 |
| The famous 'Peggy's Cove' in Nova Scotia. (click to enlarge) Olympus E-M1 Mark III; 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 23mm; 1/125th sec. @ f/11; ISO 200 |
If you think about it, 20 or so years ago (and my timeline is just general in nature), around the turn of the century, the predominant ongoing photographic debate was, "Which is better? Film or digital?" The general consensus, as I recall, was that film still was better for professional photography than even the best and very, very expensive digital cameras of the time. What now has become to be known as 'full frame' digital sensors were insufficient for professional work and barely sufficient for most enthusiasts' photography. They were just too crude and unsophisticated for high quality work.
By the time a few years rolled by or about fifteen years ago, full frame digital cameras had gotten to the point where their quality was good enough for professional level photographic imaging. But just barely. At that time ONLY full frame digital sensors met expectations for professional photographic work.
Move forward to about five or so years ago. At that time, technology had improved to the point where both full frame and APS-C, only the very best ones, were sufficient for most pro work. Not all professional photographic work, but a good portion of it could have been done by APS-C sensor cameras as the differences between the two formats, with the exception of (as I call it) photographing at the extremes, could hardly and maybe no longer be seen. Remember the extremes.
Jump to today. Now full frame, APS-C and m4/3 have all become sufficient for all but a small portion of professional work as exampled by the large number of professional photographers who use any and all of those three formats. I see more and more professional wildlife photographers moving to m4/3 for its advantages over full frame. Again, when photographing at the extremes (which few photographers do regularly), it pays to have a sensor with larger photosites. Not necessarily more pixels but larger pixels.
I'll predict, if sensor, image processor, AI and optical research and development continue as it has, it won’t be long before full frame and APS-C will be overkill in terms of physical camera and lens size, weight, price and sensor size for all but a very small specialty niche of professional work. M4/3 will have improved (if it is still around—hopefully!) to have the ability to handle most professional work. It only makes sense. Look where we've been and where we are now in sensor development.
I'm certainly not saying m4/3 will replace full frame and APS-C but the technology will exist to give photographers what they need in a smaller, lighter, less expensive package. With the progression and improvements we've seen in all aspects of electronics the technology will continue to improve to the point where full frame, for almost all intents and purposes, could become an obsolete format. Now that is a bold statement! (But we know it won't.)
With technological progress continuing in leaps and bounds, smaller sensors of tomorrow should be able to do what full frame sensors do today. Make sense? Smaller sensors should become the norm in digital photography. Larger sensors, which are more expensive and require lenses and accessories that are much larger, should take a back seat to smaller sensors.
But this doesn’t seem to be the case. Photographers are not gravitating en masse to smaller format cameras. In fact, it seems the general photographic community is gravitating toward larger format cameras. The trend seems to be more and photographers are adopting full frame digital cameras more now than ever before. Instead of adopting a rational approach based upon actual need, many photographers are going the way of excess capability. They buy full frame cameras when they will never need what the full frame can provide over and above smaller sensor cameras. IMHO.
So, why is it that full frame is trending to become the dominant sensor format when it really is far and way more than enough for most photographers? Very few of us need full format for the kinds of photography in which we engage, the situations we encounter and what we do with our images once we make them. Most digital photographs seem to only get posted to social media regardless of whether or not they were made with a mobile phone or a full frame DSLR. Very few are printed and even fewer are printed to a size that would require a full frame sensor with lots and lots of pixels.
Could it be ego? Fear Of Missing Out? (FOMO) Are influencers from the Internet and YouTube driving this trend? Are manufacturers pushing this format to maximize profits? (Olympus said a couple of years ago that they were going to concentrate on high end cameras and lenses as that was where the profits were maximized) Do we live in a culture of excess (everyone knows we do) and does that culture of excess also pertain to photography? Are we psychologically being shamed into buying into the notion that only full frame will do? Is it our hidden desire to have bragging rights over others? Will only the biggest and best do? Is it because of the cost of full frame is now within the budget of many more photographers than in the past? Frankly, I don't know. But I would bet there is a bit of truth in everything I mentioned.
I'm sure many of you will disagree with my assessment that even m4/3 can easily handle the work of most professionals, enthusiasts as well as those who just casually photograph. Now, I'm not saying the smaller sensors can handle all photographic requirements for everyone. Just as there are specialized vehicles that are needed to carry 80,000 lbs. of cargo down a highway, specialized hammers that need to be used to accomplish very specific medical tasks and cameras with larger sensors for specialized low light, high speed, longest dynamic range, fastest tracking focus and the largest of enlargements duty. But technology is the great equalizer. The gaps have narrowed or are almost non-existent today. Just think of the future!
It just makes more sense to me that digital cameras with smaller sensors shouldn't replace the larger, heavier and more expensive larger sensor cameras that were necessary in the past. Doesn't make sense?
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2021 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.
Good article Dennis. I know in my head I don't need full frame, but there's a piece of my heart that wants it, and will probably always wonder if I should have done it.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep my eye on the trends because I'm not sure what I'll do IF m4/3 sensors remain stagnant, and sensors on full frame continue to advance. I read an interesting piece by Thom Hogan some time back about what happens to perceived image quality when monitors eventually become 8K. He thinks a 32MP sensor will be needed to look good on those kinds of monitors.
Thanks, Jim. I can empathize with you about full frame. Each time I resolve to sell my Z7, reluctance fully kicks in. I’m hoping I’ll never have to buy an 8k monitor. Can you imagine how small the type will be? Lol.
DeleteDennis, as always, you make me think. I just put in an order for the Fuji GFX100S. Intent is to maximize image quality in a still portable package, primarily for portraits, close-ups and landscape images. And, I have been eyeing Olympus again for the telephoto end. Historically, I have found the M4/3 images to be less malleable in lightroom, and containing a lot of noise even at low ISO. That was just my impression as I worked with the Olympus EM1. Over the size. Really enjoyed the lenses. But the images were not wow! And before you ask, yes, I read your articles on Fuji APS vs m4/3. Maybe it was something about how I was shooting. Now I have Leica for its great glass and simplicity to use. The Olympus cameras are just so complex.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, we are blessed to live in a time when so many options exist for us! Keep up the good work.
Interesting article. Years ago, sensor size was critical for large print quality and to have access to a good wide angle lens. The reason for many purchases of full frame cameras was the lack of wide angle lenses in the DX/APS C formats.
ReplyDeleteIn 2021, I think the current great equalizer is photo editing software and use of 4k electronic displays rather than sensor size. My winter chore has been to keyword and organize all the images in my archive. I have images of similar subjects made with a progression of cameras from 6,12,15,16,24,20,45 mgpxls. I am now amazed at the quality of even the 6 mgpxl DX images when processed in the current ACR and Topaz softwares. All past images, including film scans, can now be improved.
As I transition from print to large digital display, the sensor size becomes less important still. Large sensor and small sensor images all look amazing and indistinguishable on 55” 4k displays.
I will purchase my next new camera based upon features, and personal fit, not sensor size.
An example of features, while in the grocery store parking lot, a mockingbird landed on a nearby hedge in good directional light. I made an excellent series of images of that bird because my Olympus camera with a 75-300 lens was in my jacket pocket. With Pro Capture and silent shutter, the bird stayed put long enough. My Nikon with a 500mm lens would have been left in the car trunk and not have been available to me.
Excellent comment and insight. Thank you.
DeleteGood article that makes excellent points. Several years ago, we were on a cruise ship where each stairway landing was illustrated by huge enlargements (at least 15 feet across) of color photographs by, I think, Ernst Haas. Up close, the film grain was the size of a quarter but no one ever commented on that, just on how impressive the images were. I'll recall your article every time I get the full frame urge and remind myself that my m4/3 and APS-C sensors are way more than sufficient.
ReplyDeleteThank you Bob. If one goes to a museum and looks at the 100 most iconic images of the 20th century, very few are in sharp focus, have no grain or look anything like the quality of images that can be produced by today’s cameras with the smallest sensors. Content is king! Enjoy!
DeleteAs a M4/3 shooter I wish I could agree, but I would like to challenge your reasoning. I believe the essence of your argument is that even the most humblests of sensors have become so good that it does not make sense anymore to pay a marginal price in weight, size or dollars (euros in my case) to get the marginal benefit in image quality. My assertion however is that there is no marginal price to be paid for a full frame sensor.
ReplyDeleteThe only amateur photographers remaining in the market today are pretty serious about their hobby. They do not want the smallest camera. I bet you would not want to trade your OM1 for my GM-5 even if the latter would have had the 20 Mp sensor rather than the 16 Mp one (and thus would have been pretty close in image quality). You'd find the camera too small. You probably find the EM1 about as small as it should get. However, all the full frame mirrorless camera makers have now shown they can stick a full frame sensor in a body of that size. So, no price to be paid in weight and size.
But lenses I hear you say. Well how about a Nikkor 24-50/4-6.3 or 24-200/4-6.3? Of course they are slow, but to take the latter, the amount of light that passes trough is comparable to your much appreciated Olympus 12-100/4. Physics being physics the lenses are about equal in size and weight. And regarding price? The Olympus is a bit more expensive.
I guess that if you buy a full frame with slow lenses and perhaps 1 or 2 normally fast primes (e.g. for portrait) to get that shallow depth of field, the package might be lighter and less costly than if you buy M4/3 with a couple of 1.2 lenses thrown in.
So, my guess is that slow full frame lenses can put the essence of the M 4/3 proposition really into question.
As a M4/3 shooter I wish I could agree, but I would like to challenge your reasoning. I believe the essence of your argument is that even the most humblests of sensors have become so good that it does not make sense anymore to pay a marginal price in weight, size or dollars (euros in my case) to get the marginal benefit in image quality. My assertion however is that there is no marginal price to be paid for a full frame sensor.
ReplyDeleteThe only amateur photographers remaining in the market today are pretty serious about their hobby. They do not want the smallest camera. I bet you would not want to trade your OM1 for my GM-5 even if the latter would have had the 20 Mp sensor rather than the 16 Mp one (and thus would have been pretty close in image quality). You'd find the camera too small. You probably find the EM1 about as small as it should get. However, all the full frame mirrorless camera makers have now shown they can stick a full frame sensor in a body of that size. So, no price to be paid in weight and size.
But lenses I hear you say. Well how about a Nikkor 24-50/4-6.3 or 24-200/4-6.3? Of course they are slow, but to take the latter, the amount of light that passes trough is comparable to your much appreciated Olympus 12-100/4. Physics being physics the lenses are about equal in size and weight. And regarding price? The Olympus is a bit more expensive.
I guess that if you buy a full frame with slow lenses and perhaps 1 or 2 normally fast primes (e.g. for portrait) to get that shallow depth of field, the package might be lighter and less costly than if you buy M4/3 with a couple of 1.2 lenses thrown in.
So, my guess is that slow full frame lenses can put the essence of the M 4/3 proposition really into question.
Robert, thank you for your well crafted comment. I don’t necessarily disagree with many of your points. You may have misinterpreted my posting or I may not have been clear. My post was intended to be about the inevitable year over year improvements in technology, which I call the ‘great equalizer,’ and how that technology and the associated improvements trickle down from larger sensor digital cameras to smaller sensor ones, essentially allowing users of smaller format cameras to produce images of higher quality than ever before. For example, today’s m4/3 cameras produce better images than the full frame cameras of 20 years ago. I’m not addressing personal preference in cost, weight or size but merely highlighting that cameras that cost less (or are much more full featured as are the Olympus E-M1 cameras), have a smaller footprint and are lighter can be used for a variety of pro level assignments today where only heavier, more expensive cameras could be used in years past. There will always be a need (or want) for the biggest, best, fastest and most fully featured by some. Others may choose smaller format cameras and still get similar image quality.
DeleteBy the way, comparing the price of an entry level full frame camera, such as a Nikon Z5, to an Olympus E-M1 Mark III, in my opinion, has little to do with just sensor size. The ‘value-added’ by Olympus in giving the customers unbelievably advanced and useful features, some not found in other manufacturers’ cameras at any price, to me, justify the similarity in cost. In any case, we are very lucky today. We get to choose from a number of wonderful cameras in several formats, from several manufacturers, with a variety of feature sets according to our individual needs and wants. I think it’s all good!
Thanks again for commenting.