Sony Why I don't care about full frame any more.

I love remarks like this, since answering them is so funny! This is one of the major arguments of those who think that full frame DSLRs are superior to everything else and that everything else is crap (I am exaggerating a little bit). This argument is not half as good as it seems to most. The viewfinders of the Panasonic G series and AFAIK the one of Sony's NEX-7 are both equally large as those of many modern full frame DSLRs. Secondly, all modern viewfinders are rather small compared to the viewfinders of earlier days. This is the moment in which I love to post the following link: A comparison of viewfinder sizes.

The viewfinders of many full frame DSLRs are substantially bigger than those of crop sensor DSLRs. EVFs don't really count as they are not optical viewfinders, its just a small version of what every modern camera has on the back underneath. Its a moot point if one wants an optical finder.

My first proper camera was a Nikon FM, at the time the F3 HP was my holy grail as I wear glasses. The holy grail of that holy grail for me would have been the monster Action Finder. Its a huge shame no one is making a camera like that today.
Interchangeable Viewfinders Part IV
 
I'm wondering about that comparison. I have a number of those cameras including the OM1, the 1Dm2, 1Ds and 5D, and I'm wondering how they measure the OVF's, because there isn't that much of a diff btwn the OM1 and the FF dslrs.
 
I do know that the Olympus EVF2 is a very similar size and viewing experience to the E3 viewfinder as I owned both at the same time, then also had an OMD for a short while and that was similar again.
 
TBH i do quite prefer the Full frame photos, but as ppl said, we'd need the same photos side by side with nex 6 and a99
 
As a photographer who spends a fair amount of time in forums and as someone who is a gear head (always looking for the best gear for my personal and professional needs) I can understand the desire to see laboratory-like side-by-side images taken with exacting precision for direct comparisons, but that's not my point.

This post was largely about what I've found currently works for me (particularly after messing with the latest FF Sony sensors and the latest APS-C Sony sensors).

As I said previously, if you "pixel peep" full size images from a FF camera and an APS-C camera you WILL see a difference. If you shoot above ISO 6400 (or horribly underexpose a shot and push the exposure like mad in Photoshop) you WILL see a difference.

However, no one (other than me or people in photography forums) ever pixel peep my images at extreme magnification. Likewise, I don't personally shoot at insane ISOs -- even though the A99 is cleaner than the NEX-6 above ISO 6400 I personally thought the A99 images above ISO 6400 were too noisy and didn't like them, so for me and my needs the A99 images were still unusable above ISO 6400 even if they were better). I also don't try to push an exposure 2+ stops in Photoshop.

There is NOTHING wrong with anyone choosing to shoot with a FF camera. I own cameras with micro 4/3, APS-C and FF sensors, my colleagues own both APS-C and FF cameras. My point is that "in both online galleries and in prints up to 24 x 36 inches (the largest I ever print) I absolutely CANNOT see the difference in images shot with a full-frame sensor and an APS-C sensor" and for my purposes "at least for now, APS-C technology is holding its own quite well against full frame."

I guess that's why I titled the thread "Why I don't care about full frame any more" instead of "Why no one should care about full frame any more." ;)
 
James, that's the same argument for every step up in sensor size. Why use full frame....APS-C is just as good? Who needs APS-C....m43 is just as good? Who needs m43, those 1" sensors are just as good? Carried to the extreme, we'd all be shooting with cel phones.

Who needs a cell phone? My memory is just as good . . .
 
Back
Top