Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,982
Re: additional info and observations
some of the posters don't seem to understand that because FF is expensive now it will remain expensive. In fact the price of FF sensors are falling and a 1500 FF DSLR from the top brands is a reality in 3 years. Basically the APS-C and M43 will eventually be replaced by FF.

You don't seem understand that mid-sized sensors provide enough performance to satisfy a lot of people too. M43 is already a successful format despite the fact that many APS-C cameras are cheaper. This is because M43 provides enough performance and is able to bundle it in a small package which many people prefer.

It's not all about the very best performance at an affordable price. M43's combination of performance and compactness addresses a market that isn't going to go away.

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it. The same argument was frequently made about computers for the last decade, that people don't need anything faster than what existed. Guess what, faster and better computers were manufactured and they cost the same or cheaper than those before them and people are buying them even those who don't need extra performance, but also many found that they can use that extra performance for tasks they never did before.

...and your argument falls flat because it oversimplifies "better". There are many different views of what is better, not just based on pure IQ per dollar. If that was all that mattered, no one would buy m4/3, but people do.

To borrow your computer analogy, everyone should still only use desktops, because they provide the most performance bang for the buck. Sure, laptops are more portable and versatile, but what about raw power?? They'll never last. And just look at the puny processors they put in tablets and smart phones. Who would ever buy such feeble devices? They're clearly doomed.

Your thinking on this whole issue is just too rigid. In the very near future, yes, FF will continue to get cheaper, and will continue to offer better IQ than smaller formats. In the long term, you just won't need a big sensor anymore to deliver the goods.

Every single point has been already addressed in this thread, I don't want to repeat them again and again. You need to understand that there will be no advantages whatsoever going with a smaller sensor.

GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,855
Re: Why would Full frame Mirrorless affect M4/3?

dimensionally they have to be wider, but the plan is get innovative and cut down on lens weight.

Glass is still glass, and hence heavy.  Substituting plastic for glass would NOT be a good decision.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Nikon D800E Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
MatsP
MatsP Senior Member • Posts: 2,565
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43
1
The Achilles' heel in your argument is the assumption that FF system has to be bigger and/or heavier than an equivalent m4/3 or APS-C system.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that you're assuming an M43 system has to perform as well as an FF system. M43 buyers understand that it's a compromise and are quite willing to live with that in exchange for the smaller bodies and lenses it allows.

Yes, and I think serious m43 users are willing to do that compromise today after the appearance of the E-M5 and GH3. IQ today is generally so high that the differences between good m43, APS-C and FF bodies doesn't matter very much unless you make very big prints (and look at them at very short distance). The best m43 camera today is directly comparable with a pro FF only two generations back. If a 1DsII was the best a pro photographer could get five years ago, why shouldn't an E-M5 be good enough today. If we believe DxO they are very close in sensor performance, and the E-M5 has even better DR.

Still, if you are a sports photographer or shot birds in flight you may not be willing to do that compromise. But for most other purposes.

Regarding size: A classic film Leica with a standard not too fast lens is very small. But remember that everything is manual. If you want IS and AF and maybe zoom even on a small FF body, lens size will increase dramatically, not to talk about fast tele lenses.

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,558
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

The Achilles' heel in your argument is the assumption that FF system has to be bigger and/or heavier than an equivalent m4/3 or APS-C system. That doesn't have to be the case: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

Both APS-C and m4/3 will not survive FF onslaught in the long run. In the short run they will compete on the basis of prices and maturity.

That's what I thought before, but I'm not so sure any more. What is the smallest FF 90/4 lens? Even if somebody were to make a small 90/4 FF lens, what would the advantage be compared to an M.Zuiko 45/1.8 on an MFT body?

Even though equivalent lenses are similar in aperture size and weight, the FF lenses are easier to design and manufacture, which you can trade for better quality or lower price. FF lenses need to provide twice lower resolution, they are less sensitive to imperfections in glass, coatings, less sensitive to temperature effects, mount and assembly tolerances can be bigger.

Finally, I think next crop of sensors will have variable pixel density: higher at the center, lower at the corners. It can be done with pixel binning as well, like the large 41MP Nokia phone sensor. That would match lenses better both in resolution and in angle light is falling on micro-lenses, and will allow better digital zoom and accommodate lenses with smaller image circle. Take such FF camera, set it to m4/3 crop, attach m4/3 lens and you've got exactly the same result as from a native m4/3 format.

That again begs the question, what is the advantage? For something to be "unavoidable", as someone put it, there needs to be a compelling reason, and I don't think there is in the case of something which is neither smaller nor better than what already exists.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,294
Re: additional info and observations
some of the posters don't seem to understand that because FF is expensive now it will remain expensive. In fact the price of FF sensors are falling and a 1500 FF DSLR from the top brands is a reality in 3 years. Basically the APS-C and M43 will eventually be replaced by FF.

You don't seem understand that mid-sized sensors provide enough performance to satisfy a lot of people too.

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it.

Not if it means a lot more hassle lugging around larger cameras and lenses, even if they do give

Why do you need to repeat this misinformation? It was mentioned multiple times in this thread that there is no (or insignificant) size/weight impact.

better results than they really need. Some may, but the fact that people are already choosing M43 cameras and lenses over cheaper APS-C alternatives shows that your assumption is far from universal.

Really?

OM-D + 75-300

There's a nice slow lens, and a not overly small mirrorless.

What FF are you putting up against it?

some of the posters don't seem to understand that because FF is expensive now it will remain expensive. In fact the price of FF sensors are falling and a 1500 FF DSLR from the top brands is a reality in 3 years. Basically the APS-C and M43 will eventually be replaced by FF.

You don't seem understand that mid-sized sensors provide enough performance to satisfy a lot of people too. M43 is already a successful format despite the fact that many APS-C cameras are cheaper. This is because M43 provides enough performance and is able to bundle it in a small package which many people prefer.

It's not all about the very best performance at an affordable price. M43's combination of performance and compactness addresses a market that isn't going to go away.

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it. The same argument was frequently made about computers for the last decade, that people don't need anything faster than what existed. Guess what, faster and better computers were manufactured and they cost the same or cheaper than those before them and people are buying them even those who don't need extra performance, but also many found that they can use that extra performance for tasks they never did before.

Have you heard about ultrabooks? tablets?

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43
3

35 MM is a MYTH. It is no more the ideal size than m4/3, medium format, 1", or any other sensor size. It is not THE format based on merit of any kind- it is merely the de facto format, clung to by brands like Canon and Nikon who benefit most from clinging to the past- if nothing changes, their leadership in the camera industry remains unchanged. For those brands, old is good, and 35mm is old.

35mm may not possess any special physical character that would make it better or worse than other format but by virtual of being the most popular legacy format, it has come to possess a strong advantage. it is the largest sensor that any camera currently makes using modern CMOS technology and is used in SLr bodies with good AF. you simply cannot buy anything other than 35mm if you want the ultimate low light capability and good AF. Currently no Medium format camera is any good at low light and they all sport pretty backward AF system. Most high end lenses are also designed for 35mm. for example you cannot buy a F1.4 lens with 24mm FOV for APs-C.

Right now, 35mm does have technical advantages over m4/3, but sensor tech will inevitably improve, and those advantages will matter less and less.

These advantages did not matter since day one for those who did not care, and will continue to matter for those who do care. The difference in IQ will always be constant. People used to shoot FF at iso 3200 and m43 was only good at iso 800, nowadays they shoot FF at 12800 and m43 is only good at iso 3200.

Ultimately, the only difference that may remain constant is DOF. Some prefer the thin DOF offered by full frame, but others actually prefer wider DOF, and for them, m4/3 will always be better in that respect.

No, m43 is not "better at wider DOF". With 35mm you have the option of having narrow DOF, but you can have wide DOF if you wanted. you can have any DOF that is available to M43 and IQ will be no worse.

As time marches on and sensor tech advances, it is the SMALLER format that will become more accepted as being good enough by a wider range of users, not the larger.

We are already there.Today more than 80% of all photographs are taken by smart phone cameras. My view is that the better smart phone cameras get, the less demand there is for the "in-between" cameras. low end P&S is already getting killed off, next in line to face extinction is perhaps "premium compact" - like LX7 and XZ-2. M43 is borderline "in-between".

At one point, 35mm WAS the smaller format. Now, we have progressed. 35 mm is the older, larger format. So where do we stand?

