Do you believe that the 24x36 format is some sort of technology-independent ideal size, or that it simply is what made for economic, portable, high-quality end-results in the film era? If bigger is better, why stop at 24x36? It seems to me that at least part of the reason why 24x36 was so popular was due to limitations in the film medium that cannot be directly transferred to digital.
Or are you arguing more pragmatically based on availability of lenses (and their "sweetspot"), the ability of people to learn how many mm are needed for "wide angle" etc?
-h
I think the
already existing format sizes shouldn't be decreased simply to deal with a fabrication cost issue which is a temporary aspect of a relatively new technology. If someone were to suggest to you that it were a great idea to carry around medium format equipment to shoot on a 24x36 sensor, would you agree with that notion, or dismiss it? That is the same thing, to me, as the idea of carrying equipment sized for a 24x36 format to shoot in a less-than-half-frame format, i.e., APS-C.
I do think 24x36 happens to be the "sweet spot" in terms of size/weight/cost of equipment, and that replacing film with digital sensors does nothing to change that fact. The array of available optics for the 24x36 format is second to nothing, and if digital makes for enhancement of image quality to boot, the more the merrier! If I was a medium format shooter, I'd be just as annoyed about the unwanted/unrequested cropping of my image format as I am using 35mm.
In short, bigger IS better, but there are practical limitations. Ever see a 300-800 zoom for large format? For medium format? Nope! You never will, because nobody could afford one, and you would need a gun motor carriage to transport and use it. I never moved to a larger format because the available tools were too few, never mind the cost of doing so and the logistics of transporting it in the field. Speed is another factor; how many medium or larger format systems can shoot at high frame rates for moving subjects? They are more specialized tools that pose certain limitations as to what the photographer can do. The 35mm format is the format offering the greatest array of tools for the photographer, and the greatest range of capabilities/versatility, while maximizing image quality within the practical constraints of size/weight/cost of equipment. APS-C format is nothing more than a 35mm camera with an undersized sensor, which may reduce cost (mainly of the camera body, as most of the lenses are 35mm anyway) but makes no appreciable dent in size/weight of equipment, and suffers a loss of image quality as well. Furthermore, it suffers (due to the format size reduction) from an unacceptable user interface, i.e., the viewfinders are too small. I found myself unable to focus on anything that wasn't pretty much "infinity" focus with lenses shorter than about 70mm or so with an APS-C viewfinder, which made it intolerable for me (having all manual focus lenses in particular; and since one can't relay on the ability of autofocus to work in all situations, I would find it intolerable even if I had autofocus lenses).
Just my $ 0.02