The Full Frame Myth

[NancyP]

One limitation of small camera size is ergonomics. In 1970, I thought that my small to average SLR was just the right size, now I hold it, and my fingers bump into each other. I have gotten used to the larger rubbery grip of modern DSLRs. I use a Canon Rebel T1i, a small consumer DSLR, at work - too small, not that it matters, since it sits on a copy stand (specimen photography). I have size 6 hands, and if I like the grip of a Canon 6D, an average size enthusiast DSLR, I can imagine that people with size 8 hands might have a hard time adjusting to really tiny cameras.

[Petrus]

To me it seems that so called "full frame" ( like D4 and D800 etc.) kind of sits in a sweet spot of size, ergonomics and price. At least every time somebody complains about the lack of quality in APS-C or smaller sensors they compare it to FF, not mid format cameras. So why does FF always give enough IQ (mid format is hardly ever mentioned in this context) and smaller sensors not, even though modern APS-C cameras are better than FF bodies were 6 years ago and smaller sensors are better than APS-C was a few years ago? FF is the gold standard and we are reluctant to admit that APS-C, or even M4/3 is now good enough for most purposes, even professional photojournalism. After all I liked to shoot with the ancient EOS-1D with 4.7 MPix, as it gave better results than Provia, so just about any serous small sensor camera should be good enough for me. There is also, for professionals, a distinct lack of believable true pro quality systems with smaller sensors, systems which could seriously challenge the pro lines of FF cameras from Nikon and Canon. For one thing they would be DSLRs, not mirrorless,  as the EVF time lag is not acceptable in many situations. This is mostly a lens problem, making a slightly smaller pro body would be easy, but building a large collection of lenses is hugely expensive. Nikon and Canon have a 60 year history of 135 format lenses to build on.

That said, if I made any sense at all, I shoot mostly with D4 (speed, ergonomics) and D800e (quality, quality) even if (large) part of the IQ goes to waste in print. On the other hand I have a full Fuji X-Pro1/X100s kit with lenses from 14 to 200mm and like them a lot for travel and reportage for their size, weight and "camouflage" quality (harmless old man with old camera). And the IQ is, again, more than good enough, and also slightly different in a nice way, even others notice it. So there is room for all systems (except mid format for me) depending on situation. As long as we have hands and arm strength like we have now something like D4/D800 feels OK and provides a good "standard" for lesser formats to aspire to. In IQ they are almost there or close enough, from the usability and ergonomics side of things going too small is not good, if we are talking about tools, not something to snap a vacation picture with. Many times I take D4 to an assignment, just because it is bigger than D800 and has an integrated vertical grip...

[trichardlin]

One limitation of small camera size is ergonomics...

I agree.  Cameras like the GF1/GX1 are almost too small to handle easily.  Years ago, I took my newly bought GF1 on a family trip to England, because it was so small and slippery it flew off my hands and tumbled on the road for quite a distance before it stopped.  Lucklily, it was pretty tough and functioned flawlessly.

[trichardlin]

...(mid format is hardly ever mentioned in this context)...

To me, that's largely because of the price.  If they can make a $2000 medium format body, I'm sure there will be a market.

I totally agree with the EVF issue.  The blackout/lag makes it very hard to shoot sports.  But if I have to guess, this can be solved relatively easily if the manufactureres put their mind to it.

[Petrus]

To me, that's largely because of the price.  If they can make a $2000 medium format body, I'm sure there will be a market.

I totally agree with the EVF issue.  The blackout/lag makes it very hard to shoot sports.  But if I have to guess, this can be solved relatively easily if the manufactureres put their mind to it.

A certain sized, small market, as if there are no AF lenses at reasonable prices, the buyers would be only pros and landscape enthusiast.

EVF can be better, but never truly real time. After all the video signal has to be read off the sensor, processed and shown in the viewfinder. This can never happen in zero time.

[Isaac]

EVF can be better, but never truly real time. After all the video signal has to be read off the sensor, processed and shown in the viewfinder. This can never happen in zero time.

Could anything happen in zero time :-)

"Compared with electronic devices, neurons are exceedingly slow...

• Conduction of an electrical signal along a copper wire is about 2.5 million times faster than impulse transmission in the fastest axons.
• It is ~10 million times faster than more typical axon conduction speeds.
• Or, one minute vs. 19 years"

[Isaac]

Sony A7 mount (whatever it's called in Sony's horrible proliferation) prime lenses...

Please enumerate the "horrible proliferation" of Sony lens mounts for me, because afaict there are 2 lens mounts: the 30 year old A-Mount and the 8 year old E-Mount; and both have lenses designed for FF and APS-C.

[John Camp]

@ Isaac:

I don't know Sony mounts. Are the E mount and the FE mount the same?

I have large hands, but find the GX7 pretty manageable, although the strap lugs can sometimes get in the way. Not really a problem after you get used to it. My D800 has a solider grip, because it's a lot larger, but I prefer the smaller GX7 size simply because of the weight differential. I don't think there is any solution to this problem, other than personal adaptation.

I think (but don't know because I haven't tried) that I could shoot sports with a GX7, using the burst mode.

 

[Isaac]

SONY® INTRODUCES FIRST FULL-FRAME E-MOUNT LENSES

"In addition to the A7 and A7R full-frame cameras, the new lenses fit any of the existing E-mount cameras including Sony’s acclaimed NEX-6 and NEX-7 models."

[HSway]

MFT have earned respect for having managed to build remarkable compact systems. It’s the first sensor size I call large associated with the compact cameras. The IQ today is what was said it is and it doesn’t end there but it will enjoy further improvements.

Sony has managed something with the FE-mount and I think it will move with the camera market a little. It’s a brand not so popular or loved perhaps but it still is the greatest force of successful innovations in photography today (sensor or camera technology.)

It brings the aspects of a small camera system perhaps uncomfortably close to the MFT. Both systems have set typically different relations between the sensor size and the lens (effective aperture, size of the lens.) The bottom line can be that the MFT retains its size advantage (or its potential) but smaller sensor and less light collected limit IQ indications. Any differences in size prove very individual requirements,  judged and chosen highly subjectively and that for good reasons. That is one of the strongest points of MFT cameras, especially at today’s practical level of IQ achieved (already). And so the train called A7 stormed a bit nearer than usual for two quite different formats but passed at a safe distance and its rails didn’t cross the MFT tracks.
It has brought a new option for compact camera considerations, however, making the choices more diverse. It is an interesting choice (and outlook) for sure and another of Sony's advancements brought to the photographic community.
Not that it means that the MFT are without merits in creating the mirrorless segment or without very attractive offerings of tools for photographers.

[OldRoy]

Please enumerate the "horrible proliferation" of Sony lens mounts for me, because afaict there are 2 lens mounts: the 30 year old A-Mount and the 8 year old E-Mount; and both have lenses designed for FF and APS-C.

I seem not to be the only person who is unclear about this: in my case it's because I'm not in the market for Sony cameras and only vaguely interested. But there seem to be "A", "E" and "FE" variants plus at least one adaptor. I could be wrong but it looks like a mess to me.
Roy

[Rob C]

I seem not to be the only person who is unclear about this: in my case it's because I'm not in the market for Sony cameras and only vaguely interested. But there seem to be "A", "E" and "FE" variants plus at least one adaptor. I could be wrong but it looks like a mess to me.Roy

But not as bad as Windows 8, which is now going to cost me a fee if I can persuade a chap I know to come install enough crap into the new computer to let me use it. I can't make head nor tail of it. Should have gone 7.

Rob C

[telyt]

I seem not to be the only person who is unclear about this: in my case it's because I'm not in the market for Sony cameras and only vaguely interested. But there seem to be "A", "E" and "FE" variants plus at least one adaptor. I could be wrong but it looks like a mess to me.

FE is an extension of E, the difference is an FE lens has an image circle big enough for a full-frame sensor, and an FE body has a full-frame sensor.  FE and E lenses will work fine on either FE or E bodies.  Should we discuss Nikon F-mount variants instead?

[HSway]

The FE is for 135 format E-mount lenses launched recently with the A7/A7R cameras, not a mount as such - a name for newly designed full frame lenses for already existing Sony E-mount. I see I also mention FE-mount in the above post which should read Sony has managed something with the FE (lenses)/E-mount.

[Robert Roaldi]

EVF can be better, but never truly real time. After all the video signal has to be read off the sensor, processed and shown in the viewfinder. This can never happen in zero time.

Camcorders manage this quite well. Television camera operators have been able to follow all kinds of sports in real time for years.

[Petrus]

Camcorders manage this quite well. Television camera operators have been able to follow all kinds of sports in real time for years.

They do not need to snatch freeze frames of the best moments, just follow the flow...

[AFairley]

They do not need to snatch freeze frames of the best moments, just follow the flow...

I'm willing to speculate that EVFs have advanced to the point where the image refresh shorter than human reaction time, which seems to be from .15 to .3 seconds.  Someone on the interweb measured rear LCD lag at .05 seconds.  Point is, to capture the "decisive moment" with OVF or EVF, you are going to have to be following the flow and anticipating the moment.

That said, I will be interested to find an old clock with a smooth sweep second hand and compare the view through the EVF and my other open eye.

[trichardlin]

The FE is for 135 format E-mount lenses launched recently with the A7/A7R cameras, not a mount as such - a name for newly designed full frame lenses for already existing Sony E-mount. I see I also mention FE-mount in the above post which should read Sony has managed something with the FE (lenses)/E-mount.

Brilliant!  A great way to confuse your customers. 

[Ray]

I should also mention the epitaph I plan to have inscribed on my tombstone, which I feel is relevant here: "No great photograph ever depended on resolution."

John,
If you do that, then people like me, when reading the epitaph, will find it odd that you were of the opinion that all great photographs are like blurred waterfalls with the sharp, surrounding bits removed. 

Most photographs, whether considered great or not, are vitally dependent upon resolution.

[dreed]

"Full Frame means a Canon 24MP DSLR or a Nikon 36MP DSLR"

Wrong. Canon does not have a camera with more than 22MP.

Nikon's FF DSLRs are both 24MP and 36MP.

Canon is bottom of the pile in terms of FF DSLR MP.