35mm happens to be the equilibrium point of strong demand and feasible manufacture. 645 format may also be desirable but lens cost and sensor cost are way to prohibitive. most hobbyist in western country can justify spending 1000-2000 dollars a year and at this level affording FF is not difficult, but at this level you cannot buy into 645 format.

rpm40
rpm40 Senior Member • Posts: 2,411
Re: additional info and observations

forpetessake wrote:

some of the posters don't seem to understand that because FF is expensive now it will remain expensive. In fact the price of FF sensors are falling and a 1500 FF DSLR from the top brands is a reality in 3 years. Basically the APS-C and M43 will eventually be replaced by FF.

You don't seem understand that mid-sized sensors provide enough performance to satisfy a lot of people too. M43 is already a successful format despite the fact that many APS-C cameras are cheaper. This is because M43 provides enough performance and is able to bundle it in a small package which many people prefer.

It's not all about the very best performance at an affordable price. M43's combination of performance and compactness addresses a market that isn't going to go away.

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it. The same argument was frequently made about computers for the last decade, that people don't need anything faster than what existed. Guess what, faster and better computers were manufactured and they cost the same or cheaper than those before them and people are buying them even those who don't need extra performance, but also many found that they can use that extra performance for tasks they never did before.

...and your argument falls flat because it oversimplifies "better". There are many different views of what is better, not just based on pure IQ per dollar. If that was all that mattered, no one would buy m4/3, but people do.

To borrow your computer analogy, everyone should still only use desktops, because they provide the most performance bang for the buck. Sure, laptops are more portable and versatile, but what about raw power?? They'll never last. And just look at the puny processors they put in tablets and smart phones. Who would ever buy such feeble devices? They're clearly doomed.

Your thinking on this whole issue is just too rigid. In the very near future, yes, FF will continue to get cheaper, and will continue to offer better IQ than smaller formats. In the long term, you just won't need a big sensor anymore to deliver the goods.

Every single point has been already addressed in this thread, I don't want to repeat them again and again. You need to understand that there will be no advantages whatsoever going with a smaller sensor.

Sure there are. It's smaller. Inherently, there are benefits that go along with being smaller.

a. It's smaller.

b. It's cheaper.

Did I mention it's smaller?

digifan Senior Member • Posts: 2,332
Re: Bwahahahahahahah

Acrill wrote:

ProPhotoDude wrote:

They have to follow market direction, the only format that seems to be eternal is 35mm. it's used in film industry too and now the digital video camera are using 35mm sensors.

Is this what you say or what your 'source' says?

get outta here

You made my day, good remark.

ProPhotoDude looks to be a beginning amateur, his wishful thinking alias is an indication of exactly that! a wannabee wannabee.

-- hide signature --

Digifan

 digifan's gear list:digifan's gear list
Olympus E-1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake +10 more
digifan Senior Member • Posts: 2,332
Re: another.. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah
1

forpetessake wrote:

Lenses would still be big right???

Nope, it's a common misconception. Compare, for instance, 35-100/2 on 4/3 and the 70-200/4L IS on 35mm FF. The size of most lenses is determined by the amount of light they need to collect, the same amount light - the same size of the lenses, no matter what the sensor size is: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

Except the fact that F4 is slow. The main reason for an F2.8 or faster aperture is to achieve faster shutter speeds. As someone who owns a 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8 L, I can tell you there is a huge difference in size, and for many things that extra stop of light from the bigger lens is a godsend.

That's because you don't understand the laws of physics, that f/2 on m4/3 sized sensor is fully equivalent to f/4 on FF sensor -- you'll get identical pictures in both cases. Follow the link.

My day keeps getting better reading this thread.

Another equivalence adept that isn't getting it.

F2=F2=F2 and F4=F4=F4 You apparently didn't use the Olympus 35-100mm F2 lens.

We make photo's with light and not with DOF. An F2 lens is F2 on any format, people that understand don't use your argument. If they need shallower DOF than the y will buy or rent a 35mmFF for the purpose. However most that buy into m43, know why they want it.

Rules of photography haven't changed and external lightmeters keep on working regardless of format.

Don't mistake DOF properties with light properties.

-- hide signature --

Digifan

 digifan's gear list:digifan's gear list
Olympus E-1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Panasonic G85 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake +10 more
Lawrence W Contributing Member • Posts: 785
Re: M 4/3 The sweet spot.

I use a G5 too. Very pleased with the IQ, the ergonomics and the touch screen AF. use this with either Panny 20 or Oly 45 to shoot hundreds of photos of my little grandchild. I war rely use my Nikon with the 50 prime any more For this purpose.

Just bought Oly 9-18 and I am ready to go to shoot real lightweight for my coming Utah trip.

But I still need my Nikon for fast moving wildlife photography!

 Lawrence W's gear list:Lawrence W's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Nikon D7200 Sony a6300 Panasonic G85 +17 more
Just Having Fun Veteran Member • Posts: 3,869
but they keep trying, LOL!
1

digifan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Lenses would still be big right???

Nope, it's a common misconception. Compare, for instance, 35-100/2 on 4/3 and the 70-200/4L IS on 35mm FF. The size of most lenses is determined by the amount of light they need to collect, the same amount light - the same size of the lenses, no matter what the sensor size is: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

Except the fact that F4 is slow. The main reason for an F2.8 or faster aperture is to achieve faster shutter speeds. As someone who owns a 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8 L, I can tell you there is a huge difference in size, and for many things that extra stop of light from the bigger lens is a godsend.

That's because you don't understand the laws of physics, that f/2 on m4/3 sized sensor is fully equivalent to f/4 on FF sensor -- you'll get identical pictures in both cases. Follow the link.

My day keeps getting better reading this thread.

Another equivalence adept that isn't getting it.

F2=F2=F2 and F4=F4=F4 You apparently didn't use the Olympus 35-100mm F2 lens.

We make photo's with light and not with DOF. An F2 lens is F2 on any format, people that understand don't use your argument. If they need shallower DOF than the y will buy or rent a 35mmFF for the purpose. However most that buy into m43, know why they want it.

Rules of photography haven't changed and external lightmeters keep on working regardless of format.

Don't mistake DOF properties with light properties.

"the laws of physics, that f/2 on m4/3 sized sensor is fully equivalent to f/4 on FF sensor"

That quote is hilarious. 

As you said, "F2=F2=F2 and F4=F4=F4"

Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 13,143
Re: additional info and observations

forpetessake wrote:

some of the posters don't seem to understand that because FF is expensive now it will remain expensive. In fact the price of FF sensors are falling and a 1500 FF DSLR from the top brands is a reality in 3 years. Basically the APS-C and M43 will eventually be replaced by FF.

You don't seem understand that mid-sized sensors provide enough performance to satisfy a lot of people too.

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it.

Not if it means a lot more hassle lugging around larger cameras and lenses, even if they do give

Why do you need to repeat this misinformation? It was mentioned multiple times in this thread that there is no (or insignificant) size/weight impact.

It is you who are misrepresenting by continually claiming that everyone needs glass as large as a FF uses when clearly M43 users are satisfied with the compromise that allows smaller lenses.

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,982
people with small sensors have psychological issues
3

digifan wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Lenses would still be big right???

Nope, it's a common misconception. Compare, for instance, 35-100/2 on 4/3 and the 70-200/4L IS on 35mm FF. The size of most lenses is determined by the amount of light they need to collect, the same amount light - the same size of the lenses, no matter what the sensor size is: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

Except the fact that F4 is slow. The main reason for an F2.8 or faster aperture is to achieve faster shutter speeds. As someone who owns a 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8 L, I can tell you there is a huge difference in size, and for many things that extra stop of light from the bigger lens is a godsend.

That's because you don't understand the laws of physics, that f/2 on m4/3 sized sensor is fully equivalent to f/4 on FF sensor -- you'll get identical pictures in both cases. Follow the link.

My day keeps getting better reading this thread.

Another equivalence adept that isn't getting it.

F2=F2=F2 and F4=F4=F4 You apparently didn't use the Olympus 35-100mm F2 lens.

We make photo's with light and not with DOF. An F2 lens is F2 on any format, people that understand don't use your argument. If they need shallower DOF than the y will buy or rent a 35mmFF for the purpose. However most that buy into m43, know why they want it.

Rules of photography haven't changed and external lightmeters keep on working regardless of format.

Don't mistake DOF properties with light properties.

Interesting, I got more dimwitted answers on this forum than on any other. People are interesting here also that they refuse even to read. They actually want to wallow in their ignorance. What is it about that head in the send approach? It's not technical, there must be some psychological issues involved in here.

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,982
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Ulric wrote:

The Achilles' heel in your argument is the assumption that FF system has to be bigger and/or heavier than an equivalent m4/3 or APS-C system. That doesn't have to be the case: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#2

Both APS-C and m4/3 will not survive FF onslaught in the long run. In the short run they will compete on the basis of prices and maturity.

That's what I thought before, but I'm not so sure any more. What is the smallest FF 90/4 lens? Even if somebody were to make a small 90/4 FF lens, what would the advantage be compared to an M.Zuiko 45/1.8 on an MFT body?

Even though equivalent lenses are similar in aperture size and weight, the FF lenses are easier to design and manufacture, which you can trade for better quality or lower price. FF lenses need to provide twice lower resolution, they are less sensitive to imperfections in glass, coatings, less sensitive to temperature effects, mount and assembly tolerances can be bigger.

Finally, I think next crop of sensors will have variable pixel density: higher at the center, lower at the corners. It can be done with pixel binning as well, like the large 41MP Nokia phone sensor. That would match lenses better both in resolution and in angle light is falling on micro-lenses, and will allow better digital zoom and accommodate lenses with smaller image circle. Take such FF camera, set it to m4/3 crop, attach m4/3 lens and you've got exactly the same result as from a native m4/3 format.

That again begs the question, what is the advantage? For something to be "unavoidable", as someone put it, there needs to be a compelling reason, and I don't think there is in the case of something which is neither smaller nor better than what already exists.

Geez, advantages are listed here right before your eyes. Can you read?

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,982
Re: additional info and observations

rpm40 wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

some of the posters don't seem to understand that because FF is expensive now it will remain expensive. In fact the price of FF sensors are falling and a 1500 FF DSLR from the top brands is a reality in 3 years. Basically the APS-C and M43 will eventually be replaced by FF.

You don't seem understand that mid-sized sensors provide enough performance to satisfy a lot of people too. M43 is already a successful format despite the fact that many APS-C cameras are cheaper. This is because M43 provides enough performance and is able to bundle it in a small package which many people prefer.

It's not all about the very best performance at an affordable price. M43's combination of performance and compactness addresses a market that isn't going to go away.

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it. The same argument was frequently made about computers for the last decade, that people don't need anything faster than what existed. Guess what, faster and better computers were manufactured and they cost the same or cheaper than those before them and people are buying them even those who don't need extra performance, but also many found that they can use that extra performance for tasks they never did before.

...and your argument falls flat because it oversimplifies "better". There are many different views of what is better, not just based on pure IQ per dollar. If that was all that mattered, no one would buy m4/3, but people do.

To borrow your computer analogy, everyone should still only use desktops, because they provide the most performance bang for the buck. Sure, laptops are more portable and versatile, but what about raw power?? They'll never last. And just look at the puny processors they put in tablets and smart phones. Who would ever buy such feeble devices? They're clearly doomed.

Your thinking on this whole issue is just too rigid. In the very near future, yes, FF will continue to get cheaper, and will continue to offer better IQ than smaller formats. In the long term, you just won't need a big sensor anymore to deliver the goods.

Every single point has been already addressed in this thread, I don't want to repeat them again and again. You need to understand that there will be no advantages whatsoever going with a smaller sensor.

Sure there are. It's smaller. Inherently, there are benefits that go along with being smaller.

a. It's smaller.

b. It's cheaper.

Did I mention it's smaller?

Have you been reading too much of this:

Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,558
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

forpetessake wrote:

Geez, advantages are listed here right before your eyes. Can you read?

Yes. Can you improve on this:

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
rpm40
rpm40 Senior Member • Posts: 2,411
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Ulric wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Geez, advantages are listed here right before your eyes. Can you read?

Yes. Can you improve on this:

I dunno...looks about the same size as FF to me...if they made it any bigger, you might as well buy a Hasselblad. What is the point of m4/3 if it can't be any smaller??

Maybe you should consider Pentax Q?

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,982
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Ulric wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Geez, advantages are listed here right before your eyes. Can you read?

Yes. Can you improve on this:

You chose a very easy target, this isn't really in most respects an attractive camera. I have Panasonic G3 and despite being better than this one it's still far behind Olympus OM-D and practically every APS-C. But if you are only concerned about size and don't believe cameras with FF sensors can be as small as necessary, just think about lots of 35mm small cameras in film days -- there is nothing that will prevent FF mirrorless to be just as small and light. And here is an indication of where the market goes:

Mahmoud Mousef Senior Member • Posts: 2,758
size differences

ProPhotoDude wrote:

You don't seem to understand that people will take better tools for the same price even if they don't need it. The same argument was frequently made about computers for the last decade, that people don't need anything faster than what existed. Guess what, faster and better computers were manufactured and they cost the same or cheaper than those before them and people are buying them even those who don't need extra performance, but also many found that they can use that extra performance for tasks they never did before.

Amen! More will always win if the price is right... And in this case the product will not get that much bigger anyway.

The difference in size between Micro Four Thirds bodies and lenses and regular entry-level DSLRs is already alarming.

A move to FF would only make the size differences we see now bigger.

Unless some efforts are made to make the FF cameras and lenses smaller in mirorless-style, which is mentioned in this thread. But even then they'll still be bigger than equivalent models using a smaller sensor and lenses.

One size fits all? In any case, I just can't see the market accepting one-size-fits-all (in this case, FF) as long as there are noticeable body and lens size differences (as there are today).

And I just can't see manufacturers settling on one size for the whole interchangeable market. That would be ignoring huge chunks of the market who don't want to carry larger gear, let alone ignore the fact that for manufacturers it's still far more cost-effective to make smaller sensors. As smaller sensor tech improves (and it has gradually improved very much in 4 years), the need for larger sensors for decent performance will be less and less. And just like the phone market, where nobody asks about cam sensor size, many will be satsified with the photo quality of their cameras and have the convenience of a more compact size.

Parallels with computers  Sorry, I just don't see the 'people will buy more performance if they can get it' argument. Sure, to an extent. But the average person in a camera store doesn't want a huge camera (just like they would rather not lug around a huge laptop), and they still want decent quality. If they can get it, they will get it. So you see tablets and phones becoming popular (smaller than laptops but still allowing them to see enough of what they want without squinting).

They won't just go for 'pure peformance' when other physical factors are at play. If (pic) performance was the main criterion, everyone would be carrying huge glass. But just like computers, sensors are improving and so is the associated circuitry inside a camera. That can be considered performance too. And so can shrinking down the cam and lenses and improving battery life.

Basically, if computing power is increasing, and performance is increasing, size can get smaller and more practical devices can be built to cater to the growing mobile market. Cameras have always been mobile and physical size and battery constraints have always been important.

Average buyer's main motivation is not (only) 'performance' (if it means larger)  I'm imagining the average camera buyer going into the store and wanting to move the next level up in their photos; they are moving to interchangeable lenses. They see those huge honking pieces of DSLR in the store and then they see more compact and lightweight models. Many of these customers are of the female persuasion too, who generally like smaller cameras. One-size-fits-all? I don't see it happening. Smaller mirorless FF? I can see that. But one size fits all? Nah.

Here, 'good enough' will do. And this market is huge. Especially if mirorless designs can help take away a lot of the mystery and clunkiness of the DSLR and help them get on with things. I see that as a good development if they can introduce that to FF cameras.

But I don't see the whole market switching to FF cameras, barring some miracle of modern economics and changing of customer taste.

forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,982
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43
1

rpm40 wrote:

As time marches on and sensor tech advances, it is the SMALLER format that will become more accepted as being good enough by a wider range of users, not the larger. At one point, 35mm WAS the smaller format. Now, we have progressed. 35 mm is the older, larger format. So where do we stand?

And what are your beliefs are based upon?

Are you familiar with quantum properties of light? The noise of the camera is in a large degree determined by light intensity and the area of the surface it is collected from. The modern sensors QE is about 50%, there isn't much improvement left in this regard. It's doesn't take a genius to understand that even ideal m4/3 sensor will not achieve SNR of the modern non-ideal FF sensors. When technology is perfected, the 4x difference in area will be the only determining factor and unbridgeable gap between these two formats.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads