Little Cameras

Bob Michaels said:
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.

Only exception is if your objective was to impress other photographers about your lenses, your ability to focus and hold a camera steady, and your post processing skills but not about the subject of your photos.
Click to expand...

Bang on Bob!
 
As I'm reading this it occurs to me that nearly half of my professional career now has been using (mostly) APS-C (aka 'DX') digital sensors.

From 1985-2001 it was all 35mm, 6X6, 6X7 and some very limited 4X5 shooting (almost all 35mm 70s era minoltas and then Nikons once I got out of the Army, but the military had us shooting mostly 220 VPS stock in Hassy's or RB67's.)

I went full on digital (APS-C) in early 2002 when the Nikon D100 hit the market at $2500 body only and 256MB CF cards were still nearly $1/MB.

MANY digital cameras since, but only a short stint with an excellent D700 until I realised that I don't NEED 'FX' format...for 99.99% of what MY clients want, APS-C has been just fine. For 'fun' even my iPhone and Fuji X-20 produce results that I'm consistently complimented on. Tiny Fuji bodies with their excellent XF (and XC!) lenses just 'fit' my style of shooting. It's a great time to be a photographer!
 
I generally use Fuji X cameras and have figured out that APSC is actually useful for my photography due to the increase in depth of field. Can I use FF? Yes. Do I feel inadequate without it? No.

The Sony RX100 series is pretty good for what it is. You get an EVF and, for me, one other feature that makes these cameras friendly. The MR mode remembers all of your previous settings from when you turn off the camera ... INCLUDING focal length! Generally, these compacts reset to the widest focal length setting each time you turn off the camera. As a person who prefers a 50mm the most, this is annoying. With the Sony, the problem is solved. I'm currently in search of another one. As far as if 1" sensors are good enough... that is certainly a personal decision as to what you expect from your camera and for your work. Basically, what can you get away with compromise wise coupled with what you expect your photographs to look like. While I don't like photography solely about technical concerns, I don't for a minute think that technical concerns do not matter. Sensor size is a technical concern. You choose what works best for you.
 
Axel100 said:
No I wouldn´t.
Why should we?
Click to expand...

Why? Because in the film days many pro photographers used the 35mm film cameras (Leica, Nikon, Canon...) for their works, like many Nat Geo photographers and the quality was up to the required standard.
It seems me that this standard can be achieved by the APS-C cameras, as from the OP starting post.

You say no because of image quality or any other reasons?

robert
 
nightfly said:
Much like with film, bigger sensors seem to provide more natural looking, richer color with less edgyness.
..,
Click to expand...

Increasing or decreasing sensor surface area has no effect on color rendering as long as the S/N ratio for the raw data is identical in both cases.

However, the light transmission properties of lens coatings, the sensor cover glass and (most of all) the color-filter array filters play significant roles in color rendering.

Color rendering is inconveniently complex as a great number of variables come into play. Sensor surface are is not one of them.
 
robert blu said:
Can we summarize saying that today's APS-C is the equivalent of 35mm in the film days?
robert
Click to expand...



  • The advantages and disadvantages of APS-C are different than 24 X 36 mm sensors.
  • The lens plays a significant role. So, summaries that ignore the role of lenses are incomplete.

In many practical, common cases, both APS-C and 135 format sensors can produce identical results. In some situations, the larger sensor is more flexible.
 
robert blu said:
Why? Because in the film days many pro photographers used the 35mm film cameras (Leica, Nikon, Canon...) for their works, like many Nat Geo photographers and the quality was up to the required standard.
It seems me that this standard can be achieved by the APS-C cameras, as from the OP starting post.

You say no because of image quality or any other reasons?

robert
Click to expand...

No because there is a digital 24x36 format. "Pros" today use a lot and I just don´t see something like a standard anymore.

The only left rule from the old film times I see is that increasing sensor size gives increasing possibilities in low light and resolution.

The market "gives" us endless APS-C bodies and systems for low prices.
But nevertheless my APS-C and FullFormat cams stay at home most of the time.
The smaller ones do it easier and mostly on par with the bulkies for me meanwhile.
 
Thanks Axel100 for your clarification and willie 901 for your remarks.

Of course increased sensor size gives better possibilities in low light, I know being an happy user of the m10 !
Nevertheless smaller formats are not so bad...

robert
 
robert blu said:
Can we summarize saying that today's APS-C is the equivalent of 35mm in the film days?
robert
Click to expand...

If you mean by its ubiquity as the default format for photography, then I might be willing to agree with the idea. But on the other hand, these days the majority of photography happens using a phone. Though I guess you could relate that to the Instamatic instead.
 
Here’s a piece by a working pro who has switched from full frame (Nikon) to APS-C (Fuji). It’s lengthy and, initially, you may think his criteria don’t apply to you. He’s a nature photographer, and hiking with lighter gear is important to him. But, when he begins to talk about image quality, you can see that much of what he is discussing applies to many of us. After all, it’s image quality that has always made photographers look to larger formats in both film and digital. This is an intelligent piece from a working pro who wants to make good pictures and has taken the time to look at a variety of gear. He clearly has nothing derogatory to say about full frame, but some very interesting comments on APS-C both for professional work and the sheer fun of walking around taking personal pictures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cbc6qJoyCM
 
I remember P.O.T.N. member from 2008-2009, who was paid pro photographer and who was giving no bull about FF. He used couple of Canon 40D and images were great and here is nothing wrong with them even now.

So, why I was seeing people hiking this weekend with DSLRs only? Partially because it is still easy to get descent AF NiB lens for DSLR and pay well under two hundred dollars.
My wife, was saying me - have you seen this lady, she has huge lens attached?
I was ready to buy A7 several times. High ISO, small. It is great for family pictures. But Sony lenses sucks by its price and some of Sony lenses sucks by performance. Where are some cheap alternatives for AF with Sony, but it sucks even more. Adapter thing for Canon FF EOS lenses? Big lenses on small body required grip to be able to work pro. So, no size, weight advantage.

Why some still prefers FF? Lenses. Crop factor sucks, IMO, with FF lenses. And Canonikon makes better lenses for FF.

Leica allows like nobody else use of film lenses, since less crop factor M8 to FF M10.
I have five dollars 28 2.8 lens on M8 and image quality was great. The lens weight was something like 25 grams while made from metal and glass. Now I have another tiny 28mm lens also metal and glass from 1963 on M-E and it is funky lens indeed. Leica makes it sharp enough and Leica makes great colors from this old, tiny lens. And it is 28mm wide, no corners smearing, no color shifts FF.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I wonder if all those famous name photographers worry about the size of their sensor the way people here do.
Click to expand...

No, they don't have time for that.

They are too busy working on marketing and networking with clients and influencers just to keep their heads above water.

Then there's the endless task of burning through assistants and interns to keep payroll as low as possible.
 
I just came back from a few days in Singapore with the 'obsolete' Canon S120 -a true 'pocket' camera of days gone bye. Sometimes, the best camera is the one that fits in your pocket...
 
willie_901 said:
No, they don't have time for that.

They are too busy working on marketing and networking with clients and influencers just to keep their heads above water.

Then there's the endless task of burning through assistants and interns to keep payroll as low as possible.
Click to expand...


I agree .
I`ve never thought that what the famous or professional photographers do is any kind of benchmark for the majority of amateur photographers .

On the other hand the premise is correct sensor size in the absolute sense doesn`t matter but neither does many of the parameters often discussed on this board.

They can matter though if you want them to and you aren`t burdened by the constraints of having to make a living out of taking pictures.

I use both full frame and crop sensor cameras.
 
It's the lenses…

It's the lenses…

I think the biggest disappointment with APS-C DSLRs is the fact that Canon and Nikon never really developed a full line of appropriately sized lenses to match the bodies and sensors. Take Nikon, for example: apart from the 18–55 kit lenses and the companion telephoto zooms, the choices are still pretty limited. You have the wide zooms (the early-2000s 12–24mm, the circa-2010 10–24mm, and the recent 10–20mm), the 35mm f/1.8 DX, and the 85mm Macro VR. There's the 17–55mm f/2.8 that was introduced about 15 years ago and isn't exactly a small lens. That's pretty much it. There has never been any "high end" DX telephoto zoom, wide prime, or portrait lens.
Then, along come Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic with their APS-C and Micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras with their full lines of APPROPRIATELY SIZED lenses for their smaller format cameras. No wonder they are doing so well.
Personally, I would love to see a true DSLR sort of like a downsized Df but with an APS-C sensor and an appropriately sized set of prime lenses. Sort of like an XT-2, but with a mirror and an optical viewfinder.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
All my "little cameras" have full frame sensors, are lightweight and very easy to operate:

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

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,

For your description of the Olympus XA, you may want to change "Film speeds of 25-1000" to "Film speeds of 25-800." I wish it could go to 1600 or even 3200, even at the cost of lower film speeds, but...

For your description of the XA3, you may want to elaborate a bit. It's an XA-2 with DX coded film support.

You're making me lust for a Minolta TC-1 - stop it! :D

Others:

After spending the better part of the day as the "official" photographer for a car show last Saturday, I'm reminded why I hate lugging around 2 Nikon D300 bodies with MB-D10 grips - one with a Tokina 17-50/2.8 and the other with my 70-200/2.8 Nikkor. Even with a "Cotton Carrier" to distribute the load, my shoulders were sore that evening and the next day. I really want smaller cameras. Something about the size of my XA but without a "Pinocchio" lens like most compacts would be nice. (I have a Nikon 1 V1, but image quality is lacking).

However, I also see the advantage to bigger sensors - the same advantage I found when I moved from 35mm to a Mamiya RB67 20 years ago - larger format requires longer lenses. This makes it a lot easier to use selective focus to help draw attention to our subjects. (Note - I'm not a bokeh-whore, but it's nice when I can use selective focus to counter a distractingly busy background).

I used to think that larger sensors also meant higher ISO capability. However, now that we have 24MPixel APS-C size sensors that can render noise free images at 5-digit ISOs, that argument has become moot. How much more do we really need for "available darkness" photography?

I have a 40x60 print from a 6MPixel Nikon D70S. I see nothing in the details of the image to complain about. Another photographer I used to work with had an 8' tall banner made from a 12 MPixel D700, where, again, there was no pixilation or other artifacts on the image even when examined close up. Professional printers must be using tremendous computer algorithms to up-res the files, which for me negates the need for super-high resolution sensors. 99% of the images I output actually get de-res'ed for sharing on the Internet. Even my old Olympus C2100UZ (the "UZi") is overkill for the Internet (and I have some fine 8x10 prints from that lowly 2MPixel sensor).

In the end, it's always a compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom