Quote from JBP on April 1, 2023, 7:03 pm

I think professionals are expected to have professional equipment, so for them a camera makes sense even if a cell phone could manage a shoot just fine. So I agree with you the question really is about whether it makes sense for hobbyists. In that case, unless you're doing something specific that a cell phone isn't good at (wildlife comes to mind) I don't know if it makes sense for a hobbyist to have a camera no matter the sensor size. Just use your phone, it'll be fine and you'll save a ton of money.

But for many of us that's no fun. Or it's less fun. Or we want very specific things (swirly bokeh! the look of vintage glass! etc.). I think bottom line is for a hobbyist photographer it's not about "does this make logical sense, both financially and practically?" but "is this more fun, do I enjoy the process more, and do I get results I'm more pleased with and proud of in the end?"

So from that perspective full frame makes total sense. It's just what a lot of people enjoy the most, whether it be because they want that thin DOF or they want the most from their vintage glass, or any of the other reasons you mentioned. When you're doing it for fun and the price is right for you then any reason is good enough to get any gear, really. Does marketing unduly influence us and give us GAS and make us spend more money than we should? Yeah, undoubtedly... and that is unfortunate. But there's also so many of us with GAS for old gear that has no marketing happening anymore... 😆

I guess my answer to your first question is then "Yes, if that's what they want. No, if that's not what they want." haha Not very helpful, I know!

As for the last question, I think James has done some night photography with APSC. Definitely with his K-3iii but maybe some before that also. His results look great to me. 🙂

Quote from James Warner on April 3, 2023, 3:02 pm

I did read the whole thing, so I get a cookie or something 😛 Actually it was worth the read. I think you expressed your thoughts well.

I would agree with the idea that FF is marketed to people who will never see the benefit. I mean honestly, at my level of photography I don't need it either, although I do appreciate nice things 😁 This follows nicely with other hobbies and products. I see lots of beginner mountain bikers on $3k+ bikes, and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if they realized they wouldn't actually get that much out of it for a looooong time?

I haven't spoken at length on this, but I have mentioned this idea in passing - the whole FF or nothing narrative (which among other places perpetuates on YT especially) has really hurt M43. When I got my first M43 camera I was blown away at how good the camera and lenses were. It was like I realized for the first time how much smaller sensor negativity I had absorbed and never really challenged. And I was into shooting older low MP sensor cameras, so you'd think I would've been more open to this at the time!

Like yourself, I picked up my K-1 on a deal I couldn't refuse and that was my first jump into FF digital. I've told people this before as well, but it was a shock to me because I was unprepared for the lens prices, the overall size, the extra weight of the whole system, etc. While I do think the K-1 is an exceptional camera and does have noticeable advantages in the end product, it once again awoke me to the realization that I just believed FF was the pinnacle of cameras and that once you arrived you would never want anything else.

Nowadays I am much more of the mind that different sensor sizes and systems have their own merits, and that nothing should really ever be just compared in a lab on a tripod. The idea that a camera is easier to hold and carry in a bag is just as, if not more important, to the art of photography than resolution, pixel information, etc. And as you mentioned and I've noticed as well, the plethora of great photographers shooting on smartphones, point and shoots, M43, etc proves this well.

Anyway, good thoughts. Pick what makes you shoot more and you enjoy using, and that will matter more in your use case it sounds like.

And also I'm in Iowa now, I don't know if you saw that. When I get around to figuring out a meetup you're invited!

 

Quote from whereSs on April 4, 2023, 7:13 am

I love the heck out of Micro Four Thirds, and because it's where I really started as a photographer, I probably have a weird chip on my shoulder about avoiding any full frame sensors. 😁

At the end of the day, gear is gear, tools are tools, and they're only as inspired as their users. They have different strengths, but ultimately, especially with modern post-processing, a lot is possible.

Here's a concrete example.

Let's compare an image taken with high resolution APS-C  Sigma dp0 Quattro, to one taken with the ultrawide camera on my (now dead) Pixel 5a smartphone.

There's not a great deal of difference between the color renditions in the two images.

The reason is that after I got the dp0 images about where I wanted them, I did quite a fair bit of tweaking to get the phone colors to match. I found the original jpg from the phone a bit gross, but since I had a raw saved, that was a malleable enough starting point.

I would not have gotten to the same end point without having the dp0 colors as a reference, but at the end of the day, even an image that initially disappointed me in the moment (the cellphone one) could be reshaped into something that delights me (more or less) now.

Going one step beyond this -- there are a lot of people on the internet who are really hyped up about using AI to process out of focus/hazy/low resolution images into... well, something not entirely real anymore (in my opinion.)

Do I have images that would benefit? Absolutely, but I feel ok without dipping into that type of post-processing yet.

 

Other than these thoughts, $$$, marketing, how little I want to carry big heavy camera gear around often, etc. all resonate here.

 

My only full frame is film, and it makes sense to me, when I can pick up a Ricoh 35 ZF for $5, or a fully working Minolta AF camera with lens, battery, and half a roll of film (!?) for $25. And I sure as heck doubt anyone is shooting that for the resolution. ~vibes, maan~

Quote from Justin Tung on April 22, 2023, 5:00 am

I’m of the mind that yes, we’ve been had by big camera haha.

“Does it, in 2023, make sense for non-rich and non-professional hobbyist/enthusiast photographers to own and shoot a full-frame digital camera? Why/why not?”

 

I think that it makes more sense now than before, since prices are finally coming down as there’s an actual supply of used gear. I got my Sony a7ii for pretty cheep and I’ve been very happy with it. However, is it always the right or best camera to have? No way. These days, when I’m not shooting film, the camera I shoot the most is the Fuji x70. I got started carrying the original Sony rx100. Both took great pictures and they fit in my pocket. The reasons I got the Sony was largely for S-log and ibis for video.

I guess I’d want to ask what you mean by “make sense”? I think it matters much less than camera companies tell you it does, but how much it matters is still such a subjective thing.

Life happens once. I have priceless memories from my honeymoon on the SonyA7ii (you can find the thread on this forum). I have life events like my graduation on the Fuji x70. I have memories of friends and family on film, everything from half-frame to 6x9. That’s what matters most to me at the end of the day- not how I got them, but that I have them.

Some people do it for artistic expression. Some people like the thrill of the Chase. Others are into process and method. Some people like the technical aspect. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to struggle with discerning how to make decisions that meet your priorities if you’re still working out what those priorities are.

Quote from pblogic on May 16, 2023, 4:15 am

Whether you are a pro or a hobbyist doesn't much matter, I think. All that really matters is if the came meets your needs, and you love using it. The difference between pro and hobby work is only about whether you are getting paid or not. There are many amazing hobbyists, and man subpar pros. Personally, when I think of upgrading, I ask myself, is the camera holding me back? Or am I holding the camera back? When my K20D started to hold me back, I decided it was time for the K1. I like that it's big, because I have big hands. I love it's screen. It's just a super cool camera to own. I looked at Joakim Moller instagram, and I can see why he can use an iPhone. He isn't really a photographer, he's a digital artist who uses photography as his palette. That's not a criticism of any kind, I'm just saying that those things are quite different. I found his art both inspired and enjoyable. His style is surreal, very processed, and often very grainy. Once you've developed your skills for composition, the iPhone makes for a great tool for this style. Would the iPhone make a great tool for portrait setups with multiple off camera lights, an emphasis on real bokeh, and the need for pro grade lenses? Would it be a good tool for high frame rate sports photography? No, of course not. The sensor is tiny and the tiny lenses don't have the resolving power. They never will. You can't get around physics. Zoom way into one of your iPhone photos and see how impressed you are with it. It's really about what tool is right for the job.

"Worth it" is so very subjective. Does the tool you have bring  you joy and fit your needs? That's all that matters.

Quote from HeggenDazs on May 16, 2023, 9:06 pm

Quote from FradBoob on March 31, 2023, 7:41 pm

Warning: this is a long and rambly post-verging-on-essay. Apologies. See tl;dr towards the bottom.

I'm having a mild crisis with regards to full-frame cameras and, really, to large-sensor cameras in general, especially as they relate to non-professionals, art photography, street photography, and candid portraits.

Background info: I'm not a professional and I don't shoot sports, cars, birds, etc. As a hobbyist I'm most interested in art photography (whatever that means), urban/semi-urban landscapes, and night photography. I like street photography and portraiture too (especially candid and environmental portraiture) but I've not done a whole lot (street because I currently live in a small town in central Iowa, where there's no one actually *on* the streets, and portraiture because I'm not enough of a people-person to source and soothe willing models). I sometimes do nature/landscape stuff too (especially when I'm back home in Scotland), mainly because natural landscapes are a good, immobile, varied, and reliable subject. Still, ultimately I most appreciate art photography, urban/semi-urban landscape, candid portraiture, and night photography. So far so good.

My main camera is a the full-frame 36-mp Pentax K-1 Mark ii, which I have no right owning (I could never afford to buy it new and neither my ability nor frequency of use would justify such a purchase). But I do own it, because I got it for a stupidly low price through one of those occasional second-hand internet miracles (when all was said and done I spent about $350). I like this camera a lot - it's great in low light, its image quality is fantastic, it has five-axis IBIS, it fits all my film-era Pentax lenses without the need for an adaptor, and I'm not scared to take it out in rain or snow. I can also use it to bludgeon attackers to death. It is, however, big, heavy, obvious, and slow, and full-frame lenses are large and expensive.

Of course, all of this has been true for a long while and yet I'm only now fretting. Why? Well, partly because I recently got an Olympus E-M1 ii, which is a far more "modern"-feeling camera (in terms of AF performance, video, burst speed, etc.,) and, with the 12-40mm f2.8 Pro lens, takes very sharp photographs, but it's far more due to my recent discovery of a Swedish art photographer whose work I was completely blown away by: Joakim Moller (@moller_joakim on Instagram). While browsing his work I wondered how on earth he got such close, intimate, and remarkably framed shots, let alone on film (his images are all in black and white and are rather grainy/noisy, so I assumed he was shooting 35mm). I wondered what camera he used. Turns out, he shoots everything on an iPhone.

Fuck.

I realised it made sense. You can't get close to someone with a huge fuck-off full-frame DSLR with a massive f1.4 lens. You can't photograph on a subway or a bus or catch other people's fleeting moments of [insert poignant emotion here]. Even with a Fuji APS-C camera or a dinky Panasonic micro-four-thirds, you're guy with camera. You stick out. On the other hand, literally everyone is guy with phone - you're just one more among many.

Still, I thought, he's stuck with crappy resolution and a tiny sensor! He could never blow up images or make massive prints!

Then I thought, how many massive prints have I made with my full-frame camera?

The answer is zero.

Images and photographs are consumed today almost entirely on computer or phone screens. The biggest computer screen someone's likely to be viewing an image on is about 30 inches across, and the vast majority use 13.3- or 15.6-inch laptops. I've had a couple of photographs printed in literary journals, but even then, print magazines are small. Otherwise, my photos are shared on Instagram or on a portfolio website.

This line of thinking of course sent me to Google, where I began trying to reassure myself as to my beloved K-1's practicality. Full-frame cameras, I was told, offer the best in image quality (well, no, that's medium- and large-format, but whatever), high resolution (great if I was printing big, but I'm not), shallow depth of field (never understood the hype about this. Who wants a shred of nose in focus and the rest of the face blurred?), higher dynamic range (on newer sensors anyway), and substantially better high-ISO performance. Plus, your 35mm lenses will be 35mm lenses; you can shoot wide-angle without having to wrestle with the distortion of small-sensor wide-angles.

Of these, high-iso performance and image quality are the only two that I routinely benefit from. Resolution matters to a point, but of course the trouble with a 36-mp full-frame sensor is that you have to have lenses capable of matching or exceeding that resolution, and lenses that can do that cost roughly 1.5 kidneys. That said, I do like having the freedom to crop images, so to hell with it, resolution's a firm pro too.

All this got me thinking about the current state of the camera market and its overall weirdness. Every manufacturer (except OM Systems, who stick to M4/3, and Fuji, who one-up everyone with their medium-format line) is going all-in on full frame, which makes sense in that sensor size is the biggest thing separating cameras from smartphones, but in terms of who actually benefits from full-frame, the answer seems to be "professionals". Who, after all, most benefits from wafer-thin depth-of-field? Portrait and glamour photographers, especially studio photographers. Who benefits from high-ISO performance? Events photographers and wildlife/sports photographers, who're able to capture detail in low light without too much noise and shoot at higher shutter speeds to freeze animals/people in motion. Who benefits from an extra couple of stops of dynamic range? Well, definitely landscape photographers, but really everyone except for fine art photographers, who sometimes rely on low dynamic range to erase detail in favour of producing striking contrast. Who benefits from high resolution? Product photographers, people who routinely make large prints or photograph for banners, billboards, posters, etc., and people who do a lot of cropping (e.g., wildlife and sports photographers). Who benefits from high image quality and sharpness? Well, everyone, assuming you can afford and are willing to lug around $1000 lenses.

For hobbyists like me, are these benefits that important? I more frequently find shallow depth of field to be an annoyance than a boon, for instance, and none of my photos are ever printed larger than A4. We also live in the age of AI (as ChatGPT has recently reminded us): dynamic range, noise, and even resolution can now be made up for either by bracketing shots, in-camera sensor- or pixel-shift modes, and after-the-fact AI programmes/apps like GigaPixel and DxO PureRAW, which algorithmically increase resolution and eliminate noise. Then there's the easy one, the size factor. Even if I had a mirrorless full-frame camera rather than a larger/heavier DSLR, the size benefits of mirrorless are thrown to the curb when you take full-frame lenses into account, which are just as large as their DSLR counterparts (and sometimes larger!).

The thing standing in the way of my doomsaying are the high-ISO performance and light-gathering abilities of full-frame sensors. As I mentioned, I shoot a lot of night photography, and while I'm far more concerned with capturing striking and moody contrast than I am making sure dark/light areas retain detail, I can't deny that the K-1 does better in the dark than my E-M1 ii does. Then again, I have portfolio images I'm just as happy with taken with a 16mp APS-C Pentax K-5, a camera that came out in 2010.

But what if I shot different kinds of photography at a hobbyist level? If, for instance, I was a sports or wildlife photographer? In that case, high-ISO performance and resolution would surely be of value, assuming I could afford a big and fast full-frame telephoto, but would those really be worth the loss of a small body, high-resolution crop sensor (a 20mp 4/3 sensor is, after all, more pixel-dense than a 36mp FF sensor) and resulting crop factor, and burst speeds? I could, for instance, carry a Sony A7 iii with the $1000 Sony 70-350mm and a $500 Sony 2x teleconverter (650g + 620g + 200g = 1.47kg) and snap some excellent bird shots, or, for far less money, I could carry an Olympus E-M1 ii (575g) and a Olympus 75-300mm ($450, 420g) and get some not-as-good-but-still-very-good bird shots (all the while taking advantage of the E-M1 ii's absurdly good IBIS and 60fps [vs 10fps for the Sony] burst speed). If I was a professional getting paid for my work, the former would probably make more sense (though it's not out of the question that a pro would stick with the E-M1 ii but splurge on a better pro-level lens), but for a hobbyist/enthusiast?

[TL;DR begins here]

All this to say that I'm beginning to think that hobbyist/enthusiast/consumer photographers have been had by camera companies who've gone all-in on marketing and pushing full-frame cameras when, arguably, for most non-professionals who don't shoot in studios or make big prints, crop-sensor cameras would actually be better suited (or even, god forbid, smartphones...). What I want from you all is to call me an idiot and point to all kinds of factors that I've overlooked and/or haven't considered. In short, I'm looking for answers to the question: Does it, in 2023, make sense for non-rich and non-professional hobbyist/enthusiast photographers to own and shoot a full-frame digital camera? Why/why not?

Also, does anyone routinely shoot night photography with a crop-sensor camera? If so, how've you found it?

Many thanks (and well done if you actually read the whole thing lol).

I recently had one of these moments. A moment that made me realize sensor size really doesn't play deeply into the quality of the work. I've been shooting on all sorts of different crop sizes, different brands, different sensor technologies even. For years! I had always discounted my more pocket friendly (both in size and cost) cameras to mostly be my "dink around" cameras, never taking anything serious nor anything super-competent with these cameras, mostly just doing snapshots etc.

But then about a year ago I started just grabbing whatever camera I felt like shooting on that day, not necessarily my K-1 for it's high resolution but just whatever felt right. Suddenly I was taking my E-M5 II, my Pentax Q-S1, K-3 II, 35mm cameras, medium format cameras, whatever on my quest to get a photo. It no longer mattered what resolution or sensor size it was, just the "vibe" of the camera and the subject I was going out to shoot.

In short I guess, yes. There are places where the newer, higher-tech, larger sensor wins. But in most shooting cases, it really doesn't matter. 6mp goes a long way, as does 12mp. 36mp is a luxury, not a need.

Shoot whatever camera you feel most like shooting. The action of capturing the image should be an enjoyable one.

Quote from Justin Tung on May 18, 2023, 5:26 pm

I wonder how much of this discourse comes from an anxiety related to maximization.

If I take a little pocket cam on a trip, I might lament not having the resolution or dynamic range of my full-frame mirrorless. If I bring my full-frame, I might lament missing out on the shots I'd take with a small, casual shooter. If I bring a wide lens, I miss out on normal/telephoto shots. If I bring a normal lens, I miss things outside the FOV. If I bring a prime, I miss the ability to zoom. If I bring a zoom, I miss the speed and portability of a prime. If I bring digital, I miss out on the magic of film. If I bring film, I might irrecoverably miss a shot and never know or be able to retake it.

The only possible solution is to bring everything everywhere, but the entire time I'm on this hypothetical trip, I'd have to constantly be making a decisions about what to use at what time, and knowing myself, probably not actually enjoy the trip.

The same with ownership. Do I need this camera? Do I need these features? Do I want those types of photos? Own everything, and, knowing me, probably not enjoy the cameras themselves as much, because the stuff I have is always going to be defined by the things I don't. The shots I get are defined by the shots I missed. The choices I made are defined by the choices I didn't. The experience I partook in is defined by the experiences I missed.

Seems pretty anxiety-inducing to me!

Quote from JensM on May 23, 2023, 1:06 am

I have a very long answer saved as a text file, but untill further notice, I think I will cast my vote with this:

We are somewhat willing subjects raised to the tune of consumerism, and are played as fools, based on our own insecurities, into the fools frame fold.

Personally, I have found my system in M43, it is based on unobtrusiveness, and FF has no sway on me. I do entertain filthy thoughts about the 645s and the Fujifilm GFX systems, though.

Dabbing with older Pentax APSc just reinforce my beliefs that the M43 system is right, as does fiddling with the Nikon 1 system. The Pentaxes are just to big and chunky for "EDCing". I just took delivery of a second hand 18-135 for a compact set-up with the K-7 and inbound K-5, but I was wrong. The lens is shorter than some of the Pro level M43 zooms, but it has a rather hefty weight and combined with the body, it probably breaks the one kilo limit with some margin and pocketable it is not by any degree.

The Nikon 1s has some issues, other than it being a dead system with QC issues, as for now, I find the files somewhat unmalleable to the tune of the LX7 files giving me more leeway to work with.

I can also very well see myself getting a Nikon D700 as well as a Canon EOS5D MkII, but those are output driven and for the Nikon, I just found out that the same sensor can be found in the D300 and 300S even though with higher pixel density, and those are cheap as chips and probably worth getting to satisfy my curiosity.

To sum it up somewhat, I dab quite a bit with older cameras, and for General Purpose Photography (GPP) I would say that most any camera with 16MPs and over will do fine as long as the sensor size is M43 or over.

The 16 MPs is not a must, it is just a indication towards the cameras reaching a certain maturity when it comes to feature sets. There are models with less MPs that do fine but in my opinion those are somewhat the outlayers, and they need to be tighter harnessed if your output is going to be printed.

The cameras will off course not be as advanced as the latest lot, but for most people it wouldnt matter much. On the other hand, if your main interest in photography is peeping at 400% enlargements on a 31" Eizo Coloredge in the basement, the golden oldies would probably not be up to much.

So, yes. I think the fools frame is overhyped and that most people could be, if not better served, so just as well served with something or the other, and have the money to show for it. That sentiment is somewhat why I am on this forum, having found, watched and enjoyed James musings into old gear.

Finally, it is no bother to me whatever people want to spend their own hard-earned on, but I am slightly bothered if there are no critical thought process behind the "buy it now" decision. Any 8-10 year old mid level camera with good glass would most likely deliver the goods.

If anything, put the dough into monographs, work-shops/courses or travel. For the general photographers population, I think that would be wiser than spending 1000s to get another half stop of stabilization and one stop of dynamic range and repeating that the next year. 🙂

The flower picture below is shot on a Lumix g5 released in 2012, with the Lumix 14-42PZ earlier today.

 

Quote from Alen K on May 25, 2023, 4:08 am

The only full-frame cameras I own are all 35mm film cameras, including an Olympus OM-1 (the original) and a Pentax K1000, none of which I use anymore. I stopped using the film cameras when I got a point-and-shoot camera (a Lumix DMC-FS3). (The FS3 was not my first digital camera. My first was a Fujifilm Finepix 2600.) For my modest photographic needs, mainly vacation snapshots and family event photos, it was clearly superior because it was far more portable, easily fitting in a shirt or pants pocket, and I could take thousands of images without needing to constantly reload film (not to mention freedom from having to carry a supply of film canisters around). Image quality was a secondary concern but the 8Mpixel images from the FS3 were frankly good enough. I still have the FS3 and I still occasionally use it. But a lot of its duties are now handled by an iPhone. Since I always have that with me, it's one less thing to carry around and I can take photos anytime.

My other camera is a DSLR, specifically a Pentax K-3II. So why did I buy a DSLR when my photographic needs appear to be so mundane? Because the one type of photography I also do that is decidedly not mundane is astrophotography. You can do some of that with an iPhone but not all of it and for most of it, not very well. For astrophotography that involves anything but planets and the moon through a telescope, you need a relatively big sensor.

But, and this is where I am getting to the point of the thread, it doesn't have to be an especially large sensor. You don't necessarily need full frame. In fact, full frame is only an advantage for nightscape and Milky Way photography and for only one reason. Specifically, lenses that cover a given field of view for full frame have longer focal lengths than lenses giving the same field of view for smaller sensors, which means at any given focal ratio they also have larger apertures. And larger apertures collect more light in a given exposure time.

But that aperture advantage does not apply when you attach a camera to a telescope. All that full frame does for you then is, potentially, give you a wider field of view. It is "potentially" because most telescopes don't have sufficiently good optical quality to give nice round star images to the corners of a full frame. Most of them adequately cover in that sense an APS-C frame at best. And, as it turns out, there is a way to get a wider field of view from any telescope with any camera. The solution is to shoot a mosaic. So, a full frame sensor is not needed at the telescope. In fact, most dedicated astrocameras use four-thirds or APS-C sensors.

Mosaics are also an effective way to get a wider field of view out of any lens, which in practise means that the aperture advantage of full frame can be matched quite easily. You are trading off the convenience of taking a single frame for the additional work required to shoot and process a mosaic.

The considerations above factored into my choice of an APS-C DSLR rather than a full-frame model. Admittedly, the prices of the bodies was also somewhat of a factor. Having used the K-3II for several years now, I think I made the right choice. I feel no need for a full-frame camera.