« Lunatic | Main | Quote o' the Day: Lee »

Saturday, 24 November 2018


First, you're too much the curmudgeon to be a true liberal. Too independent.

But I agree about the mirrorless breathlessness. I've had mirrorless cameras, and loved them. There are a couple-three advantages. But size isn't really one of them, since things can get too small, and good lenses for digital aren't small. The EVF experience varies widely---a really good one is fine, but otherwise....Certainly we don't seem to be seeing those reduced manufacturing costs so many were touting. For video there are advantages, although live view seems to be just as good to me, having shot video with DSLR's and mirrorless cameras.

So, I'm back into DSLR terrain, go figure. Mirrorless hasn't yet done anything to make DSLR's obsolete, that I can see.

But if I had to get back into FFM, it's Sony for sure.

I would get none of them. I am interested in small, hand carried cameras (but not cell phones), exclusively.
BTW, I do drive a pick-up, a Toyota King Cab, bought in 1989. It is my only vehicle.

Please be careful, HUAC may still be hiding in some secret government department!

I blame the acceptance of the awful description ‘full frame’. Who wants something that is now considered less than full? The new trick is to call anything bigger than full frame ‘medium format’ (not to be confused with medium format film sizes). It’s now the luxury SUV segment for those who don’t want to be seen in some pedestrian SUV. I think the smaller-than-full frame cameras won’t take off until there’s some cool new description, i.e., the sports car (or exotic car for the luxury small version) equivalent in the camera world.

If the LUMIX S1R offers 4:3 as one of its aspect ratio options, It’ll move to the top of my list, despite my already owning a number of Nikon lenses that would be lovely on a Z7.

But why FFM at all (vs. the GX8 and D810 I currently use)? I think of it as being like M43, plus more easily limited DOF, bigger-print capacity, and 14-bit DR; but minus lens compactness—a trade-off I’d be comfortable with.

If you'll indulge a lexical tangent: I wonder what happens to the term "mirrorless" next week, when no mainstream camera will have a mirror? Will we all just decide that cameras are, once again, mirrorless by default, and dust off the modifier "reflex" to distinguish the exceptions?

Because won't increasing rarity and expense very quickly make flapping mirrors exotic? I'm guessing that at some point only Leica and LOMO will be able to justify marketing SLRs to the public, if they even want to bother. Of course, I know zilch about camera manufacturing or marketing.

Closer to the subject at hand: I looked up the word "sedan" and learned that the form factor originated centuries ago. Centuries. "Just sayin'" [wink].

I must have anticipated the "SUV mandate." I compose to make use of the full 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 frame, and it's got no mirror:



I'm a bit frustrated about the whole SUV thing going on. I currently drive a 2005 Subaru WRX wagon that I bought new when I was in my late 20's. It still has less than 100K miles on it. For me, it's the perfect car: Small, nimble, fast, but versatile for hauling stuff. It has passed the "have an infant/toddler" test with flying colors for the last 3 years with our little guy.

I really wish that when the time comes to replace it, there were decent choices in "station wagons". Even Subaru doesn't make the WRX as a wagon anymore. God forbid I find a 3-series wagon here in the states, whereas they represented every other car we saw in Europe. We plan to buy used, so ordering that rare beast of a compact wagon is off the table.

As for FFM, I feel it's just evolution. SLR prism viewfinders were a means to an end to frame the photo through the lens. Now that we don't need that clunky bi-pass and we can actually SEE WHAT THE SENSOR SEES, why not? It's the next evolutionary step of accurately seeing what is about to be exposed. As for FF, we've grown to like that sensor size after Mr. Barnack (and others) decided on it as a standard nearly 100 years ago.

[Isn't it annoying when you finally find the perfect car, but then you can't keep buying it again and again? I knew not one but two people, who felt that way about the old Ford Taurus SHO. They each drove theirs till they fell apart because what they really wanted was a new one and they could no longer get one.

Check out the VW Golf Sportwagon / Alltrak (same car with different cosmetics and feature sets). The Alltrak (hope I've got that name right) was made to compete with the Subie Crosstrek. --Mike]

I'm with you. The G9 is the answer.....for me. I love it, and, as I don't print much over 11x14, do shoot in bright light and do not do birds in flight or sports, I have no FFM fever.

FFM is expensive though, the same as FF DSLRs have always been. Actually they are crazy expensive to many people. The attention they get remind me of the attention supercars get in the car press.

I don’t think most people shoot APS-C DSLRs out of love for the format, but because it is what they can afford. It used to be that APS-C users aspired to Full Frame, now they aspire to FFMs.

Maybe m43 and Fuji X has their own niches. I’m a m43 user myself, and enjoy the compactness of the lenses. Some lenses, like Olympus 12-100mm is quite unique to the system, there is nothing with the size/performance-ratio of that lens in the larger sensor systems.

But I fear that m43 sensor development have stalled, recent camera releases have seemed iterative or irrelevant, and the manufacturers are trying to teach us that we all care about sports photography now with their imitation DSLRs.

