Lusting for fullframe (cont'd)

[bobn2]

Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.

Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

There's a contradiction there. If FF has its advantages (which it does) then it must have a 'sense'. Even had FF met your unjustified conditions for it to have a 'sense',

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know.

For some parts of it. It has more reach. It doesn't have the same apertures available. As you said above in one of the few sensible and correct parts of this post, the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages. If you're a birder on a budget, mFT is very definitely a better choice.

Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light.

They allow mFT to compete as well as FF with an f/2.4 lens, since both project the same luminous energy onto the sensor. And whilst FF with a f/2.4 lens is not too shabby, FF has available all the way down to f/1.2, and soon f/0.95. Also, the new generation of BSI FF sensors can do more with low f-number lenses than can the FSI, small pixel mFT sensors.

I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

What are those ctriteria? If you look at, for instance, the lenstip tests of the 25/1.2 (they don't have a 17/1.2 test) it's managing about 650 lpph centre and edge. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is producing 744 lpph centre and 528 at the edge wide open. But wide open it's collecting from the same AOV through a bigger aperture, so it's collecting more light, with the same size aperture, at f/2.4 it's managing 912 and 720 lpph at the edges. So, collecting the same luminous power from the same angle of view and producing more resolution. Do you have some other 'criteria' you're working on?

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details.

Dynamic range is not as important as SNR. A higher SNRgives smoother tones and more colour information. Whether or not that is 'significant' very much depends on personal requirements.

But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image.

But not as much as a 4MP image downsampled from FF. Whatever is the MP count you need, for the same f-number and shutter speed, you'll get a higher SNR from the FF camera (DR is much more camera dependent, and at some settings you might indeed get more from a mFT camera). Really, your point is fatuous.

From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

Sure, if you're printing A5, mFT is more than enough. So's a phone.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

Downsmpling does need to be done well.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.

I hope it has a future, but it does depend on the mFT manufacturers playing to its strengths, not abandoning them trying (and inevitably failing) to play to FF's strengths. However you might try to mangle the truth in favour of mFT, you don't convince anyone who might actually be thinking of buying FF over mFT. All you do in preach to the already mFT owning choir. The format can't survive on just them.

 

[David]

Devoid of living experiences, human beings go out and seek it. Why do we buy an Audi A5?

Because they can't afford an S5?

No.. So when you die; you will have zero regrets..

I working in nursing and what is the number 1 issue plaguing many seniors? Take a guess? Take a quick guess?

Is that; they have a lot of regrets. They didn't do this or didn't do that for the sakes of working so hard, little to no vacation and little living experiences..

The millennials are exactly doing the opposite -- they are living the experience. They go and seek living experiences. These people will die with zero regrets..

 

[JaKing]

... makes the same mistake once ;-) .

 

[Messier Object]

It really does not matter how you slice and dice it and try to spin it. People buy what they feel they want; not by any logical means.

For a fact. How logical is it to buy an Audi A5 for twice the price of a Camry? How logical is it to by a 25 / 1.2 over a 25 / 1.4 or 25 / 1.8? How logical is it to buy a camera at all when you don't make income from it?

We are all, first and foremost, emotional beings. Logic is simply a tool that aids or hinders our pursuit of emotional gratification.

No one reacts rationally and with any logic without living experiences. Human beings are emotionally beings because they seek living experiences. It is through living experiences that we learn what works and does not work for us. It is also through living experiences is how we become more knowledgable about what those products can do for us in photography; be it with MFT, APS-C, full frame, medium and large format.

Devoid of living experiences, human beings go out and seek it. Why do we buy an Audi A5? Because we seek an experience owing and driving the Audi Why do we want to have sex? Because we seek to have that physical experience and the living consequences if you don't use protection! Most photographers have zero physical experience shooting with full frame. All their lives, they have been shooting with smaller sensors. So no, there is no logical explanation why they are all buying full frame. But one thing is for sure. They are all going to have that full frame experience! Now whether it serves their needs or not; that's up to them to decide. Some will keep the full frame; but some will abandon full frame after the initial and possibly last experience.

To make a logical decision is to have that living learned experience, so you won't have to make the same mistake again. For some people, they have to keep re-living the same experiences buying more full frames until they too learned enough and then move on to some other format.

yes, I know the feeling. I bought 5 Olympus Fourthirds cameras and 12 lenses, then Olympus moved on to another format. That is their track record for this century so far. The logical expectation is that they will do it again. Surprise, disappointment and anger will be among the many emotions felt as part of the living experience of MFT fans.

Peter

 

[Aaron801]

Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.

Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.

Sorry; but what is this nonsense?!? Downsampling my 16MP to 4MP so I can print like a full frame. Show me a great 4MP image downsampled MFT file of a 30x40 or 40x60 print that will rival a full frame? You can not increase dynamic range and tonal range with downsampling. All you are doing is creating a physical illusion of extended dynamic range, because the image is small. When you print big; and I have done that many times, I can tell you no one is printing 4MP to get gorgeous 30x40 prints. Besides, why do people need a D850 or EOS 5DSR?!? For that 45MP and 50MP to print beyond 40x60"!

The higher dynamic range from full frame is only significant when printing really really big. The difference will begin to show; guess what from 30x40 and up. Shows up and is noticeable at 40x60". Which is why professional galleries only accept 45-50MP full frame and medium format files! They also sell prints starting at $10,000 as well. I used to have a client who runs a gallery at Granville Island and sell those 40x60" and up and you can tell a difference between my 16MP E-P5 vs her Nikon D810 and if I am forced to print that big. But I don't.

I'm not going to question the tech knowledge that you're writing here because that isn't something that I know (or care) too much about. The gallery though that doesn't take anything but full-frame and medium format files? Really? One of what is probably the greatest photography galleries is in my town and I've seen just about every kind of camera and process represented in shows there. One of the shows that I know that they were most proud of was of Robert Frank's work, which was all pretty large prints and was printed largely from old, grainy 35mm film. Even if I was using a large mpx camera, I'd probably skip showing my work at such a gallery because if they have to ask my what I shot the work with, they aren't doing a very good job of actually looking at the work.

I feel like a lot of this mpx stuff is just academic. Sure, if you're printing giant and you still expect people to walk up to the work so that they can see tiny details then I suppose that you do need to make the images with a camera that makes a giant file. So much of the time though, images aren't experienced in this way and having fine detail is really just an aesthetic decision not any kind of guarantee of the overall quality of the work. So much of painting isn't in a photo-realist style, so why does photography only get judged by measures of realism?

Isn't A5 prints; like 5x8"? You don't need full frame for that. In fact,, I had once printed a 16x20" print taken with my E-P5 and shown to the store where they had a couple of professional photogs working there. All thought I shot it with a Nikon D800!

But sorry, your analysis is your personal opinion..

Galleries are like car dealerships. In some cities, like where I live, there are a few Ferrari, Tesla, Lamborghini, Bugati, Lotus, Porsche and Maserati dealerships. One dealership in my town stocked 3 floors full of the latest Ferraris. But in some cities I had travelled into; some have none at all. So in a way, it depends which cities you live in and what the clientele wants. That's all, because why is it a Ferrari or a Bugati cost so much more than a Honda Civic? They all have 4 wheels.. Again, it's all about what a person is willing to pay for a product and in what quality is that product made to? And prints are products; luxury upscale or contemporary?

I guess that I don't equate art with luxury products then... Art is about personal expression to me and when it isn't, I don't need it. This whole thing makes about as much sense to me as if a record label, rather than actually first listening to the music being submitted had a rule that it needed to be made in a certain level of digital studio and only should be made on the most expensive instruments... Never mind that the Beatles music was made on analog equipment of just 4 tracks (at least the early stuff) and that folks like Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin played guitars like Danalectros that are very inexpensive and are made with masonite, counter-top material rather than fine hardwood. Certain very famous fine art painters used house paint, rather than expensive oils... and there are many great photographers who the folks that show in this gallery likely couldn't hold a candle to who've used 35mm or even pinhole cameras for their work!

If some folks want to run a photography gallery where they insist on accepting work made only with super-high megapixel digital cameras, that's their prerogative, but to me that's the antithesis of what art should be all about.

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[Aaron801]

There is still viability in the M43 platform. but the reason why full frame gets the most exposure nowadays is because people are buying full frame and because all those who bought full frame during the Christmas and Black Friday sales were lusted into get in. They all had smaller formats in the past, as it was the only format that was affordable.

I'm in Canada and in boxing day and before Christmas, the Sony A7II kit was sold out. Completely sold out; cleaned out! There were a lot of Rebel packaged boxes that went unsold! This was a different scene as usually the Rebel packaged boxes sold out, as it was the case for several years! I had never seen that happened. Can't say the same with the E-M5 II nor the E-M1 II; there are still plenty of stock goes to show that full frame is hot. Technically though, MFT is still a capable platform and so it APS-C, but the buying public had finally voted to embrace full frame just like when the buying public embraced VHS video rather than Beta.

I don't think that's a good analogy because with the VHS/Beta thing it was a showdown for a common format. There's never been any one common format in photography (with 35mm coming close though, I suppose) as our computers will read files made on cameras that use any format...

My feeling with these "format wars" is that people don't give enough credit to just how far the technology has come and what it's capable of. Sure, FF is technically more capable than smaller formats, but I see m43 as being about as good as medium format film (way better than 35mm) in terms of the information that it can capture... and when you think about how much great photography was made with those lesser quality film formats, it seems that folks might be saying, "look I can do better than that with this tiny camera," rather than "I'm likely not going to really test the limits of this this bigger and more expensive camera, but since it's the hot new thing, I guess that I'll be lugging it around and paying that interest on my credit card!"

It's just that I've seen such great work done with such modest gear and compared to much of that, a little m43 camera doesn't even seem all that modest.

It really does not matter how you slice and dice it and try to spin it. People buy what they feel they want; not by any logical means.

True dat!

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[Ab Latchin]

Just buy an FF camera and have done with it, if that floats your boat. It will do things an M43 camera cannot do. No amount of bizarre defensive techtalk will ever change that. I would not be in the least bit surprised if FF was the dominant format in five years’ time, with a couple of APS-C and 1” specials for the long-reach crowd and everyone else using very capable smartphones. I like M43 but Olympus versus rest of the world is a bit of a foregone conclusion, isn’t it.

Buying FF does has a sense, but only after the FF will have the number of pixels 4 times more than m43, and the lenses will be as good as those for m43 in terms of the absolute resolution. Otherwise the two systems have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other depending on a task.

For example, the larger pixels density and exellent tele-lenses (like Oly 300 f/4) in case of the m43 make this system to be significantly better for the world-life photography than FF systems I know. Also the excellent pro lenses like OLY 17 mm f/1.2 allow for m43 to compeet with FF at low light. I do not know f/1.2 lens for FF that is perfectly sharp across the frame (Oly 17 f/1.2 is indeed increadebly sharp at f/1.2). Even at f/2.8 FF lenses are so-so according to my criteria.

The higher dynamic range of FF sensor is only significant if we are looking at an image at the1:1 size or capable to see all the resolved details. But in majority cases, if you are interested only in the full-frame view you can downsample the m43 image and increase the dynamic range. For example, the down-sampled m43 image from 16 Mpx to 4 Mpx will have the same dynamic range as 16 Mpx FF-image. From my experience 4Mpx images printed on the A5-size paper are hardly distinguished from the 16Mpx ones in terms of the visible detailes. The properly downsampled photo looks better if printed at proper size.

The proper downsampling can also be important in future, when FF-sensors with huge amount of pixels (~80 Mpx) will be typical.

I am sure that m43 system has the Future.

