Little Cameras

[Axel]

... I think landscape photography could benefit from a larger sensor, while street and documentary photographers ...

Yes and life can benefit from not carrying around big gear and marvellous pictures can benefit from having a camera at the decisive moment

And gear talks, "gas" and holding a camera that feels very well in my hands are other nice aspects of this interesting hobby.

But too often I noticed that I´ve got - for example - a stunning photo of landscape with "totally wrong equipment".
So let´s stay straight here and recognize that small sensors have grown pretty good in the shadow of the big, fast an precious supercams
in the last years.

 

[CMur12]

Yes and life can benefit from not carrying around big gear and marvellous pictures can benefit from having a camera at the decisive moment

And gear talks, "gas" and holding a camera that feels very well in my hands are other nice aspects of this interesting hobby.

But too often I noticed that I´ve got - for example - a stunning photo of landscape with "totally wrong equipment".
So let´s stay straight here and recognize that small sensors have grown pretty good in the shadow of the big, fast an precious supercams
in the last years.

I said that landscape photography could benefit from a larger sensor, not that it is the only way it can be done. And landscape photography has nothing to do with decisive moments, unless I'm waiting for the wind to die down.

I've taken landscapes with 35mm and they were good images. I prefer to use medium format for that, however, and it would be even better in large format.

I get that APS-C is amazingly good, but that doesn't mean that no photographer will find good use for a larger sensor. Is this what you really mean to say?

- Murray

 

[Axel]

I said that landscape photography could benefit from a larger sensor, not that it is the only way it can be done. And landscape photography has nothing to do with decisive moments, unless I'm waiting for the wind to die down...

Landscape photography has a lot to do with decisive moments. They appear, for example, when light and fog or wind and clouds are in interesting arrangements. And they benefit extremly from your ability to move around finding nice perspectives...

... I prefer to use medium format for that, however, and it would be even better in large format ...

... and nothing of all that can beat the live situation!
Sometimes it happens that circumstances are even ideal to get a stunning panorama

... I get that APS-C is amazingly good, but that doesn't mean that no photographer will find good use for a larger sensor. Is this what you really mean to say? ...

Bigger is always better when it comes to sensors and motors and tits :angel:

But this thread started with a clear question from Bill and with this question in mind I have the answers I give

 

[Axel]

Perhaps it is more useful to post some pictures here what is possible with small sensors than to brood about what maybe not.

Fuji F900EXR (2013), 1/2" sensor, 25-500mm, 212g, 4.1x2.4x1.4 inches/105.1(W) x 61.0(H) x 36.0(D)mm

 

[Dogman]

I believe if that last small difference in image quality makes a big difference in your photographs then you have failed as it did not deliver your message about the subject....

Not necessarily.

Having the ability to present the subject as sharp and clear as possible is a Good Thing. It's not a requirement that you always do so.

Sometimes it's best to present the message about the subject with utmost clarity. Sometimes not.

 

[Axel]

It´s not the story about "image quality" (*** ) - it´s the story about having 350mm optics when you just can make a good use of it

 

[mich rassena]

I've been using an Olympus pen e-pm1 micro 4/3 camera every chance I get. I bought it used, for less than $100. The e-pm1 was released six years ago, so it's not exactly the latest technology.

I prefer it to my larger Nikon dSLRs. Maybe it's because it fits in a pocket with the smaller lenses, or I can put four focal lengths and the camera in a very small bag. Since money is an object, I've benefited from adapting high quality legacy manual focus lenses using cheap adapters. The only native lens for the system I own is the 15mm f/8 pancake lens. I enjoy the variety of legacy lenses available which are much more affordable than the equivalent for the Nikon system.

The only real downside is the availability of cheap, fast wide-angle lenses, though I guess that's true for every format.

The noise levels are ok, but not as good as I'd like. At low ISO, I think it's certainly comparable to my much older Nikon D80 which is APS-C, and probably quite a bit better at the higher ISOs. I do a lot of image stacking to reduce noise, which I find very satisfying, and which makes the camera do much more than its price point would indicate.

I very much like the camera's ability to digital zoom 5x to 14x in the viewing screen. I use that feature to nail critical focus.

I think I've become a much better photographer with this camera. I don't know that it's anything specific to the camera itself, but rather the fact it's so easy to carry that I use it more, and have learned better techniques.

Part of the reason I'm so happy with this system is the price point. If I hadn't bought a used camera or used lenses, I would be less satisfied. It's a remarkable system, compact and versatile, but I can't see spending $1000. There are used full-frame cameras in the price range.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

My take:

1. I think the most significant difference is high-ISO performance. In good light, I use APS or even smaller sensors, and I don't feel any compromise.

2. Depth of Field drives my choice often -- When I want lots of DOF, I use the iPhone. When I want subject isolation, bigger sensor and lens.

Bill, I like the idea of a medium sized print for judging sharpness.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I have 24x36(36MP)Nikon and APS-C Fuji.
For general 'everything in or nearly in focus' shots the APS-C is fine.
However, the APS-C seems to have a limitation on how much you can stop down the lens before softness sets in. The 24x36 seems better in this regard. Note: My lens sample size is big in 24x36(20-something lenses), but I have only 2 Fuji primes. The softness I'm seeing at f/16 could just be the Fuji lenses(14 and 23/1.4), although I doubt it.

The softness you see stopping down is caused by diffraction. As sensors have improved, that slight softness is more apparent. (You rarely saw it with film.) However, remember that you don’t have to stop down a lens on APS-C sensor as much to get the equivalent depth of field on a full frame sensor. If you are just after an equivalent depth of field the difference in image sharpness will really be caused by other factors. Don’t stop down too much and everything should be fine.

 

[Pioneer]

Sharp is good if you can get it and still get the shot.

The smaller cameras are getting pretty good. I shoot and enlarge some of my Pentax Q7 shots up to 11x14 and they turn out pretty darned good.

But I have to be careful with my framing because they do not stand up very well if I need to crop. That is where a full frame photo comes in really handy in my opinion.

But, no matter how hard I try, my small camera 8x10 prints do not look at all like my 8x10 contact prints. Size still matters if you can carry the gear.

 

[shawn]

I would agree that the APS-C is the sweet spot for digital, but still it doesn't allow me to use my vintage FF lenses properly (1.5x focal view), that is kind of a bummer.

You can though, that is what the Speedbooster and Lens Turbo II is all about. I have the LTII that I use with Nikon glass on my Fuji.

Shawn

 

[fotomeow]

You can though, that is what the Speedbooster and Lens Turbo II is all about. I have the LTII that I use with Nikon glass on my Fuji.

Shawn

You are right Shawn, what I meant was that I can't use those old primes as Full Frame, which I much prefer, b/c of the 1.5x crop factor.

 

[shawn]

You are right Shawn, what I meant was that I can't use those old primes as Full Frame, which I much prefer, b/c of the 1.5x crop factor.

The 1.5 crop factor is removed with a Speedboost or LTII adapter. That is the point, you get the typical FF FOV on a crop sensor with the benefit of more light as the adapter shrinks the FF image circle down to APS-C sized.

Boring example to show this, just shot hand held...

As a base here is the Fuji 35mm f2 (50mm FOV)

Here is a Series E Nikon 50mm with a typical adapter. Typical 1.5x crop.

Same lens with the Lens Turbo II adapter...

BTW: Ignore differences in DOF between the two 50 shots, different F stops as the glassless adapter was set to shoot wide open.

Shawn

 

[Axel]

Sharp is good if you can get it and still get the shot.

The smaller cameras are getting pretty good. I shoot and enlarge some of my Pentax Q7 shots up to 11x14 and they turn out pretty darned good ...

Yes! And carrying a small sensor compact is an ideal complement while lurking around with a rangefinder camera. Shoot like you are used to and grab the small one if an object appears that you would miss with the fixed lens / flashless whatsoever

 

[tbhv55]

You might look at Matt Black's current work. On a trip around the country for a Magnum project, he's mostly using a Sony 1" sensor camera. It's very small and looks "unprofessional" , which likely aids in his work.

The camera he's using in the Youtube video on the link, looks more like a Panasonic compact (don't know which model), than the Sony RX100 series. Not that it changes the essence of what's being discussed, of course...

 

[nightfly]

Much like with film, bigger sensors seem to provide more natural looking, richer color with less edgyness.

I don't really care much about sharpness or enlargement quality or high ISO performance but even at smaller viewing sizes, bigger sensors provide a richer look to my eyes.

I didn't really like the look of digital till I started shooting with an M9 and medium format digital looks even better to my eyes. Nothing really matches the look of Portra in a Mamiya 7, but I'm pretty much over the hassle of shooting and scanning film.

I wish this werent the case but even well regarded compacts using APS-C sensors like the GR leave me sort of cold.

 

[Nathan King]

I have a 16x20 print sitting above my fireplace from a vacation to New York several years ago. It was taken with an 18 megapixel micro 4/3 camera, and the print looks fantastic even when you stick your nose up to the glass. The only reason I moved to "full-frame" is due to the commercial architectural photography I do that necessitates perspective control lenses with wide angles of view. Yes, larger sensors offer better quality, but I can't tell at much difference at any reasonably sane print size. Plus, vacations are so much more enjoyable when you aren't lugging around a 50-pound backpack all day.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It was Canadian Thanksgiving long weekend and crowds taking fall colors pictures in our conservation areas, which are famous for it in GTA.
It is very diverse here by origins, religion and drinks preference. The only thing which was common for this weekend were cameras in use. Nothing but Canonikon DSLRs. One goof (me) with M-E and one with Hero on steady-cam and something like 8mm movie camera in the case. No Fuji, Sony, Panasonic at all... I gues, it is urban crowd

 

[Axel]

... The only thing which was common for this weekend were cameras in use. Nothing but Canonikon DSLRs. One goof (me) with M-E and one with Hero on steady-cam and something like 8mm movie camera in the case. No Fuji, Sony, Panasonic at all... I gues, it is urban crowd

Let´s guess who wins next year - more canon or nikon?
Doubtful urban structure to me (country human)

 

[ChrisPlatt]

All my "little cameras" have full frame sensors, are lightweight and very easy to operate:

http://subclub.org/shop/aps.htm

Chris