Why we don't need FF

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PHYidejT3KY

Doubtless some will disagree

Typically larger sensors capture more light and are better suited to low light situations, and they allow for narrower depth of field shots for a given lens. If these are important to you, then FF will be of interest.

FF no longer means higher MP images as heck, even a cell phone can have higher MP images than most DSLR's. I agree that there is a lot of hype and marketing mixed up in the FF debate. I know Pentax get's ruled out of most pro conversations simply because they don't have a FF offering. Whether that is fair is another story, but it does happen unfortunately, which is ironic given Pentax off MF that steps it up again to a higher level.

So for me, same old story. FF does offer advantages, but if they're not of interest to you then there's not a lot to be gained, and potentially even some aspects to lose. They are different, arguing that they're not, or that FF, or any sensor size, doesn't have a place is silly.

Ironically, a test report this week in AP gives a camera a negative because it's not APS-C.......

When I bought my *istD body I only had 35mm format lenses. All of a sudden my wide angle lenses were crippled.

Indeed, for several years I was under the impression of why should I have to buy new glass just to get back to where I was with 35mm format.

I finally gave in and decided that if I have to buy new glass I might as well buy new modern lenses and also step up to very good AF, metering and flash.
So I bought a D700 with 14-24mm, 16-35mm, 24-70mm.

Do I see a difference, of course I do. Am I happy with the results and performance, yes.

Did shooting a 35mm form digital convince me that a 645Z was worth buying, yes.

Do I see a difference, of course I do. Am I happy with the results and performance, yes.

So from my point of view, systems aside, I can actually see differences in image sensor sizes. How one would measure those differences is for the individual to asses and not really worth debating about with others who don’t shoot different formats and can only quote what others tell them or they read on the web.

Great video in very general terms as all he does is compare formats and not systems or system performance.

He starts off basically implying film is dead then finishes drooling over a 10x8 film camera.

Best regards

I see a lot of praise for the Fuji system on many forums these days. Even "pros" seems to endorse Fuji, alhough Fuji does not have full frame cameras, "only" APS-C cameras and lenses. Fuji reputedly has very good lenses, fast and well made, that are very expensive. Could it be that the lenses are the main asset to the Fuji system? Or maybe in combination with the x-trans sensor? Anyhow, there does not seem to be a similar craving for full frame amongst Fuji users that there is in the Pentax camp. At least that is my very generalised impression.

all this time spent talking about, with what you take a photo, is time lost on taking a photo.

snorefest

Don't forget to include keyboard time, reading these posts and snoring.

Best regards

Every time I take a picture with my rubbish APS-C cameras (K-01, K-5iis and K-3) I cringe and my mind instantly craves the full frame experience that so many people with rival brand cameras are enjoying. Their lives must be so fulfilled compared to mine. Why must I suffer such an appalling lack of quality images? My life is a mess, it's not worth going on, I think I will just lose the will to live.

Samaritans?
Getselfhelp.co.uk?
Local preacher?

If they can't help what about the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland?

A few years ago there was a lot to be said for the bigger is better argument but advances in sensor design and processing mean that even very small sensors such as that in the MX-1 (sorry to bang on about this camera again, it's not as if I'm obsessed or anything) can produce images of a quality unimaginable not so long back.

It would be fun to use my Pentax M 28mm 3.5 and see a true wide-angle scene through the view-finder and if I was even moved to take lots of low light pictures I'm sure a 35mm size sensor would be beneficial, but other than that I'm not really that moved by the debate.

Boys love their toys, though. I really don't need the lovely old Z3 I have currently under cover in the garage when I have a perfectly serviceable Octavia on the drive? And why do I have more than one watch?

Bigger will always be better. That makes it harder to handle/carry and it's also more expensive to buy and (usually forgotten) repair. ...... Just spotted this one Lens Rentals site......

" (Lensrentals insider joke: What do you call a D800 with a scratched sensor? Parts. Because at $1,800 for a sensor replacement . . . )"

--

The video, whatever the merit of its message, needs a good editor. The speaker never uses one word where a dozen will do ...

As for the message, a good deal of the 'advantage' of any given format depends upon the use to which you hope to put the result. If you like printing crisply at A2, most medium format cameras will do a better job than a 35mm, and most 35mms will trump an APS-C. That does not mean that APS-C cannot print at A2, but it does it less satisfactorily than the larger formats.

If you confine your viewing to a tablet, pretty much any format will be fine.

It's not really true though, is it, that sensor size directly relates to size of possible output. I thought actually that was in fact resolution? Resolution and sensor size are different things. I believe sensor size influences other IQ factors also, dynamic range being a key one. Potential maximum output size is related to number of pixels, not directly to sensor size, I believe ...

Of course there are variables, but to all intents and purposes a larger sensor will usually give more opportunity for a satisfactory result at large scale

This video was posted before and is basically an advertisement for Fuji APS-C cameras