Sorry; but what is this nonsense?!? Downsampling my 16MP to 4MP so I can print like a full frame. Show me a great 4MP image downsampled MFT file of a 30x40 or 40x60 print that will rival a full frame? You can not increase dynamic range and tonal range with downsampling. All you are doing is creating a physical illusion of extended dynamic range, because the image is small. When you print big; and I have done that many times, I can tell you no one is printing 4MP to get gorgeous 30x40 prints. Besides, why do people need a D850 or EOS 5DSR?!? For that 45MP and 50MP to print beyond 40x60"!

The higher dynamic range from full frame is only significant when printing really really big. The difference will begin to show; guess what from 30x40 and up. Shows up and is noticeable at 40x60". Which is why professional galleries only accept 45-50MP full frame and medium format files! They also sell prints starting at $10,000 as well. I used to have a client who runs a gallery at Granville Island and sell those 40x60" and up and you can tell a difference between my 16MP E-P5 vs her Nikon D810 and if I am forced to print that big. But I don't.

I'm not going to question the tech knowledge that you're writing here because that isn't something that I know (or care) too much about. The gallery though that doesn't take anything but full-frame and medium format files? Really? One of what is probably the greatest photography galleries is in my town and I've seen just about every kind of camera and process represented in shows there. One of the shows that I know that they were most proud of was of Robert Frank's work, which was all pretty large prints and was printed largely from old, grainy 35mm film. Even if I was using a large mpx camera, I'd probably skip showing my work at such a gallery because if they have to ask my what I shot the work with, they aren't doing a very good job of actually looking at the work.

I feel like a lot of this mpx stuff is just academic. Sure, if you're printing giant and you still expect people to walk up to the work so that they can see tiny details then I suppose that you do need to make the images with a camera that makes a giant file. So much of the time though, images aren't experienced in this way and having fine detail is really just an aesthetic decision not any kind of guarantee of the overall quality of the work. So much of painting isn't in a photo-realist style, so why does photography only get judged by measures of realism?

Isn't A5 prints; like 5x8"? You don't need full frame for that. In fact,, I had once printed a 16x20" print taken with my E-P5 and shown to the store where they had a couple of professional photogs working there. All thought I shot it with a Nikon D800!

But sorry, your analysis is your personal opinion..

Galleries are like car dealerships. In some cities, like where I live, there are a few Ferrari, Tesla, Lamborghini, Bugati, Lotus, Porsche and Maserati dealerships. One dealership in my town stocked 3 floors full of the latest Ferraris. But in some cities I had travelled into; some have none at all. So in a way, it depends which cities you live in and what the clientele wants. That's all, because why is it a Ferrari or a Bugati cost so much more than a Honda Civic? They all have 4 wheels.. Again, it's all about what a person is willing to pay for a product and is that product made. And prints are products; luxury or common.

I think you are impressing a lot of your thinking on the market.

The value of a print is in the demand, subject matter and rarity. You could have a rare and beautiful image in less than perfect condition with a great deal thanks to demand and scarcity. It is art, the value doesn't come from the camera.

In the commercial world there might be some weight to the highest resolution available but clients often don't need it and are unwilling to pay for it. So again, it is use dependant.

I think there are a lot of people here who assume a great deal.

I have close to 30 years of photographic experience; industrial, printing, sales, technical repairs, support etc and have travelled to New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Brazil etc.. and have seen it all and had worked with a number of agencies. I am just sharing my experiences of what I had saw and learned. Like you, I was skeptical of this high end market until some clients invited me to these galleries and are selling these prints. Some are metal prints and personally, I don't give a S**T if you believe me or not and personally, I don't really need you to believe me. Why should I? But they do exist like Ferrari does selling cars. Obviously, some people want to buy them. I'm simply expressing that certain people do use top equipment to create top products and prints for a certain rich clientele. If you choose to ignore these markets; that's your prerogative.

No-one argued that there are no super high end prints, but you are using a very rarefied segment of the photographic community to make a general point, but how to reach the conclusion is such a stretch.

I was at the Royal Ontario Museum's Wildlife Photography exhibit and the published images touring the world was made with a selection of very pedestrian equipment.

Likewise, what's the point of making digital medium format if you don't need these big files to print big? Are Fuji, Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax dumb and stupid? Are people who use medium format don't realize 16 or 20MP is enough? Are they stupid?

You need to stop swinging to the extremes. I run an agency, and have for almost 20 years. As well as shooting commercially for multinationals I have had my own work displayed at the Canadian houses of parliament.

I get files from all over the world to use for a variety of production techniques and applications. So in my experience the numbers of those cameras in use is very very small (medium format) we almost never see them. So are photographers who buy them dumb? Are clients not requesting only the finest dumb? Of course not. Doesn't change how few images are in circulation from that equipment.

The truth is display sizes are getting smaller, print has dropped off tremendously, banner images are not printed in any way that shows off the quality of large format imaging. This still doesn't make anyone dumb, it is just a reality.

 

[Henry Falkner]

I note that this thread is going on a bit, so I might as well stick my oar in.

I had full frame when I was using 35 mm.

I could never get focus over the whole bloom when I was shooting flowers close up.

Never again!

Henry

 

[Sergey_Green]

I note that this thread is going on a bit, so I might as well stick my oar in.

I had full frame when I was using 35 mm.

I could never get focus over the whole bloom when I was shooting flowers close up.

Never again!

Henry

I agree, nothing beats phone camera in this regard,

--
- sergey

 

[JaKing]

Green, you have just demonstrated something that you have consistently criticized FTs and mFTs about since at least 2007 ...

You have also constantly denied that control over DoF has everything to do with camera to subject and subject to background.

Nice to see that you have finally proved to yourself that you were wrong.

 

[TN Args]

Green, you have just demonstrated something that you have consistently criticized FTs and mFTs about since at least 2007 ...

You have also constantly denied that control over DoF has everything to do with camera to subject and subject to background.

Nice to see that you have finally proved to yourself that you were wrong.

But we always knew it, didn't we... ;-)

 

[JaKing]

Green, you have just demonstrated something that you have consistently criticized FTs and mFTs about since at least 2007 ...

You have also constantly denied that control over DoF has everything to do with camera to subject and subject to background.

Nice to see that you have finally proved to yourself that you were wrong.

But we always knew it, didn't we... ;-)

Of course ... ;-)

Since sometime in the 1960s in my case - certainly within about ten years of my starting to take photos in around 1958 ...

 

[Adielle]

Eventually though; I don't know when. But if full frame starts selling @ MFT prices brand new like sub $1000 not on sale, or $600 on sale will we then see a migration of most people going from smaller format to full frame. Possibly 10 to 20 years from now, but I think APS-C and MFT will still be around. I think 1" will die off past 10 years.

That's definitely not going to happen. There are truly pocketable (about 42mm depth, you can easily keep it in your pants' pocket) 1" cameras with zoom lenses that MFT cameras, even a fixed lens camera, will never be able to compete against, because it's simply impossible for them to be anywhere near as compact. RX100 VI has a maximum focal length with a FOV equivalent to that of 200mm in full-frame. 75mm with LX100 II's lens, and even if you omit the viewfinder bump, it's still hardly "pocketable". That's just one reason why 1" is going nowhere.

There's the "superzoom" category, which is just as big of a deal. You get a small, not so deep camera with a sharp, high quality 24-600mm-equivalent lens, which only weighs 1kg and gives you really good image quality. To get 600mm-equivalent in MFT, your options are very limited to begin with, and you're limited to a long focal range only. A "superzoom" MFT lens would have to be a lot larger and heavier than what's available, which is already pretty big and heavy, and it won't be able to compete quality-wise with the 1" format lens unless it's really expensive. Or it could be truly huge and more decently priced, and anyway, you've lost any ability to compete. Speaking of superzoom, that's why 1/2.3" is not going anywhere, either. You get a camera that weighs as much as a MFT lens and costs much less, and gives you 20mm to 1200mm equivalent range.

There's video cameras... 1" will continue to dominate the pro / "prosumer" video camera market.

