Once in a while....

[olifaunt]

Well, I don't find the "sweet spot" argument in the article convincing; I'd say it will soon be outdated, but it is -not even- outdated because you can have very small inexpensive full-frame cameras if you use film, and you automatically get the kind of image that many APS-C digital cameras nowadays try (quite unsuccessfully IMO) to "simulate."

 

[jsrockit]

But the resulting increase in file size going to "full frame" will require another computer system upgrade, thus driving up the total cost.

Are you sure of this? How old is your computer?

 

[jsrockit]

Well, I don't find the "sweet spot" argument in the article convincing; I'd say it will soon be outdated, but it is -not even- outdated because you can have very small inexpensive full-frame cameras if you use film, and you automatically get the kind of image that many APS-C digital cameras nowadays try (quite unsuccessfully IMO) to "simulate."

Huh? Care to expand on this?

 

[Axel]

...and you automatically get the kind of image that many APS-C digital cameras nowadays try (quite unsuccessfully IMO) to "simulate."

I don´t understand this.
Could you show examples to explain what you wrote?

 

[olifaunt]

Huh? Care to expand on this?

I mean some of the most popular APS-C cameras are from Fuji; in large part their popularity derives from the film simulations. If not Fuji, you have to do something equivalent with expensive post-processing software to get something pleasing-looking. You can get smaller film cameras for much cheaper that don't have to simulate a film look. 😉

So maybe "sweet spot when arbitrarily limiting oneself to digital," not "sweet spot."

 

[Axel]

I can do all necessary modifications to my photos with GIMP.
Even to give my Sonypics the look that my Fujis produce.
And there is a filter set available from G´MIC also wich has every look of nearly all ever produced films.

No costs for both.
Cheaper than film 😛

 

[jsrockit]

I mean some of the most popular APS-C cameras are from Fuji; in large part their popularity derives from the film simulations.

Well, I guess for some... but I use RAW and I like Fuji because of the classic controls. I don't care about emulating film. But I get your point now.

If not Fuji, you have to do something equivalent with expensive post-processing software to get something pleasing-looking. You can get smaller film cameras for much cheaper that don't have to simulate a film look. 😉

I honestly do not try to get a film look... I just use Digital in its own way. Post processing is no different than darkroom work... trying to make your image look the way you want.

So maybe "sweet spot when arbitrarily limiting oneself to digital," not "sweet spot."

They are all capable tools...

 

[Dogman]

I'm not a fan of Fuji's colors. Never have been, even when I was using film. But I do like Fuji's cameras, especially the X-Pro2.

 

[farlymac]

Are you sure of this? How old is your computer?

It's not exactly ancient, but it was under powered the day I ordered it. I tried to fit a 17" screen into my budget, and came away with a Intel Core i3. I've only got 42% capacity left on the hard drive, and can tell the machine is slowing down. This despite the fact that Microsoft did a really bang-up job of removing all my image files during one of it's big updates, then I went cheap on a replacement hard drive and only got the 500gb instead of a 1tb.



So I really don't have much of a choice but to get some expanded storage, or switch back to a desktop. I kind of hate the screen on this machine anyways, and the way open windows will disappear because I accidentally dragged a thumb over the mouse pad.


But I've recently had to replace my vehicle, so I'm stuck with payments on that for another five years, plus there are other obligations I need to take care of before spending more money on photography.


But I'm an optimist at heart, and will try to find a way to make it all work out.



PF

 

[Godfrey]

I mean some of the most popular APS-C cameras are from Fuji; in large part their popularity derives from the film simulations. If not Fuji, you have to do something equivalent with expensive post-processing software to get something pleasing-looking. You can get smaller film cameras for much cheaper that don't have to simulate a film look. 😉

So maybe "sweet spot when arbitrarily limiting oneself to digital," not "sweet spot."

I have zero interest in emulating film. If I want what film offers, I shoot with film cameras; I've got plenty of them and use them regularly. Digital capture offers far more capability in many circumstances.

I'm am interested in producing excellent photographs. That's all.

G

 

[Photog9000]

When I was shooting for pay (news and the odd commercial gig), the last "pro" camera I had was a pair of 4.1MP Nikon D2H bodies. I did a shoot for a real estate developer's new venture. I ran across him again several months later when he hired me for a shoot at another location. He told me that his marketing agency had used one of the images for a billboard. They had used the middle portion of the APS-C 4.1MP TIFF file and enlarged it to roughly 6 FEET x 12 FEET. At normal viewing distance for a billboard, I was amazed that the image was fine for the use. 'Course this is back when it was all about megapixels. I was thinking at the time I wanted to go 'fullframe' with the then new D3 but after seeing the billboard I could not justify the costs. I am still shooting APS-C (Fuji X100s) and blowing up images to 12" x 18" which is all I need.

 

[shimokita]

I recently did a comparison test...

The photos below were shot from the same point using a Canon 5DII with 35mm lens and a Fuji x100t with APS-C sensor and 23mm lens (35mm equivalent). Both photos at f/2.8 and ISO 200 in AP mode (note: Canon rendered 2 stops darker than the Fuji x100t). In both cases the focus point was the "W".

Canon 5DII (FF sensor) with 35mm lens

Fuji x100t (APS-C sensor) with 23mm lens (35mm equiv.)

Casey