 |
| Deadrise oyster fishing boats at Bull Island, Virginia (click to enlarge) Olympus E-M1, 40-150mm f/2.8 lens @ 45mm; 1/350th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200 |
Think about the imaging chain. Consider the extraordinary advances in sensor quality as well as sensor resolution coupled with the magic that goes into in-camera processing algorithms, then adding to that the bevy of excellent lenses that are now available by every manufacturer and finally the sophisticated full-featured editing programs that have been developed for us, do you think full frame digital cameras are still a necessity for most of us?
My conclusion is no, except of course, if the answer for you is yes. Gee, what kind of ambiguous answer is that? In my opinion, the vast majority of us, both professional and enthusiasts, no longer need full frame sensored cameras as cropped sensor cameras are now better than full frame was just a few years ago. Some (a minority) will still need full frame for specific reasons, but that number diminishes with each iteration of new sensor technology, improved in-camera processing, better lenses and better editing software.
It is not just the sensor that brings me to this conclusion, it is all the parts that now meld nicely together in the imaging chain. That is the difference now. The entire imaging chain has sufficiently improved and matured to make differences between cropped sensored and full frame cameras very small.
Think about it for a minute. How often do you really need 14-15 stops of dynamic range of the best full frame cameras as compared to 12 or 13 stops in a smaller sensored camera? How often do those super high contrast situations arise in your photography? Not often, I bet.
How often do you need to photograph at ISO 12,800 or higher? Can you make your images with ISOs less than that? Will 6400 work for you?
How often do you need to focus instantaneously versus focusing in a quarter second or so?
How often do you need to record images at 10, 13, or more frames per second as opposed to 6 or 7 frames per second?
How often do you have a need to make prints that are larger than, say, 24" X 36" (61 X 91 cm)?
Some of these things, usually associated with full frame cameras, are also now available on cropped sensored cameras. For example, my Fujifilm and Olympus cameras can photograph at astounding numbers of frames per second! Do I need it? I could argue that I "need" it, but in reality it is nice to have on occasion. But, again, these are cropped sensored cameras and not full frame DSLRs. I could go on and on but you get my meaning.
If you do find yourself in a circumstance when you need to photograph under the circumstances outlined above, can the sophisticated editing software available even the playing field between full frame and APS-C and even micro 4/3? Can a change in your technique accomplish the same thing? For example, if you need 14 stops of dynamic range, can you engage automatic bracketing in your camera and combine the images seamlessly to achieve the same outcome? If you have to shoot at a very high ISO, can sophisticated noise reduction reduce the noise to a point where it is no longer, in your eyes, objectionable? Can you leverage the power of computing to compensate for the best and most expensive attributes on a digital camera?
If you are thinking about buying a full frame (35mm sized) digital camera is it because you need some or all of these high end features or do you just want one? Is your perceived need really a holdover attitude from how different cameras used to be in years past? Is it a want based upon emotion, hype, bragging rights and the clever subliminal marketing that we regularly hear in the form of "ambassadors" to the manufacturers telling us how great their camera is? I know my answer.
As each years passes and I continue to read about photography or view You Tube channels by professional photographers, I see more and more professional photographers who are now using smaller sensored cameras. Successfully. Wedding photographers, landscape photographers, street photographers, portrait photographers, sports photographers, industrial and documentary photographers, even some wildlife and bird photographers. Why? Many reasons, most personal. Some choose a smaller camera for size, some for cost, some for weight, some because they no longer see the need to shell out the big money for full frame. The point seems to be the differences between the final product (images in whatever form) from full frame cameras and smaller sensored ones are not that great any longer, if they can at all be seen under almost all circumstances.
It used to be that only full frame provided acceptable quality for professionals as well as enthusiasts with the highest standards. With the advances in technology, is that still the case? Has cropped sensored cameras reached a point where most professionals would see no difference in their finished product? Not quite, but it is coming.
That got me wondering what percentage of photographers really still need the remaining benefits of a full frame digital camera? How many photographers will ever fully exploit a full frame camera's full capabilities or will the "overhead" in excess image quality, features and attributes never really be needed or seen? Also, with the cost of digital cameras continuing to rise with the inclusion of some really sophisticated features and advancements, can you ever get a sufficient return on your investment by spending the extra money for a full frame camera? Is the extra size and weight still worth it? Only you can decide for yourself.
Just some thoughts of mine. How about you? Do you need full frame camera and if you think you do, how often do you really need it and why? Or, do you just want one because of the lure and mystique of their reputations in the past?
As for me, I don't think I will ever need one again. I find the quality of APS-C sized sensored cameras perfectly sufficient for all that I now do or anticipate doing in the future with my photography. I will say that about micro 4/3 as well. Do I want one? Yep. I've still convinced myself that I have no reason to buy one of the new Sony A7RIIIs and a couple of lenses. If I bought one I know in my heart that after the "new" wore off, I would not see any benefits over the excellent gear I now own. I'm glad that logic prevails over emotion for me. Finally!
Just to remind those who may disagree, all of this is just my opinion and my thoughts. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, merely opinions and your experience and thoughts may be completely opposite of mine. Guess what? That is okay.
NEW! As of January 1st, I've started an Instagram feed. I'll be posting photos daily so please follow @dennisamook. Also, for more images check out my website: www.dennismook.com. Thank you.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2018 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
One of the things that finally convinced me that m43 was a sufficient format to pursue was an article several years ago by Ctein, in which he allowed that the then current 16mp em5 had equaled or exceeded that of the best current films in 6x7 (my standard for desired image quality in the days of film), and would even hold it's own against 4x5. Pretty good authority on the subject of image quality. Several years later, no regrets.
ReplyDeleteKeith, thank you for your comment. I remember Ctein's article and agree with him. Also, I carried a Pentax 6X7 and 4 lenses all over the country for more than 20 years because the quality of my photographs met what I wanted. Mostly, I only used 35mm for slides for my personal work. I still have two of them and several lenses packed away.
DeleteWith more than 30 years of experience with the Pentax as well as other medium format cameras, I believe that the images I make with my Olympus and Panasonic gear surpass the quality of those old medium format photographs. I don't need more.