The smaller the sensor, the less "system cameras" with interchangable lenses you have. That doesn't matter. Those smaller sensor cameras are not going anywhere, and they will continue to evolve just like MFT, APS-C, full-frame, medium format, and I don't know, up to IMAX or whatever huge sensor size.

 

[David]

Eventually though; I don't know when. But if full frame starts selling @ MFT prices brand new like sub $1000 not on sale, or $600 on sale will we then see a migration of most people going from smaller format to full frame. Possibly 10 to 20 years from now, but I think APS-C and MFT will still be around. I think 1" will die off past 10 years.

That's definitely not going to happen. There are truly pocketable (about 42mm depth, you can easily keep it in your pants' pocket) 1" cameras with zoom lenses that MFT cameras, even a fixed lens camera, will never be able to compete against, because it's simply impossible for them to be anywhere near as compact. RX100 VI has a maximum focal length with a FOV equivalent to that of 200mm in full-frame. 75mm with LX100 II's lens, and even if you omit the viewfinder bump, it's still hardly "pocketable". That's just one reason why 1" is going nowhere.

There's the "superzoom" category, which is just as big of a deal. You get a small, not so deep camera with a sharp, high quality 24-600mm-equivalent lens, which only weighs 1kg and gives you really good image quality. To get 600mm-equivalent in MFT, your options are very limited to begin with, and you're limited to a long focal range only. A "superzoom" MFT lens would have to be a lot larger and heavier than what's available, which is already pretty big and heavy, and it won't be able to compete quality-wise with the 1" format lens unless it's really expensive. Or it could be truly huge and more decently priced, and anyway, you've lost any ability to compete. Speaking of superzoom, that's why 1/2.3" is not going anywhere, either. You get a camera that weighs as much as a MFT lens and costs much less, and gives you 20mm to 1200mm equivalent range.

There's video cameras... 1" will continue to dominate the pro / "prosumer" video camera market.

The smaller the sensor, the less "system cameras" with interchangable lenses you have. That doesn't matter. Those smaller sensor cameras are not going anywhere, and they will continue to evolve just like MFT, APS-C, full-frame, medium format, and I don't know, up to IMAX or whatever huge sensor size.

I think right now, the majority of consumers who are buying 1" cameras are people who are downsizing; baby boomers who want to travel and see the world but are no longer willing to carry bigger and heavier gear. On the opposite spectrum, the younger generation all have no problems carrying heavier gear to achieve a certain level of image IQ and I know and had observed many millenials do carry a tripod, full frame and the lenses on many treks. My cousin is now travelling with his newly wed wife and what does he shoots? A Nikon D750 with Sigma prime f/1.4 ART glasses and so are other of his friends with Sony full frame or with a full frame film camera!! Sensor format only stays relevant if someone is willing to continue buying the products it was made to work with. It no longer stays relevant when people stops buying it. like cassette tapes, 8 tracks, CDs and LPs as well as DVDs. All of these mediums were extremely popular in the 80s and 90s. but the advent of iTunes, Amazon Music and streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video obsoleted all the mediums that were once thought to be invincible and would not possibly be abandoned and be relegated into obscurity.

I think the sensor in the cell phones will be here to stay. During the holiday period, I was in a camera store looking at the deals when 3 young kids walked by while their parents were not far shopping for camera gear. One was asking the other older boy; what are those in the showcase?!? Then the older boy replied -- "Oh those are cameras that you use to take pictures with". Then the boy that asked the question replied -- "But we've got phones that do that! Why do you need these?" Then the older boy replied -- "That's because these are for idiots and old geezers like my dad who can not take good pictures with a phone! They all laughed a bit and then walked away.

The new generation of kids treat physical cameras like a big joke, because it has no physical connection to Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and other social media services. Having to pair it to the phone is also a big joke. There is no cellular system built into any camera right now that you can connect to LTE on the fly and send images. All phones can do this naturally. This is the future. No wonder CIPA data year over year keeps showing less and less people buying system cameras.

 

[Henry Falkner]

Thank you for illustrating my point. My 35mm prints of bluebells are in the shed just now.

Henry