrected i think sales will increase exponentially.

 kelly15's gear list:kelly15's gear list
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
kelly15
kelly15 OP Regular Member • Posts: 224
Re: Why insist on FF format?

Show me your best FF image, then i'll reply you.

 kelly15's gear list:kelly15's gear list
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads