Reichman says N.Americans wedded to their big DSLRs and...

....that you are better off with less noticeable m4/3rds and smaller systems in some cases.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

 

yes. Don't forget that Reichman also argued strongly that he was
getting better results from an APS-c Canon D30, at about 3mp - than he
could get from colour film.
The problem with this present argument from him is that he considers
format - APS-c vs (u)4/3 and hardware size as a consequence of format,
when the reality is that the offerings of u4/3 from Panasonic (and to a
lesser degree Olympus) are simply better than what's offered in APS-c,
because only Sony are in the mirrorless APS-c game seriously (and
they're a general gadget maker - not a camera specialist*), Canon's
efforts are hapless, and Nikon hasn't made any visible effort at all.
*OK - Panasonic are also a general gadget maker, but the quality of
their gadgets is in general, a class or two above Sony - at least in the
past decade.

 

This fellow seems to have done OK with a 30x45 enlargement:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brb_photography/8450227030/in/set-72157629928336655

I guess 100 original pixels to the inch is acceptable when the print is
that large, and being viewed from a bit further away.

Check out the Olympus offerings--the 45 and 75mm primes seem to be the
favorites for portraits, and I have heard nothing but good about the
"pro" grade 12-40mm zoom. A companion "pro" grade 40-150mm is supposed
to come out soon.

 

He does go on to stay he believes the new FF Sony's will have the m4/3 people looking over their shoulders, but I think he and others are missing a critical point when it comes to these new, more compact designs and perhaps DSLRs and that is the lack of high-quality slower lenses. The moment someone thinks about better lenses, speed has to automatically go hand-in-hand and that kills the idea of compactness. It's ludicrous. You see m4/3rd shooters crowing about how compact their systems are, then in the same breath demanding f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms. There are a couple examples of where compactness has really paid-off (Pentax's 2 40mm primes, Panasonic's 14mm) but they are few and far between. Really high-quality f/4.0-5.6 zooms would be a good idea as would f/2.0 to f/4.0 primes.

 

Maybe we didn't read the same link?

"APS-C will find itself monkey-in-the-middle, and MFT may find that its
calling card, smaller size and lighter weight, has effectively disappeared.
The new generation of small Full Frame systems will always carry a premium
price, because large sensors will always remain more expensive to
manufacture. But I believe that even that disparity will shrink, just as
Full Frame cameras and lenses are now doing."

Basically, FF is becoming available in smaller bodies, which makes APS-C
and MFT redundant, because size were their only advantage.

My Sony RX1 takes fantastic images and is as small as most compact cameras.
Prices will drop and no one will buy APS-C/MFT when (if?) they do.

 

On 10/02/2014 08:02, Sandman wrote:
[]

I certainly hope that I will not be forced into buying full-frame. the
size of APS-C cameras is a major advantage, since it not only applied to
the cameras but the lenses as well, and the reduction in weight if quite
significant for some of us. I did look at MFT but, surprisingly, it was
not significantly smaller and light than APS-C. When I tried a 28-300
mm full-frame lens (equivalent to the 18-200 I often use), it was much
too heavy for me.

Appreciate that others may spend more time at the gym! <G>

 

On 10/02/2014 10:03, Savageduck wrote:
[]

Looks good, but what an awful Web site! I couldn't find a
"specifications" page so I could compare the weight to my D5200. I
expect the lenses would be similar in size and weight - maybe a little
smaller. Mostly I use 18-200, sometimes 16-85, sometimes the Tamron
10-24, and rarely the 35/1.8. All DX. Would be expensive to have to
buy all those (or similar) again.

 

The RX1 has a fixed 35/2 lens and is mirrorless, so it's smaller than most
APS-C SLR's and rival many MFT cameras in size.

The 50/1.4 lens for my Nikon is quite slim as well. No one would need to be
at the gym to carry this with them.

Sure, there are some wide angle lenses that are quite large, but usually
it's because they want a large aperture, not only due to the fact that
they're FF.

 

No doubt will you save size and weight with a mirrorless APS-C camera like
the X-Pro1, but the lenses themselves aren't exactly tiny unless you stick
with the 27mm or 35mm lenses. All telezoom's are pretty huge, like the
55-200. Even the 56mm prime is quite large.

So, unless you stick with the pancake-style 27mm lens, you still have a
lens that builds 76mm to the 42mm body.

The Sony A7 is full frame and 48mm thick and the 55mm lens is 71mm long.

Granted, there aren't enough FF E-mount lenses right now to be comparable,
but that'll change.

The Nikon DF, which probably is out of the price range for someone looking
at the X-Pro1, is "only" 66mm thick, and that's with a mirror!

And, the Leica M is only 42mm thick, mirrorless and full format, so it's
not like the size of the X-Pro1 is inherent to it being APS-C, but the
price is, of course. At least for now.

 

It's about 100 grams lighter. Your 5200 weighs 505g and the Fujifilm X-Pro1
weighs 400g, both weights are without battery.

Not as much as you would like.

You have a Fujinon 55-200/3.5-4.8 lens for the Fujifilm camera, which is
75x118mm and weih 580g

On your Nikon, your Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 lens is 84x73mm and weigh 423g so
you've basically earned back the weight advantage of the Fujifilm right
there.

Comparable would be the Fujinon 18-55/2.8-4 which is 65x71mm at 310g to
your Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 which is 72x85mm and weigh 485g, so here Fujinon
"wins".

Which is 83x87mm at 370g, no real comparable product for the Fujifilm that
I could find...

The APS 35mm is tiny at 70x53mm and 200g, but the Fujinon is 65x55mm at
187g.

Indeed.

 

On 10/02/2014 12:59, Savageduck wrote:
[]

Thanks. So the weight is not a lot less than the Nikon (19.58 oz), and
it doesn't have the lens (or lenses) I've become accustomed to using. I
recall similar issues when I looked at micro 4/3 - not a lot lighter and
limited lens range compared to Nikon or Canon. Oh well, maybe another year?

 

Thanks for the information, however I don't see how a 55-200 is in any
way equivalent to an 18-200! OK, they have the same maximum focal
length, but with the Fuji I would have to carry round /two/ lenses, not
one, and I would miss shots having to chance lenses. My style of
photography tends to be more "targets of opportunity" rather than
pre-planned.

When it comes down to it, at the moment at least, Nikon (and likely
Canon) have a very well optimised of APS-C cameras and lens range. What
I actually find more and more, is that the quality of images taken
either by my iPad or Android 'phone is "good enough" (for posting on
Twitter, for example), and those are cameras I will have with me more
often than not. It's becoming a "photo trip" when I take the DSLR. Oh,
and both those devices upload to my home PC with DropBox, but not the DSLR.

 

On 10/02/2014 08:02, Sandman wrote:
: []
: > Basically, FF is becoming available in smaller bodies, which makes APS-C
: > and MFT redundant, because size were their only advantage.
: >
: > My Sony RX1 takes fantastic images and is as small as most compact cameras.
: > Prices will drop and no one will buy APS-C/MFT when (if?) they do.
:
: I certainly hope that I will not be forced into buying full-frame. the
: size of APS-C cameras is a major advantage, since it not only applied to
: the cameras but the lenses as well, and the reduction in weight if quite
: significant for some of us. I did look at MFT but, surprisingly, it was
: not significantly smaller and light than APS-C. When I tried a 28-300
: mm full-frame lens (equivalent to the 18-200 I often use), it was much
: too heavy for me.

I basically agree. I do indoor event photography; and if you're juggling two
cameras (pretty much a must for that type of work, IMO), size and weight are
important. But what worries me about the future of APS-C is manufacturers'
apparent failure to support their APS-C cameras with professional-quality
lenses. Canon makes a very decent mid-range zoom, the 17-55mm f/2.8. (It's
even stabilized, while their very expensive FF mid-range zoom isn't.) But if
you need something longer on your other camera (and who doesn't?), you have to
either step up to the FF 70-200, leaving a 15mm coverage gap, or settle for
the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. The Sigma lens gets very good reviews, but it isn't a
Canon L, and it hasn't been around long enough to prove that it can stand up
to the wear and tear.

I don't know much about Nikon's product line, but I suspect that the situation
is similar. I know that they make a good 70-200; I'm not aware that they have
a constant-aperture 50-150.

So I find myself vowing to buy only FF-capable lenses from now on, just in
case APS-C dies out or is relegated to mirrorless cameras (and lenses) only.
It seems like the prudent thing to do.

Bob

 

On 14/02/2014 02:24, Robert Coe wrote:
[]

Bob, perhaps if one is doing professional photography, it's not
unreasonable to use professional kit - in a very broad brush sense - and
I can see that that might imply full-frame body and lenses. I'm a hobby
photographer, so the results from "amateur" lenses (using it in its
worst meaning) suffice for me. Yes, I can see why you would want larger
aperture lenses, but could you manage by turning up the ISO instead, or
is small depth of field also important?

I think that APS-C will be around as long as I will, but I do see the
sense in buying only full-frame lenses. If I was taking that long a
term viewpoint, I might be more tempted towards micro-4/3!