At any rate, a pro level m43 system is still way less expensive than an FFM with corresponding lenses. I think the youtubers tend to forget that.

The Z6 and 24-70 f/4 is attractive to me now that I have warmed to the mirrorless advantages. To me, those are the fact that you get what you see, viewfinder and LCD shoot the same (which makes me use the latter more resulting in more creative perspectives) and lack of the need to do any focus correction tweaks for fast lenses since the focus system is on sensor. These outweigh the downside of decreased battery life in my opinion.

However, I need two things to make me part with any money for that system: 1) a 2 axis tilty-flippy LCD like the x-t2; 2) lenses that make sense— ones like the kit zoom. I really need to see where they are heading with the lenses since I am only interested if they make slower, smaller lenses for the system rather than giant, razor sharp, distortion free beasts. If those occur, I will get a second generation Z6 because I have come to like mirrorless, wouldn’t mind having IBIS, am familiar with the Nikon interface and will be able to use some of the lenses that I wouldn’t want to re-purchase. For now though, I’m sticking with my Fuji; I bought it for travel but now do 95+% of my photography with it. The DSLR rarely gets used except around the house for portrait photos and for flash photography (I think CLS is great for us amateurs who can get 2 light sources for flash by buying just one flash).

I have some nice Panasonic lenses and I like the way their cameras work. I'm waiting to see what the Lumixes are like in reality. It they can use my 100-400 with an adapter, that would be the icing on the cake.

It's not your imagination, Mike. We actually are being gently (or not so gently) steered toward SUVs, pick-ups and full-frame cameras. And whether it's motorized transport or cameras, it's pretty much for the same reason: Money.

In the case of SUVs and pick-ups, manufacturers just love the higher profit margins those vehicles give them. And it's also easier to meet fuel economy regulations with them. That seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it? But it's true.

You see, the fuel economy standards are set on a sliding scale that makes things easier for vehicles with a larger footprint. And so that's what we get. And Americans - who have always been ready to default to larger vehicles - are gobbling them up.

And because cars and trucks are more of a commodity today than ever before, the automakers don't want to be bothered with cars they can't sell a zillion of each year. And so our choices are reduced with each passing year.

Likewise with cameras, ever since smartphones killed the compact and entry-level end of the market, camera makers feel the need to emphasize expensive uber-cameras and lenses to get the find of profits they want.

And, even if you really don't want to shoot full frame, the micro four-thirds cameras being emphasized now are the biggest, heaviest and most-expensive: The Panasonic G9 and GH5, and the Olympus E-M1 II. The same is true of the latest glass for those bodies.

Honestly, a Fuji X-T3 and some carefully selected XF lenses might give one a smaller and lighter kit overall compared with the top of the micro four-thirds offerings.

But, to answer your question, which FFM if I was forced to start from scatch? Well, I'm quite happy with my the Sony A7 III that I already have. So I'd probably go that route if it happened today or tomorrow. If I could wait a bit, I might check out Panasonic's FFM before actually buying. But part of me would want to just buy a Sony RX10 IV and maybe the upcoming Ricoh GR III.

Dabbled with various 1", m4/3 and APS-C sensor mirrorless systems over the years, but APS-C and FF Nikon DSLRs have clearly remained the favoured choice.

The Z6 is of serious interest now, for a few reasons: in body stabilisation; can use older Nikon lenses with it; focusing aids available for manual lenses; the usual mirrorless camera benefits like viewfinder review for sunny days... plus not needing to get the glasses out to check the rear screen; not too many mega-pixels; size and weight are similar to my current favourite APS-C camera (Nikon D7500 bought via your link... of course); familiar handling; and excellent viewfinder.

Bit wary of the banding "issue" that's been reported in the Z6/Z7, after trying a D7100 that you'd allegedly only provoke something similar in extreme circumstances. I found in a test of that camera, photos the likes of which I frequently take, with a lot of dark or black areas in them, could show the banding with only minor adjustments. Will likely wait until either the price drops a bit, or an improved autofocusing (low light and sports tracking) version comes out. Not in any hype related hurry.

Hmmm...... I have been thinking a lot about this topic recently given the introduction of the Z series and my significant collection of Nikor lenses. I fear that FFM will go the way of the audio CD has in recent times; on-the go and for convenience people stream, serious music listening is done with vinal. Who buys CD’s anymore? Now two manufacturers are producing digial medium format at a more accessible price point. The quality of Micro 4/3 and APS-C will keep improving, lense collectiona and systems will expand. Give Fuji and Hasselblad 2 more generations and digital medium format cameras will cost round’ bout the same as FFM does today. Who will need FFM anymore?

Such an uproar! Some people prefer .45 ACP and think 9mm and old school .38 special so inferior. Never mind .25 APC or, GASP! .22LR worth talking about. Wait a minute, I think I’ve got the wrong blog. Never mind.

Simple: An SLR(D) for bright light, a MFF for dim light and near darkness. 24MP seems about right. Because all the Japanese brands have crap markings on the lens barrels, I'd have a Leica M10 for zone-focusing duties, plus an APS-C Fuji for smallness and easy carry.

Some people are leaders and some are followers. I bought my first pick-up in 1965. In 1980 I bought a four-wheel-drive Suburban.

I presently have a Full-Frame-Film Leica. My next digital camera will be either a new Leicanon (a Canon EOS R with a Leica Thread Mount Adapter) or a used Leica M (typ 240).

If someone was to give me a fistful of dollars (is that a pun?) I'd buy a new Leica M10-D. After all these years I still don't submit to peer-pressure.

Many internet v-logs are made by clueless covetous cretins. Watch them for laughs ...not for insight.

BTW I'm a pragmatic anarcho-syndicalist

‘Tis the Season

In my entire driving life I have owned only one sedan. My first car was a convertible but I don't think that counts. It has to have a solid roof to be a sedan. I traded that for an Opel Cadet which was like a forerunner of today's small SUVs and except for that Subaru 4 door sedan and an XT Coupe I have always driven an SUV or a pickup truck. Why? Because they fulfilled my need for hauling stuff and going places that challenge a sedan.

As for FFM, assuming I could afford whatever I wanted, I would probably go with the Canon EOS R because it fits in with lenses and accessories I already own. I'm sure any of the FFM offerings would be more than adequate for my needs and I don't see the point of completely changing systems over some feature that I have gotten along fine without thus far and probably wouldn't use much if I got it. Reality: I can't afford any of them so it doesn't matter. If they are the future and every new camera is going to cost that much, I'll take up drawing again.

Note to George Feucht:
Take a look at the Subaru Crosstrek. You won't be disappointed. I am not.

I recently bought a GX9 (through your links, of course) as a hiking camera. I am delighted with it for this purpose, and it's quite handy for chasing little grandchildren as well. I am content to be where I almost always am: way behind the curve.

At least FFMs aren't destroying the planet like people driving SUVs and pickups when all they need is a small, economical car! Are drivers in the US mad?

[If by "mad" you mean angry, then yes.


(NSFW profanity at the link. But it's a great bit.) --Mike]

I drive a car (C-Max) that Ford no longer makes; own a phone (6s) and a laptop (11" Mac Air) that Apple no longer makes; have various other things no longer made; and Tony Northup tells me my cameras( Olympus OMD E-M5 II)are going away. With the imaginative insurance money, I'd probably upgrade to a E-M1 II since it too will be soon out of date and I'd not want to spoil my track record.

Hmmm.... Interesting.

For still photography I'm still shooting "mirrored" (except for my rangefinder film cameras:)

But, for movies, I prefer "mirrorless". And yes, Arri does still make "mirrored" viewfinder professional digital cameras. I used them once, and... prefer the "mirrorless" versions. Go figure!

Well, actually this might be because a reflex movie camera requires one to view with the shooting iris stopped down and the viewfinder can get dark. Not a problem with my 5D...

To answer your hypothetical question about total camera replacement in the event of losing all I already have: I might well just call it a day and buy a single FF Nikon with an 85mm lens.

I seem to be using roughly that combination in a D200 with a 50mm lens, more than I use my FF D 700 with anything.

Perhaps it just signifies that photography doesn't really sustain one for ever, that once you leave your 70s behind, you stop dreaming dreams that you really know are reflections of your past, and opt for a single tool that lets you do what you do rather than keep you prepared for what somebody else might want you to do. Stuff ends up as anchor.

I didn't hear about Ford's radical decision to stop making sedans.

They may have a point: making vast ranges of anything complicates production and demands lots of research and risk on many fronts. Make it more simple and, what with electrics coming along, the market seems set to alter rapidly - even in America, despite political cant and vested interests, so maybe better having less exposure across ranges.

I saw a new Mustang fastback here in Spain about a week ago; I love the style of the original models, but this new thing is huge, as in thick, and I can see how difficult it would be using it in these small towns that make up so much of the country... OTOH, many folks here live out of towns and in houses down paths that resemble tank territory, so high ground clearance is cool. I recently lost a plastic engine underpan to a gate-stopper plate...

No interest in the "FF" stuff here at all. In fact I enjoy increased DoF of my smaller sensor cameras while maintaining hand holdable shutter speeds. No need for "fast" lenses either, MFT 45/1.8 is serving my occasional needs perfectly.

I take this post as a warning to lay-low for a while in the camera gear reading— unless, it was mostly David Thorpe or Kai W doing the talking/writing. (and here, of course.)

I just got a G9... and X-H1, and they are superb. wait, that was not the question… but that can be my answer for most instances.

for nasty small-club concerts, then I still love the Sony A7ii and the Leica Monochrom (because some venues are not digital sensor friendly with mostly red and blue lights), and f1.4 rules the aperture. the XPro2 is also a good camera for these situations, and portraiture.

then, the answer is 5 cameras, but only two are FFM.

now to hide.

"I really want to try a G9."

You can get a new G9 for less than a used E-M1 Mark II! Both of those cameras are calling to me! Maybe you can sell a couple of old bodies and put the money toward a G9. Look at Lenauthority.com. You might find a good deal on a used but fully functional and tested G9.

If I had ALL my cameras stolen ( funny to think about , I think it would take a couple days for me to find all of them )
, and they were insured ( why would I do something like that? ) I think that Fuji GFX 50R with the H Mount Adapter G and a Hasselblad lens so that I would have a waist lever finder and a leaf shutter.

I'd use the rest of the loot to buy the nicest stick shift Mercedes W123 wagon I could find.

Wasn't 35mm the de facto standard for almost all the modern photography era? I'd say it's u43 and aps-c that are mistakes, teeensy blips on the timeline. I shot aps-c for about four years, and moved on. Nothing interesting to be had there.

I've used Canon for so long that I'd have to go with the EOS R. Probably if I had no pre-existing attachment to anything it would be the Sony A7R III, but now I'm at a point where the problem with that would be that it isn't a Canon, how could I use anything that isn't a Canon, if that makes any sense (old dogs, new tricks etc). And yeah, that EOS R has started to exert some sort of gravitational pull on me. Haven't yielded yet, but it seems inevitable.

I live in Colorado, we have to drive an SUV out here, never know when you might want to venture up a jeep road somewhere.

Who is Tony Northrup? Should I pay attention to him?

I've owned SUVs for years. Because they are functional. Because I tow. And I tend to travel with large dogs into the woods, with stuff like chainsaws and gas cans in the back. (Although I once towed a small, light 25hp boat with a Pinto.)

M4/3 is perfect for me, although as a longtime Nikon guy, I do have a little gas for the Z's. But why? I have a D800 that I don't use much anymore because it's big and unwieldy, as is my entire Nikon system. The Z didn't change that much (or, at least, enough.) I'm praying for a really updated GX10 -- a GX8 with a modern ~24mp sensor. If I got that, I'd be set for life. I dread the upcoming uber-Olympus, because it seems as though it may be as large as the smaller DSLRs, when the main thing m4/3 has going for it is the "micro." What is the point of a "macro" m4/3?

One of the things that Kirk likes about m4/3 is the video capability. But why not buy an actual video camera, if you're a pro who makes videos? That's always puzzled me. (I read Kirk's blog a lot, so I'm puzzled a lot.)

Speaking of Kirk, he boasts that he can fit his m4/3 system under the airline seat in front of him. I can beat that. I can put two or three lenses including two f2.8 zooms, two GX8 bodies, the charger and two extra batteries in a Dopp kit...And I do. Fits in my carry-on backpack.

I used to be an "early adopter" of many electronic gizmos, including digital cameras. Early adoption is the most advanced form of GAS, IMHO.

Not any longer. Full restoration of my '66 Dodge Charger is underway and when finished will cost me less than a new moderately equipped SUV. Starting to work with my old film cameras again and process in a makeshift darkroom like I did when I first got started in photography. Very content to own two highly refined dSLRs (the Nikon D810 and the Df) plus many vintage pieces of F mount glass. Me thinks FFM and MF digital may very well have cured me of GAS!

Have to admit since the announcement that Sigma are doing a full frame Foveon L-camera I've been kicking myself for getting the SD Quattro earlier this year, as while they have their limitations I've always liked the Foveon and a full frame one would be nice.

Though I suspect if I got any new camera next year it'd be the Ricoh GR III, as my GR has been a bit flaky ever since the time I got caught out in the rain. The idea of one that's a bit smaller and has image stabilisation appeals!

Mike, I'm glad as always that I swim against this commonplace tide.

Lately I've been shooting fine grain film on a couple different SLRs from two or three decades ago, one a Minolta Dynax 600si, the other a Nikon FM, using prime lenses with both so the combination is small and neat compared to the bulked-up SUV or hulking bruiser pickup truck look of your full-frame mirrorless plus - I imagine - the all in one zoom with matching hood, which together have that Ford 150 look and then some that I see sometimes when the Nichols Arboretum here at the University of Michigan is filled with camera fans for peak flower picture-taking at the Peony Garden.

Fortunately our school photography has a different look. My time in the school darkroom is by necessity limited and I'm not sure how far anyone gets in one semester nowadays, or where exactly my efforts now will take me.

But the gear never gets in the way of thinking about the pictures I am taking and that to me is what counts. The film photography class I'm in has a significant component of accomplished photo-hobbyists, and the discussions during critique are wide-ranging, thoughtful and photographically and artistically sophisticated. It's all about the images we've gotten, almost never about the cameras we use. It feels like a new wave of film photography is starting to take shape.

No doubt this time around things'll go a bit differently than back in the 1970s and 1980s when it seemed like everybody was going to have a darkroom in their basement, and not everybody in the film class is switching their focus entirely to film. History doesn't come around the same way twice, or so I suspect, and the high quality of digital results may keep the film boom small - maybe only a boomlet. But film or digital, the fascination with making images is real and pervasive. These are interesting times indeed for photographers!

Jeff Clevenger

If I lost all my camera equipment, I'd rebuy what I have now after I was resuscitated. Love the Fuji GFX 50s. (I know, I'm a broken record.)

I just bought a jeep compass...a smaller suv that navigates the very narrow streets we have here and allows me to easily get in and out without climbing up or down. And it has heated seats and steering wheel. What a joy!

In answer to your Hypothetical question:

Perhaps I would redirect my energy into my other hobbies. Maybe replace my outdated mountain bike with something more current (which can cost way more than a FF DSLR or FFM).


To answer your question. It would probably be the L mount and the Panasonic S1R. The industry leading viewfinder sucks me in as much as a choice in lens manufacturers. This was the reason I started with Micro Four Thirds in the first place. A shared mount. Am a little sad it’s not as nice as the Nikon mount. A huge short mount will have its advantages in the long run.

Personally I would love a truely open mount so we can plonk whichever lens we want on the body of our choice. Corporate greed will undoubtedly stop that from ever happening.

I still think you should start your choice with the lenses. Then your body. The old adage that you marry your lenses and date your cameras has some truth, except that in changing mounts you are effectively starting again.

Yesterday I was at a camera shop again. I walked out empty handed. Proudly. Knowing that a new camera wouldn’t improve my photography, but disappointed that I continually get sucked into GAS.

Added a Z7 to a pack of Fujis.... The reason? Magical image quality at low ISO in a rugged, Fuji-sized package with a nice interface. Some of the Z7's extra image quality is due to the FF sensor with a ton of pixels, but much of it is due to its base ISO (64). It's possible, using current technology, to make a very low-noise sensor at ISO 200 (modern Fujis are a great example). It's also possible to make an utterly noiseless sensor at ISO 64. The Z7 has one. It's no longer noiseless (it's still very, very good) above some fairly low threshold, which I haven't quite figured out - but the image quality at ISO 64 is mind-blowing.

The only way I can describe it is the difference between 4x5" film and anything smaller. At very low ISO, the Z7 has that 4x5" magic - which I've never seen from any other digital camera that I have known well. I haven't shot the most likely other candidates extensively - I've never really used a D850 or an A7rII/III, and I've never handled medium format digital outside a show or store.

It's not perfect - the AF is absolutely fine for what I do (landscape, broadly defined), but I wouldn't want to use it for sports. Battery life is fine (better than any Fuji, although with a bigger battery), but not the "charge it on Monday, shoot all week" life of many DSLRs above the midrange.

That said, the image quality blows me away in a small, rugged package!

Mike, we think alike, As Mr. Biro above wrote, "It's not your imagination, Mike. We actually are being gently (or not so gently) steered toward SUVs, pick-ups and full-frame cameras." Whenever the American bulk mass buying public steers towards some concept or type or product, I steer the other direction. Ergo, my use of film, my "mirrorless" Leica M2 and Fuji GW680II cameras, and my driving manual transmission (you know, those primitive things with three pedals on the floor where you have to think a little bit to drive) sedans. Oh, oh, I must be a bit trendy: the Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad 501CM have mirrors.

I'll wait for the Pentax. If I save $2 a day my timing should be perfect..

Mike, isn't this just FFM's time to shine ? For the past couple of years we heard about the mirrorless revolution with APS-c & m4/3 proliferating in large numbers, and getting ever better and more refined. We also heard that Nikon & Canon had their heads in the sand, and that their cameras were dinosaurs.
Sony hit it big with FFM proving the concept for Nikon & Canon.
Nikon Canon and others enter the market, it's news, but hardly a surprise. It IS where most of the activity is right now
Sensors have evolved to the point where all sizes of 1" or more are incredibly capable. For people who value small systems of high quality, m4/3 has several real advantages, including the fact that the lenses can be smaller. People who value that will continue to have fine cameras to choose from. The Hubbub about FFM will subside a bit. Remember FF sensors also have some advantages, and people to whom those advantages appeal.
The only place I see a danger for m4/3 is if they make them too big & too expensive.....which HAS been a trend.
But if you were a publicly held camera company and believed you could sell more cameras, and more expensive cameras by concentrating on FF wouldn't you?
The big guys finally jumped in the pool, we shouldn't be surprised that it caused a big splash.

Liberals as subversives. That's quaint idea.

I am long off the wagon of caring what the crowd believes is a real camera. The ones I have are good enough for 99% of what I do. I am sure that the full frame version of small format marketers would love me to believe that there is some special magic for us in those and if I had the money to buy another camera and a whole range of new lenses for someone else's reasons maybe I would. I know camera companies would love to convince me of that.

I never bothered with SUVs either. When I needed a truck or a 4WD, I got the real thing, not some milk-toast imitation just because it was what everyone else was using.

I don't have an SUV or pickup truck, and likely never will. My 4 seater 'do all, carry everything' vehicle is a VW Golf GTI, and whatever U-Haul has available that suits my requirements. Cheaper to rent for my occasional needs. Our other vehicles are sports cars and I wouldn't trade the ones I have for a Ferrari, McLaren or Lamborghini. No GAS there, or rather just enough to keep me moving.

If all my camera equipment were stolen, and that would take someone with a large truck and lots of time, I would buy some of the same items I have now. A G9 and Em-1 mkII with about a dozen of the lenses I have now, a GM5 (used), a Leica Monochrom with about 5 lenses and just maybe a Sony A7rIII with a couple of lenses.

For most of my photography, especially travel and general shooting, wildlife and macro I shoot m43 and I will continue doing so. As I've written before, for most of my professional life I was struggling to achieve enough dof, and finally there's a system that frees me from that struggle. Also, demonstrably, m43 provides sufficient image quality in print to allow me to move on from that discussion. In addition, 43 makes is possible to carry and travel with lenses with fields of view with FF equivalents of 400 to 800m that would be impractical and no fun in FF, so that ends the thought of FFM taking over right there.

I love the Leica Monochrom (first version) I have, but I would like a snappier shooting experience, so I hope that when all my camera equipment gets stolen, the M10 version of the Monochrom is out. This is the camera I could least live without and would try to replace immediately because that is the camera I enjoy shooting with the most when I go out just for the joy of photography.

The Sony A7rIII is a bit of an afterthought. I have an A7rII right now, which produces beautiful files, but the camera is a bit of a clunker compared with the Panasonic and Olympus cameras, or the Leica. I got the Sony because I sold most of my Canon stuff which I used while doing this for money, but I kept a number of my Canon lenses such as the TS-E's, and the Sony can use them passably, again in a clunky sort of Sony way. I also use it with various other oddball things I have, like a 560 Telyt and an Aristophot setup. If all my camera equipment got stolen, I probably wouldn't need the Sony, so I might not replace it after all.

Other cameras, DSLR's in particular, just aren't in the running.

Oh, but then I'd go find a good Leica M6 with a 0.58 viewfinder, because I wear glasses, put on a 35/1.4 ASPH and load some Try-X and leave the other stuff at home.

So what does that make the Fuji gfx range? A Hummer?

At least the trend for larger cameras doesn't have such obvious bad impacts on the planet.

Funnily enough,the camera that has caught my eye the keenest is the intrepid 4x5. So guess it's a horse buggy for me ?

If I had all my gear stolen and could replace it with anything, I'd swap it out for an M-10/Monochrom pair and lenses....and then sell the M10 and all but the 50 Noctilux and a 35 lux, buy my fuji gear back(okay, maybe an XT-3 in lieu of my XT-2) and spend the rest on vacations/

But I drive a Sienna, so I'm not a right-thinker, anyway.

I really like the Z6/Z7, but full frame lenses are just too big.

Following my post on the 19th October, I borrowed a G9 + 12-60mm P/L lens from my local bricks-and-mortar camera store.

How does it compare to my Sony RX10 (mark 1) ?

Ergonomics and AF are a win for the G9.

Image quality: at 100% pixel peeping the G9 is a whisker better than the RX10. Frankly, I am shocked by this result. Either:

a) The 1" type sensor in the RX10 is 5 years ahead of it's time

b) The m43 sensor in G9 is 5 years behind the times

c) The current iteration of raw convertors I used (both ACR and DXO) are doing the bare minimum. The OOC JPEG from the G9 is excellent wrt a TIFF from the raw file. I deliberately kept the raw conversion at the default settings.

Has anyone else done this type of comparison between the G9 and RX10, and found the differences to be negligible?

Almost everybody shot FF (35mm format) for decades with film, so it is only natural that we are reverting to it, after the cost hurdle has been overcome.

I would probably go with the Panasonic. I have a GX8 which I don't use much. I do really like that camera so I would probably go with that even though I had a D700 along time ago and still have an FM2 and lenses. I just like my two Fuji cameras more. I am going with the GFX 50R anyway so I would probably never buy a FFM camera. I just don't see that much difference between FF and APSC. I had the opportunity to use a Sony AR7 II (I think II..). Great camera, but I didn't like shooting it. I also didn't see difference when I printed some photos I took with it. While yes I did buy a MFT sensor, I almost thing you have to MFT to FF or APSC to MF to see a significant difference and even then it's probably only if you want to print larger. I can't tell the difference a lot times between a cell phone picture and X camera when the photos are posted on the internet. In the end I don't use the Panasonic much because I enjoy the shooting experience with the Fuji's. But I liek the Panasonic camera more than I ever like that D700.

Mike, your problem is that you are a liberal (same problem if you were a conservative). What I mean is that if someone tags themselves with a label then they are already giving up on spontaneous self expression. Quit the labels and think for your self. After 8 years, I just bought a new car, a 2019 VW Jetta 40 MPG sedan. Could not be happier. Goes so well with my Fuji X100f. Have a bright and sunny day.

1. If I lost everything and had to start over? Well, assuming silly money was available, an old Hasselblad or Bronica film body and a Phase One digital back. Otherwise, probably just a decent bridge camera. Or something old and APS-c or Four Thirds. You can get decent pictures with all of them, assuming you put some work into it. In my opinion, this FF craze is driven by old men who can't let go of the past. Oh, and marketing departments, of course.

2. I don't drive, but as a passenger, most of the cars I've been driven in have been much of a muchness. ;-)

Re: the world moving onto the SUV/FFM and being left behind, I don't mind not being part of the wave. The bigger concern is that manufacturers pull a "Ford" and announce they're going to stop making most passenger cars in favor of SUVs/crossovers.

If the situation were reversed, with FFM being the old standard and APS-C mirrorless being the big new thing, the excitement level would probably be just the same.

I would NOT get one of the FFM cameras. FF is so 2009 to me. I would get the current model Fuji X series and Olympus or Panasonic m43. Those all fit my needs today better , including printing large, than any of the annouced FFM cameras.
The camera companies pushing FF is the equivalent to the Audio industry pushing various specs as a must have reason, back in the day. If only they would put all thier efforts to expanding dynamic range....thats the spec they should be chasing.

Canon EOS-R, next. Canon are the Toyota of the camera industry. And yes, I drive a Toyota 4WD, just been looking for a new Landcruiser. Neither are glamorous, but both do the job like no others.

If "FF Digital" is becoming "the new standard", I think the reason is...money.

The biggest "push" for the purported benefits of FF is primarily coming from an ever-increasing number of sales people in the form YouTube reviewers.

They typically tout the purported advantages, as why you, Mr GAS-affflicted Photographer, should aspire to buy (from their affiliate links, of course) FF cameras for the following reasons: 1) FF sensors have the best "dynamic range" 2) FF sensors have the best noise performance 3) FF sensors produce the "shallowest DOF" or 4) FF sensors gather more light during a given exposure (than M4/3 or APS-C), and therefore, perform better in low light conditions and 5) FF sensors have more resolution.

Most of this is not only inaccurate, but in the situations where a FF may have a statistically measurable advantage, when you look at actual data, those advantages are often so slight as to not have much, if any, practical significance. And practical significance is what matters in the real world.

#1: FF sensors have the best dynamic range. Well, yes and no, and not as much as one would think. Acc. to data from Photons to Photos, a Sony A7III has 0.6 stops more DR than a Fujifilm X-H1 at ISO200. And the reason for most of this small dfference is the Sony's BSI-sensor architecture, not the sensor size. If really you want dynamic range, a Phase One IQ3, Hasselblad X1D or Fuji GFX MF sensor pretty much blows any FF sensor into weeds. #2: FF sensors have the best noise performance. Again, Photons to Photos shows that the A7III has all of 0.64 log2(DN) lower noise than an X-H1 at ISO3200. (again, my guess is the Sony's BSI sensor architecture is the biggest factor here). #3: FF sensors produce the "shallowest" DOF. While sensor size has somewhat of an impact of "DOF", its impact is indirect at best. The two biggest factors that impact DOF by far are: a) distance to the subject and b) diameter of the lens' entrance pupil (not lens aperture). #4: FF sensors gather "more light" during an exposure. Wrong again, virtually no light meter has an input for sensor size. And ISO setting has no affect on exposure either, only electrical gain on the sensor. What does impact light-gathering ability at a given exposure setting is the area of the pixel; there are industrial CMOS sensors much smaller than 24X36mm that blow FF sensors into the weeds for their ability to "see in the dark", but they are large pixel-area sensors with a smaller total number of megapixels. #5: FF sensors have more resolution: Well, yes and no, depending on the context. Resolution is number of pixels (or whatever is being measured) per unit area or per unit length, not the total number (This is also why lens MTF charts measure resolution as # of lines/mm, not lines). A 24 megapixel APS-C sensor has 65,466 pixels/mm^2, a 24 megapixel FF sensor has 27,778 pixels/mm^2. If the 24 megapixel APS-C sensor with its same pixel pitch were scaled to 24X36mm, it would have a total of 56.5 megapixels, 2.36X that of the FF sensor. When it comes to making prints, the total no. of pixels on a sensor does play a role, but again, the magnitude of the role is dependent on whether the focus on statistical signficance or practical significance. A 45 megapixel FF Nikon D850 can make an native (not upscaled) 28"X18" print at 300 dpi, where dots/pixels are essentially undiscernable with your face right up to the surface of the print. A 24 megapixel APS-C camera can make a 25"X17" print, almost the same size, when printed at 240 dpi, a printing resolution where dots/pixels are undiscernable at a viewing distance of...15 inches. So, while the FF 45 megapixel camera has a statistical advantage to making larger prints, there's really no practical advantage it has over making a print of almost exactly the same size from a 24 megapixel APS-C camera.

So, at the end of the day, what advantages does FF really bring compared to smaller formats, M4/3 or APS-C. Statistically speaking, some, in some small number of cases or for some attributes.

Practically speaking, these days? Not very much.

Q: Then why the push by YT reviewers for full-frame, full-frame, full-frame?

A: Money.

FF cameras and FF lens systems are, on average, still quite a bit more expensive than their smaller-sensored counterparts (in some cases, considerably more). Pushing FF means more money in the coffers of YT reviewers/pundits from sales through their affiliate links than less expensive cameras and lenses.

I know this view may come across to some as jaded, but when you see half a dozen reviews for a particular camera that hasn't been selling particularly well all popping up within 48 hours by notable high-sub YT review sites, such as what happened in December last year for a camera that shall go un-named, you know that behind the scenes, there's a spiff going on, and what is really driving the appearance of all this YT content all of a sudden is...money.

Only one? I'd get many cameras and test them all, because there are many tests in magazines and online that leave things unsaid - what lens was used, for example.

But, leaving that aside - let's go for something worth being rich for - HASSELBLAD H6D-400C MS, A 400 MEGAPIXEL MULTI-SHOT CAMERA and the biggest, meanest lens it can take.

Left full-frame a year ago and I have not regretted it once. Smaller lenses let the subjects relax.

[You know Jean, I noticed this many years ago with the Zeiss 85mms for Contax/Yashica. The small f/2.8 was not threatening to portrait clients but the large f/1.4 put some people off. --Mike]

I have been a Fuji user since 2013. I was a d700 shooter but Nikon, it seems, didn't like us d700 users and for me a d4 was just too expensive.

I must have had my head in the sand the past five years because I have for some time considered Nikon and canon to be old fashioned. I had no clue there were so many people who are just considering mirrorless now and discussing the pros and cons.

If my tugboat came in and i could buy any of the FF systems, I would probably go with the Fuller Frame GFX.

Since selling all my all Canon gear (I shot Canon for well over 20 years) and buying a Sony A7lll with a Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 lens and a Sony 28mm f/2 lens, I am doing things easily that were previously impossible for me. That being low light indoor live band photography. The ability to shoot ISO 6400 with the magical eye autofocus along with in body image stabilization and a flip out screen gives me everything I could possibly dream of only it is actually real and in my hands. That's been my experience.

Panasonic G9 is possibly the best camera I’ve ever owned. (Behind my grandpa’s Box Brownie and my dad’s Voightlander Vito B). Superb handling. Superb files. Superb video.

As for cars Mike, it’s an Isuzu ute (“truck” in America Speak) and of course the required 2006 MX5. Life is complete.

Max from Down Under

As a young person, I drove around a '66 Ford F100. Does driving an old pickup carry the same stigma as driving a shiny, modern monster pickup?

Its same for those of us who have been enjoying mirrorless cameras for years. Is our enjoyment of such cameras tarnished now that everyone is doing it?

I got a real kick out of seeing some Nikon-sponsored content about the Z system, where the 'reviewer' said "its a different world. Its so much more fun".

If doing a promo shoot with a Z7 is more fun than doing it with a D850, then wouldn't it have been even MORE fun with a small V3?

I cannot believe that all those people who buy SUV/FF are aggressive. Some might be, but most of them are just uncertain. It’s fear!

Cameras, guitars, headphones, women...so many great ones, none of them perfect.

I love my full frame mirrorless. But I also love my Micro Four Thirds setup. Current developments leave me deeply worried that the smaller formats might be edged out, which would be terrible because they’re perfect for travel and just being there when the need arises.

I think we get way too hung up over sensor size as well as the presence or absence of a mirror. They’re all just variable features that may or may not offer a benefit to your needs. It’s like categorizing all vehicles based on only horsepower or debating the merits of a clutchless transmission. Buy for the size, features and image quality that suits your needs.

In the event of an insurance payout, I’d just go right out and get what I have now, which is FF with a mirror. Maybe in a couple of years time some FF mirrorless will be large enough to be comfortable, and have decent ergonomics,

The Nikon Zs were interesting, until I looked at them with the S lenses attached. Too big for me.

I loved packing my entire safari kit into a small backpack - with two bodies, 100-400 and 40-150/2.8 zooms, along with the 9-18, 12-35/2.8 and 17/1.8 lenses, backup drive, filters, batteries, etc etc etc. The images I got were great, and my wife (who won’t let me hang any of my work) put 8 12x18” prints around the house.

I shoot and publish show pictures for a local music venue, all with the m43 kit that supposedly is inadequate in low light or fast moving situations. Shooting at f/1.8 and having more DoF is great.

When someone figures out how to change physics and shrink the lenses on larger sensor bodies, I might consider a change. Till then, I’m just getting older and ever-more happy with smaller stuff.

For a minute or two I thought I was actually feeling GAS for the new Canon M. Then I remembered the last expensive digital camera I owned, a Leica M262. In a one year span I took a tad over 200 pictures with it. I think that probably counts the ones I deleted as well. In that same time period I shot just over 100 rolls of film with my K1000.

I guess I am not good at joining.

I do own an SUV though. It's a Jeep. Of course you may not want to know when I bought it.

Yesterday i ordered the Sony A7RIII, only for the Eye AF.

The face detect offered by other companies is pale by comparison.

Trying to take portraits with a DSLR by focus and recompose is obsolete.

I tried the G9; my heart's pretty set on it.

I'm quite annoyed by this insistence that FF is the way to go. It wasn't this bad during the film days with MF users (who could have a 2 stop advantage over 35mm users, not too dissimilar to FF and m4/3), and yet here we are.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007