View Single Post
  #16  
Old 4th August 2019
drmarkf's Avatar
drmarkf drmarkf is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 5,647
Thanks: 360
Thanked 508 Times in 422 Posts
Likes: 2,219
Liked 1,281 Times in 728 Posts
Re: If Sensor Size Doesn't Matter, Why Buy a Bigger One?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IPWheatley View Post
As someone who has bucked the trend so to speak, I recently switched from a crop sensor system to a full frame one. I chose this option for a couple of reasons, the main one being, as the majority of my photography is now landscape focused it seemed the obvious way to go to achieve the best image quality possible. I did not make this decision lightly. I was fortunate enough in that my local camera dealer lent me a Canon 5D Mk3 and three Canon L lenses to try for a week and the results convinced me it was the right move for me. There are disadvantages, as have already been mentioned by others here, the main one being the weight factor, but after a recent trip to The Lakes, lugging around two bodies and six lenses with my old system, the difference is negligible. The advantages are, greatly improved battery life, I used to carry six previously, now only two, and image quality, which to me is a noticeable improvement. Regrets? None on my part. One last point. How many of you here edit in 16 bit, not 8. If not why not? Yes it triples you file size but you can always resize for posting etc. It seems foolish to me not to if you want the ultimate in image quality from whatever camera system you choose to use. Interested to hear other members views on this. As always, regards to all, Ian W.
I use Capture One, and when I need to go via TIFFs I do indeed use 16-bit when the target app will accept that.

Yes, you have clearly made a rational decision Ian, based on a proper test for your use case. Unfortunately so many people are seduced by what the influencers tell them, that FF is the 'ultimate upgrade'. In reality, for most people's use cases it is heavier, larger, more expensive and harder to use, and they never/rarely use the specific advantages unless they're showing off to other photographers!

I have a Sony A7S that I use only for very low-light street photography (for which it is far and away the most economic, capable option) plus for using my small collection of classic lenses at native magnification. I'm certainly not switching away from m4/3 for my other use cases, for all of which FF would be a downgrade in real life use.

In contrast to the FF mirrorless designs of Canon and Nikon (incorporating huge mounts, prioritising fast and high-quality lens designs that are huge in size as a byproduct), Nikon has recently produced a couple of really interesting light and compact tele primes, the PF 300 f4 and 500 f5.6.

They use fresnel lenses, and a friend of mine managed to get one of the 500s recently (rare as hens teeth, apparently) and I've had a brief play on his D850 big beast.

It's around the same size and weight as to 300 f4 Zuiko and gives similarly brilliantly sharp results at full aperture. However, you lose a stop of light compared to the Oly (i.e. one stop of the FF advantage is lost before you're out of the blocks) and it's 1200 pricier and 17% shorter in equivalent focal length. He has occasionally seen some very funny bokeh in bright image detail in marginally oof areas - I suspect one's seeing a side-effect of the fresnel lens structure. An area of development that's worth watching, though.
__________________
Regards,
Mark

------------------------------
http://www.microcontrast.com
Too much Oly gear.
Panasonic GM5, 12-32, 12-35, 15. Laowa 7.5.
Assorted legacy lenses, plus a Fuji X70 & a Sony A7S.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to drmarkf For This Useful Post:
IPWheatley (5th August 2019)