Bill Pierce
Well-known
When it comes to sensor size, is bigger better? As a rule, full frame sensors mean bigger cameras and bigger lenses. A smaller APS-c camera equipped with smaller lenses is going to be a more discreet street camera and a more convenient keep-it-with-me camera for family and travel shots. And for sports, birds and wildlife (which could include the family pet), you can achieve an effective reach with a physically smaller lens. And with the improvement in sensor technology that has become readily available in the digital cameras of the last years, you will have no problem in producing high quality prints. Remember, we are talking prints, large or cropped, because unless you have a very, very large monitor, on screen you will not see the difference between APS-c and full frame.
There is one sensor size difference often written about that I find over emphasized. The importance that the smaller sensor gives macro photographers greater depth-of-field and the larger sensors gives portrait photographers shallower depth-of-field at the same f/-stop seems a little exaggerated when you can stop down, use a tilt-shift lens or focus stacking with your full frame camera and an f/1 lens with your APS-c camera.
But, of course, the same improvement in APS-c sensors is available in full frame sensors. Where does this pay off? Just to be a grouch, let me point out that it only pays off when all the other components of image quality are also optimized.
The Leica Q2 has a lens that when the camera is used at a high shutter speed or on a tripod or even with its shake reduction settings will allow you to crop significantly into the image and still make a good print. This and the relatively small size lets it compete with the APS-c cameras in the street and vacation work places (Can you have a vacation work place?) at the same time it can be used full frame for extremely sharp and detailed large prints of landscape and architectural work.
Now, in part, that ability to crop comes from the fact that the Q2 has a lot of pixels, 47.3 megapixels. That means smaller megapixels and should mean more noise. But in truth the noise and tonal range is not that different from the original Q with its lesser megapixels. Current full frame offers a blend of croppability and image quality.
If you look at the megapixel king, the Sony A7R IV at 61 megapixels, its noise and range levels are not that far behind those of the A7R III’s bigger pixels, certainly not enough to impair its low light shooting significantly. The claims that cameras like this don’t work well with lenses designed in the days of lesser megapixels is nonsense. That print is going to look just as good as it always did. If you are lucky, it may look a little better. But your new full framer combined with careful technique is going to show off that Apo-Lanthar or Loxia lens more than the full frames of yesteryear. It’s sort of like Edward Weston using a digital camera instead of an 8x10. And, for the money makers, it’s like using an 8x10 in the studio. It’s not necessary, but it sure is impressive- and fun.
When I was shooting film, 35mm earned the money and large format was fun. Today APS-c is the workhorse and full frame is the fun.
As always - your thoughts?
There is one sensor size difference often written about that I find over emphasized. The importance that the smaller sensor gives macro photographers greater depth-of-field and the larger sensors gives portrait photographers shallower depth-of-field at the same f/-stop seems a little exaggerated when you can stop down, use a tilt-shift lens or focus stacking with your full frame camera and an f/1 lens with your APS-c camera.
But, of course, the same improvement in APS-c sensors is available in full frame sensors. Where does this pay off? Just to be a grouch, let me point out that it only pays off when all the other components of image quality are also optimized.
The Leica Q2 has a lens that when the camera is used at a high shutter speed or on a tripod or even with its shake reduction settings will allow you to crop significantly into the image and still make a good print. This and the relatively small size lets it compete with the APS-c cameras in the street and vacation work places (Can you have a vacation work place?) at the same time it can be used full frame for extremely sharp and detailed large prints of landscape and architectural work.
Now, in part, that ability to crop comes from the fact that the Q2 has a lot of pixels, 47.3 megapixels. That means smaller megapixels and should mean more noise. But in truth the noise and tonal range is not that different from the original Q with its lesser megapixels. Current full frame offers a blend of croppability and image quality.
If you look at the megapixel king, the Sony A7R IV at 61 megapixels, its noise and range levels are not that far behind those of the A7R III’s bigger pixels, certainly not enough to impair its low light shooting significantly. The claims that cameras like this don’t work well with lenses designed in the days of lesser megapixels is nonsense. That print is going to look just as good as it always did. If you are lucky, it may look a little better. But your new full framer combined with careful technique is going to show off that Apo-Lanthar or Loxia lens more than the full frames of yesteryear. It’s sort of like Edward Weston using a digital camera instead of an 8x10. And, for the money makers, it’s like using an 8x10 in the studio. It’s not necessary, but it sure is impressive- and fun.
When I was shooting film, 35mm earned the money and large format was fun. Today APS-c is the workhorse and full frame is the fun.
As always - your thoughts?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Guess proportionately I’m in the same boat as you Bill, but if we’re strictly talking digital, full-frame is the commercial workhorse (Nikon Z7) and medium format (Hasselblad 907x) is the ‘fun’, yet I take the ‘fun’ work as seriously as the paying work, so I don’t even know that ‘fun’ is the right word. ‘Personal’ work I think is a better term.
I never have used APS-C, so I can’t weigh in on its merits. I would say, however, that I’m sure that 99% of what I shoot for clients remains digital (having said that, I think I have a series of ads that are going to appear in the Washington Post soon, so we’ll see how they turn out), so ‘print quality’ doesn’t necessarily enter my clients’ minds. TIFF files seem almost alien to many of them.
Other ‘fun’ is even larger than the 907x - 6x13cm glass plate, 4.5x6cm glass plate, 127 film and 120 film. I find them much more interesting than the Z7, though the Z7 is a great camera. So I guess yes, the ‘workhorse’ is smaller relative to these other ‘fun’ formats.
I never have used APS-C, so I can’t weigh in on its merits. I would say, however, that I’m sure that 99% of what I shoot for clients remains digital (having said that, I think I have a series of ads that are going to appear in the Washington Post soon, so we’ll see how they turn out), so ‘print quality’ doesn’t necessarily enter my clients’ minds. TIFF files seem almost alien to many of them.
Other ‘fun’ is even larger than the 907x - 6x13cm glass plate, 4.5x6cm glass plate, 127 film and 120 film. I find them much more interesting than the Z7, though the Z7 is a great camera. So I guess yes, the ‘workhorse’ is smaller relative to these other ‘fun’ formats.
Archiver
Veteran
For me, micro four thirds is the video workhorse and full frame is for fun. The smaller sensor and accompanying longer depth of field makes focusing easier than with full frame.
For stills, full frame is the workhorse and micro four thirds is for fun, because full frame gives the kind of tonal range, dynamic range and depth of field control that I want for paid stills. Micro four thirds is significantly lighter and more compact, and delivers within personal thresholds of acceptability. Mind you, I also shoot the M9 for some paid work, haha.
For stills, full frame is the workhorse and micro four thirds is for fun, because full frame gives the kind of tonal range, dynamic range and depth of field control that I want for paid stills. Micro four thirds is significantly lighter and more compact, and delivers within personal thresholds of acceptability. Mind you, I also shoot the M9 for some paid work, haha.
I use both APSC and FF Interchangeably and don’t see huge differences… at the same megapixels. Anything smaller in sensor size I haven’t found to be as versatile. I will soon add a Fuji medium format … just because I want to use something different than a 2:3 ratio and i want a slow tripod camera.
Everything I do is for fun because I don’t sell a enough prints or books to even pretend I don’t do this for fun.
Everything I do is for fun because I don’t sell a enough prints or books to even pretend I don’t do this for fun.
Dogman
Veteran
Like John, I use FF and APS-C interchangeably. Both satisfy my needs, both do creditable jobs for my fun-only shooting. I also have M4/3 cameras but I haven't used them in years. They're great for long lenses but I hardly ever use telephotos these days.
I'm enchanted by the Q2 Monochrome, actually by all Leica Monochromes. Enchanted, not tempted. Too expensive for my income level. I'll stick to poor man's monochrome--shooting B&W on my standard digitals.
I'm enchanted by the Q2 Monochrome, actually by all Leica Monochromes. Enchanted, not tempted. Too expensive for my income level. I'll stick to poor man's monochrome--shooting B&W on my standard digitals.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Who really needs prints these days?
Rather than sales, which is often not about good photography but craft and trade or exhibitions, which are very politicized these days and not about photography, either.
I print for very odd reasons, which masses don't care for.
Cropping photos because camera has dozens of megapixels is for losers, IMO.
In camera crop mode to have 35/50 on top of 28 is cute.
APS-C is workhorse and FF is fun? Half-nonsense, IMO.
Our daughter purchased Canon 5D MK II with new shutter from working photog.
To use it for work.
My ex client traded two Canon 5D MK II for one Fuji dMF camera to be able to meet demand for big prints which are in use as decor in costum finished living interiors.
Toronto Star photog with last name Russel is luging around three nine years old 1dx with over one million shutter actuations at each of them and huge zooms.
Yet, I still see a lot of people with aps-c DSLR just taken pictures as I take with 1/1.7 GRD III.
Leica and street... Leica Camera AG has rendered it as oxymoron. It is priced for rich. I never seen rich making good street photos. Sorry. To be rich, you have to be gifted and spend time for else. Vacay with Q2 is not giving street pictures. Dmitry Markov with iPhone who is living poor, but volontiring for orphans does. By his iPhone and his soul not sold for money.
Working photogs and street with Leica is getting very rare these days as well.
For obvious reasons. Outdated and slow Leica Camera AG service is one of them.
Rather than sales, which is often not about good photography but craft and trade or exhibitions, which are very politicized these days and not about photography, either.
I print for very odd reasons, which masses don't care for.
Cropping photos because camera has dozens of megapixels is for losers, IMO.
In camera crop mode to have 35/50 on top of 28 is cute.
APS-C is workhorse and FF is fun? Half-nonsense, IMO.
Our daughter purchased Canon 5D MK II with new shutter from working photog.
To use it for work.
My ex client traded two Canon 5D MK II for one Fuji dMF camera to be able to meet demand for big prints which are in use as decor in costum finished living interiors.
Toronto Star photog with last name Russel is luging around three nine years old 1dx with over one million shutter actuations at each of them and huge zooms.
Yet, I still see a lot of people with aps-c DSLR just taken pictures as I take with 1/1.7 GRD III.
Leica and street... Leica Camera AG has rendered it as oxymoron. It is priced for rich. I never seen rich making good street photos. Sorry. To be rich, you have to be gifted and spend time for else. Vacay with Q2 is not giving street pictures. Dmitry Markov with iPhone who is living poor, but volontiring for orphans does. By his iPhone and his soul not sold for money.
Working photogs and street with Leica is getting very rare these days as well.
For obvious reasons. Outdated and slow Leica Camera AG service is one of them.
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
Fuji X Pro2 is my fun workhorse. 
Doug A
Well-known
Digital is the workhorse. Film is fun.
farlymac
PF McFarland
It's all fun, even while I was working.
PF
PF
JeffS7444
Well-known
Today with even top FF cameras being relatively small and lightweight, I think "serious" and "casual-use" is more a matter of the lenses you choose.
With Olympus, I've got the petite 17/2.8 pancake, and also the 17/1.2 Zuiko Pro: The former is a pleasant compromise which is sharpest and brightest in the center of the image, while the latter is perfectionist-grade, at several times the price, size and weight. Sometimes the smaller lens is just what I want, and sometimes it ain't.
With Olympus, I've got the petite 17/2.8 pancake, and also the 17/1.2 Zuiko Pro: The former is a pleasant compromise which is sharpest and brightest in the center of the image, while the latter is perfectionist-grade, at several times the price, size and weight. Sometimes the smaller lens is just what I want, and sometimes it ain't.
agentlossing
Well-known
There is no workhorse vs. fun division for me. I thought there was, bought the Pentax KP and a big f2.8 zoom with the mindset that when family, friends wanted me to shoot some things in particular, or I needed to take a photo in a way that couldn't be served by any of my primes, I'd have it. However, I sold off the zoom and am considering selling the KP as well. I gravitate to primes and to small bodies, that's all there is to it, and if it means somewhat poorer low-light ability and less resolution from my EM5 mark ii, or the fixed 28mm-equiv on my GRIII, then I'll just work around it. I voluntarily give up some capabilities because while they may "work" I'd rather have "fun" with something that speaks to the way I want to shoot. 0% of my income comes from photography.
Archiver
Veteran
I have all three of the Olympus f1.8 and f1.2 primes, and agree with you about choosing between them for fun and 'serious'. There are times when I want tiny lenses and the image quality and rendering is fine, other times when I want the best image quality and that kind of rendering, not to mention the control of the Pro primes with snap-back focus ring.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
When I was shooting film, 35mm earned the money and 35mm format was fun. Today full frame (35mm) is the workhorse and full frame (35mm) is the fun.
In other words nothing has changed; except today's digital output gives me better results than ever before - especially compared to any output film would produce.