"The full frame myth"

Started Dec 19, 2013 | Discussions
Model Mike Veteran Member • Posts: 3,641
"The full frame myth"
5

Great article on Luminous Landscape re full frame v. MFT v. APS-C

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: "The full frame myth"
2

Model Mike wrote:

Great article on Luminous Landscape re full frame v. MFT v. APS-C

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

Yes, Luminous Landscape always has excellent articles.

And, yes, in terms of IQ, the OMD M-1 etc, provide superb IQ.

And the K-3 24MP sensor and all, seems to deliver as well as any FF, some may discuss high ISO's above say 3200 and that may be valid, but otherwise?

Especially with the recession, value also becomes more critical.

Personally, I do think FF may have had its best days, if not yet for Pro sports and news photographers, but for enthusiasts.

Reasoning = as LL says, the IQ of smaller sensors is now exceptional.

-- hide signature --

Amateur photographer. Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

awaldram
awaldram Forum Pro • Posts: 13,237
Re: "The full frame myth"
2

This made me laugh

"North Americans stick to their large cameras, want full frame, and don't seem to mind lugging large and heavy systems around as they travel."

so true 'big is beautiful' has always been the American way must be that open space available does it to you

 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-x Olympus PEN E-PM2 +17 more
KL Matt Veteran Member • Posts: 5,885
Re: "The full frame myth"
3

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

Matt

-- hide signature --

... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean? Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know what a' mean?
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Rod McD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,343
Re: "The full frame myth"
5

Hi,

Interesting read, and interesting times, as he says, but I'm not sure what his overall point is.  Or points......

Is it that it's a myth because he perceives that of the people buying FF, some don't need it.  Is it that the FF game has changed to a more accessible and acceptable one with the introduction of compact FF MILCs? In which case it's quite real.  (And the Sony A7's appear to be selling well.)  Is it that APSC as his 'monkey in the middle' is actually in danger in a market polarised between MFT and FF?  Is it that MFT is in danger because both APSC and FF MILCs can now be smaller too, eliminating MFT's size advantage?  All of the above?  At the same time?  I'm not quite sure.......

Cheers, Rod

 Rod McD's gear list:Rod McD's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus Tough TG-4 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +10 more
awaldram
awaldram Forum Pro • Posts: 13,237
Re: "The full frame myth"
 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-x Olympus PEN E-PM2 +17 more
kitsios_spyros
kitsios_spyros Senior Member • Posts: 2,632
Re: "The full frame myth"

awaldram wrote:

Well thought through great post

+1

I have invested some money -more than I thought I would! LBA got me too- in cropped and FF K-mount lenses the last few years. But I have been following the new technologies since 2005 or 2006.

Back then, the three categories (FF - APSc - 4/3) had distinct qualities and it did make sense to have 2 different systems of any compination. But after the impovements of all three categories, including the latest versions of 16MP m4/3 cameras and their AF speed improvements in good and moderate light, I fell that -for most users- having a m4/3 or a FF system allong with a APSc system, does not make good economy. And I mean volume/weight/IQ/money economy.

APSc systems are now good enough that will not feel too big against a similarly featured m4/3 package (with EVF + other good spec) or IQ limited against a FF system. On the other hand, having a FF system maybe it is a better choice to use a smaller m4/3 system for portability than a APSc one. There are differences, but not that big anymore.

Of course, there are users that have great benefit from using FF lenses on APSc, especially those with great need for reach with a lot of resolution at the same time. They will disagree with me and I will agree with them for their needs.

But for most users that do not have a specific need for DR/resolution/weight/features etc, I believe that APSc is the best single system choice and FF+m4/3 is the most logic 2 system combination. LL article points at the mirrorless in general, which is not exactly what I am saying, as they mention FF ILCs. They may predict things better than me, but this is what I believe for the current technology status.

IMHO..

-- hide signature --

Kind Regards,
Spyros

 kitsios_spyros's gear list:kitsios_spyros's gear list
Pentax K-01 Samsung NX300 Pentax K-5 II Pentax K-3 Pentax K-3 II +12 more
Chris Mak Senior Member • Posts: 2,122
Re: "The full frame myth"

Great article on Luminous Landscape re full frame v. MFT v. APS-C

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

Dslr's themselves are already a myth, the camera in their mobile phone is all people need, they are just clinging on to old myths.

Seriously, who is to decide which and what is myth?
Fact is, that with Full frame, there is a larger surface to project the image on, putting less strain on the lens and sensor, and producing what FF lovers call an "easy drawing style". Apsc has sharper, more pronounced edges, that gives images often a harsher look. I have the K5IIs, a brilliant camera, but it cannot produce the natural and easy on the eyes images that FF produces with the better lenses.

But if you only define image quality in "sharp" and pixel noise, then yes, forget about FF by all means.

Chris

 Chris Mak's gear list:Chris Mak's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R II Pentax K-3 II Pentax HD DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW Zeiss Loxia 35 HD Pentax DA AF 1.4X AW Rear Converter +2 more
grcolts Senior Member • Posts: 2,804
Re: "The full frame myth"

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

Matt

Are you saying Pentax should join the m4/3rds arena? Or, a GXR type mirror less?

May not be a bad move to add that particular line but Pentax should stay with the APS-C too.

Having just recently bought a m4/3rds Panasonic I see little difference in image quality between the Pentax and the Panasonic so far.  Of course there are other factors one chooses in favor of what type camera one needs. No one does WR better than Pentax.

GR

-- hide signature --

grcolts
http://g_richardsphotography.fototime.com/welcome
http://www.blurb.com/user/store/grcolts

 grcolts's gear list:grcolts's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF7 Olympus E-PL7
OP Model Mike Veteran Member • Posts: 3,641
Re: "The full frame myth"

Rod McD wrote:

[...] I'm not sure what his overall point is. Or points......

It's refreshing to read an article where the author isn't trying to impose a single world view. A useful lesson for some of us on DPR who insist on telling us why FF will always give us better pictures, or why MFT is the secret to a ripe old age.

-- hide signature --
OP Model Mike Veteran Member • Posts: 3,641
Re: "The full frame myth"

Chris Mak wrote:

But if you only define image quality in "sharp" and pixel noise, then yes, forget about FF by all means.

Surely the true test of image quality is what appears on the final print, or the screen? Not suggesting that FF is of no benefit, just that it shouldn't be seen as an end in itself.

-- hide signature --
awaldram
awaldram Forum Pro • Posts: 13,237
Re: "The full frame myth"

Model Mike wrote:

Chris Mak wrote:

But if you only define image quality in "sharp" and pixel noise, then yes, forget about FF by all means.

Surely the true test of image quality is what appears on the final print, or the screen? Not suggesting that FF is of no benefit, just that it shouldn't be seen as an end in itself.

Yes I think the point being made in the article (if your ignore commercial concerns) is that choosing 4/3 , aps-C or FF should not be made on IQ grounds , But maybe there is still choices in what each format has to offer the photographer .?

As each format has it unique advantages and balancing what you require would lead you to one or the other.

-- hide signature --
 awaldram's gear list:awaldram's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax Q7 Pentax K-x Olympus PEN E-PM2 +17 more
KL Matt Veteran Member • Posts: 5,885
Re: "The full frame myth"

grcolts wrote:

KL Matt wrote:

"That brings us to APS-C and Micro Four Thirds. APS-C camera users, at least those whose cameras are of DSLR design, don't get much of a break. The cameras aren't that much smaller and lighter than Full Frame, and most people use full frame capable lenses, because to buy APS-C specific lenses locks you out of an eventual full-frame upgrade, and they aren't that much smaller and lighter in any event. Finally, few if any are of Pro grade."

This is what I've been lamenting for years. The K-mount only really makes competitive sense as a full-frame mount. That's true now more than ever.

Ricoh will be forced to make the move to a larger sensor and/or shorter registration distance sooner or later.

Matt

Are you saying Pentax should join the m4/3rds arena? Or, a GXR type mirror less?

I think the K-mount should once again be predominantly a full-frame mount.

I also think there should be a mirrorless K-mount with an APS-C sensor that can accept all current and future K-mount lenses with full AF and features. This new mirrorless can either have a standard K-mount like the K-01 does or a shorter registration distance, like the Sony E-mount and require an adapter for K-mount lenses. If you stick to a full K-mount (which I favor), then you'll need to release a full line of ultracompact lenses designed like the DA 40 XS which have the bulk of their optics inside the body, where the mirror box would otherwise have resided.

This could result in a svelte overall package that maintains full compatibility with the rest of the K-mount. It doesn't have to be a brick like the K-01.

I can't help thinking it was a mistake to build the Q with such a small sensor. The Nikon 1 seems to have hit the sweet spot RE sensor size for very small ILCs. Time may prove me wrong.

I think the new 645d should have a "full" 645-size sensor to distance it from the K-mount full-frame offering and justify its price over the likes of the D800e. Otherwise I don't see the advantages over 35mm systems quite so much.

LimitedAmatuer New Member • Posts: 11
Re: "The full frame myth"
1

Chris Mak wrote:

Great article on Luminous Landscape re full frame v. MFT v. APS-C

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

Dslr's themselves are already a myth, the camera in their mobile phone is all people need, they are just clinging on to old myths.

Seriously, who is to decide which and what is myth?
Fact is, that with Full frame, there is a larger surface to project the image on, putting less strain on the lens and sensor, and producing what FF lovers call an "easy drawing style". Apsc has sharper, more pronounced edges, that gives images often a harsher look. I have the K5IIs, a brilliant camera, but it cannot produce the natural and easy on the eyes images that FF produces with the better lenses.

But if you only define image quality in "sharp" and pixel noise, then yes, forget about FF by all means.

Chris

I'd never considered it like this. Yes. The images from FF sensors are much easier on the eye. I think this has a lot to do with lower noise at higher iso's too.

My K-5IIs with the pricier primes produces very sharp images. But I've rarely managed to get them to look natural. Sometimes it's a good idea in LR5 to reduce clarity to try and achieve a softer, smoother image.

I think the LUNA article completely misses your point and they're wrong about full frame especially when Sony are now producing a full frame sensor that's affordable (A7 and A7r) in a compact body. I reckon within the next three to five years there will just be camera phones and full frame ILC's with a few medium format cameras available to the professionals/wealthy.

I only have a couple of APS-C only Pentax K-mounts, a couple of UWA's, the rest are full frame compatible. I won't buy anything that isn't FF compatible now and haven't for the past two years.

 LimitedAmatuer's gear list:LimitedAmatuer's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Pentax smc FA 77mm 1.8 Limited Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR +14 more
viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,148
Re: "The full frame myth"
8

I think full frame is misunderstood.  Many want it simply because they want the best, but what does it really offer you?

It offers 1 1/3 stop added flexibility.  That and the larger sensor generally gives sharper more detailed images (less enlargement and easier on the lenses for the same MP count).  So at base ISO it is often true that M4/3 (and honestly even 1/1.7" compacts) can be good enough for most people, and larger aperture lenses can help those camera do good at high ISO.

The issue with small sensor cameras is to get good results you need exceptional lenses and very large apertures to avoid diffraction.  Pentax Q is a good example, the 8.5mm f/1.9 is a great lens, but really peaks wide open due to diffraction, and the lens is still limiting the sensor.

Taking my A7 and using some older lenses like an Olympus OM 28mm f/3.5 and it performs way better with that lens than a 24 MP APS-C camera would.  I can't wait to try my Pentax 28mm f/3.5 as well, and also going to rent the FA Limited lenses.

I think many people think full frame is a myth until they use it, then they will either think, "What did I just spend $1000 extra on?" or "this is the best thing since sliced bread", depending on what their expectations are and how they use the camera.

Do I think APS-C is plenty for most people?  Sure.  Same with M4/3.  Same with 1".  Same with 1/1.7".  Why not give everyone a Q and call it good.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
John_A_G Veteran Member • Posts: 7,679
good read
2

I think it's very thought provoking and I agree with what is in there.

I agree that for most people that aren't doing heavy cropping and aren't doing large prints there will be little realized for full-frame.  One area the author didn't include, which I would, is extremely high ISOs - 6400 and above.  Even at 8x10 level you're going to notice a difference.  For everyone else, full frame isn't going to give a noticeable difference.

However, what I find more compelling - and what I agree with - the aps-c DSLR is going to get squeezed out.  The vast majority of the technology is driving towards mirrorless.  I agree with the author that Sony is going to drive it there.  The photos I see from people using Panasonic, Fuji and Oly ILCs are really fantastic.  The only benefit DSLR offers is continuous focus and OVF.  The vast majority of the population is growing up in an ovf-free world.  They're used to not having it.  The major manufacturers are pushing pdaf focusing and tracking.  So, OVF will, I believe cease to be a compelling reason to choose DSLR.

So, what I took away from the article is not so much the battle of full frame vs. aps-c - it's DSLR vs. mirrorless.  And I agree, long term mirrorless looks like the possible winner.

paulkienitz
paulkienitz Veteran Member • Posts: 5,294
Re: "The full frame myth"

Great article on Luminous Landscape re full frame v. MFT v. APS-C

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

So in the future we'll all have full frame mirrorless, because it's so compact and nobody will shoot telephoto anymore.

-- hide signature --

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -- Ansel

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax Q Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
drummercam Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: "The full frame myth"
1

"Anyone who has shot with the latest generation of mid-sized sensor cameras, especially those from Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, will likely attest that today's cameras produce extremely high quality images, both in terms of resolution and noise."

Did Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic have anything that tops the Pentax K-5 series?

 drummercam's gear list:drummercam's gear list
Leica Q Pentax K-30 Pentax K-01 Pentax K-3 Pentax K-S2 +1 more
paulkienitz
paulkienitz Veteran Member • Posts: 5,294
Re: "The full frame myth"

"FF+m4/3 is the most logic 2 system combination."

I think what makes the most sense for a dual system would be Nikon FF plus Nikon 1. They can share lenses without losing autofocus, and the size difference is wide enough to really justify two systems. That's what I'd do if I quadrupled my camera budget.

-- hide signature --

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -- Ansel

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax Q Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
paulkienitz
paulkienitz Veteran Member • Posts: 5,294
Re: "The full frame myth"

"Anyone who has shot with the latest generation of mid-sized sensor cameras, especially those from Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic, will likely attest that today's cameras produce extremely high quality images, both in terms of resolution and noise."

Did Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic have anything that tops the Pentax K-5 series?

That's just part of the general confusion and unclarity of the article, where he thinks he's talking about FF vs crop, but is really talking about DSLR vs mirrorless.

-- hide signature --

"A good photograph is knowing where to stand." -- Ansel

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax K-3 Pentax Q Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads