« Canon Too! | Main | The Story With the New Fuji X-T3 »

Thursday, 06 September 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Actually, I make three-foot-wide prints -- and sometimes six-foot-wide prints -- and my APS-C Pentax KP works just fine, thanks. And I don't have to carry around 20 pounds of gear to get a photo.

I'm with you on this one. Using Fuji as an example, compared to FF, the cameras are smaller and cheaper, the lenses are smaller and cheaper, and the quality is plenty good enough. With 24MP the camera captures more detail than I can see when I'm taking the photo. That's nice as far as it goes, but I don't feel the need for more of it, and I certainly don't want to pay for more of it.

I thought the 1 inch was the sweet spot.

Recently, I realized that for my uses, APS-C is doomed to play second fiddle to 24x36 for a technical reason: Based on my now 5-year experience with both Nikon/Zeiss ZF lenses shooting 24x36 vs. Fujifilm w/Fuji lenses shooting APS-C, when the photographer wishes to generate maximum depth of field for a given shot, the blurring caused by diffraction seems always to be more severe with APS-C than with 24x36. I'm a photographer who frequently is trying to achieve maximum depth of field, but the f/11 and f/16 results on APS-C are always soft compared to what can be gotten from the 24x36 Nikon and a good Zeiss ZF...and presumably some Nikon/other brand...lenses. I still value the small Fujifilm bodies for their overall picture quality, small size and control layout. But, if want the most depth of field, I'll choose the Nikon 24x36 if available.

I couldn't care less about the size of the sensor, problem is though that the 'full frame' sensors have had much better dynamic range than any smaller option.
So I do care about that and unfortunately the only way to get it is with a big sensor camera.
If the Fuji XT3 for example had the dynamic range of a D850 (or Z7 I''ll assume) then I'd have a couple in a heart beat.
Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

Only photographers look at a print four inches from it

I can get a nice three footer out of an APS sized camera (Nikon D7100). Did I miss a memo?

Yeah. Well. Looking at the sizes and prices of the new offerings from N&C, I feel absolutely no need for full frame.
My Fujis and Olympuses (Olympi?) serve me rather well for a good long while.

My whole photographic journey might be revolving around that APS-C !
I've been circling around "Full Frame" for the last ten years. Getting first an APS-C DSLR (Canon 30D, then 40D), then I jumped on the Olympus E-P1 (now on e-m5mkI & MkII) convinced and obsessed with having a fun AND small camera along with me most of the time, bye DSLR. Then I got distracted by getting film cameras. Initially my gateway to FF 35... but I hated scanning 35mm so I got into MF, with modest acquisitions first: a Mamiya 645 Pro, then a folding agfa super isolette, then another one for spare parts, then I got obsessed by the Plaubel Makina and I got one... I thought, 6x7 is better than Full Frame DSLR's !!!! Then I realized I like these cameras so much I'm reluctant to have them with me and risk to lose them (oh well)...

While doing so, I was always waiting for FF to meet mirror-less... Sony came with a really rather ugly first attempt... kept hoping, kept distracting myself, buying a large format film camera. So I was LF-MF-35mm film and was looking down to digital FF. Thanks to Fuji, APS-C got cool and I somehow feel you're entirely right about them now, but I must go FF (thanks marketeers!) and regret it to end this miserable chase and realize I was longing for APS-C all along. Sad !

I know what you mean. I really liked my Nikon D5100/D7100 DX cameras. The problem: Lack of prime lenses. If I wanted to stay a Nikon guy I had to move up to the D750 and use 1.8G primes. I suppose I could have used those FX 1.8G primes on my DX cameras, but then the focal lengths aren't quite my preference, and it seems an over-pay to buy FX lenses for DX cameras. Frustrating. I think it is a similar deal with Canon and Sony for APS-C, and in that sense Fuji seems to own the enthusiast APS-C segment, although a small percentage of the overall market. Most people it seems are happy with their smart phones, so now that full frame mirrorless has arrived, it's for "ultimate optical quality" and the lenses are as large and heavy (and high quality) as ever. In this sense Micro 4/3 might be the sweet spot for small gear with high quality, but the smartphones are snapping at the heels of the smaller sensor systems, so now Panasonic rumored to have a full frame offering. Meanwhile, the size/weight of my D750 with 1.8G primes is equivalent to a Fuji X-2 with 1.4 primes. No real savings at all in regards to size/weight or money.

Long story short, a compact D5600 with some small DX primes would have been perfect for me, but I doubt that will ever happen now. In fact, I wonder if we'll really have compact sensor cameras at all in the future, the smartphones absorbing that entire segment, so maybe these full frame cameras are just the writing on the wall. So yes, I agree with your idea real good performance getting smaller and smaller, and in a sense that explains these high end optics from Nikon and Canon, and soon most likely Panasonic using a Leica mount.

I make prints that are waaaaay larger than three feet wide, and they are all from a Fuji APS-C sensor. OK, our designers work with print shops to make them (banners, displays, really big wall prints), but still, they look fabulous.

One day I showed up at an event and they had taken one of my stitched panoramics and made a backlit transparency that was 40 feet wide and 10 feet tall. The original was ~12 vertical frames from an XT1 stitched in Photoshop, so the 10 foot dimension was just the width of the sensor. The image looked fabulous even right up a foot from it - plenty of detail and sharpness. Did I mention it was shot with the "kit" 18-55mm zoom? :) That's the day I stopped worrying about sensor size.

That said I added the GF-X 50S to my arsenal this summer and it's been a lot of fun playing with that. Just like the old film days, choose the right system for the assignment.

I'll never quite understand why the 35mm frame holds such sway in the minds of "serious" photo nerds and photo nerd marketing people.

But, to me APS was not quite right either, never really gaining any advantage in size/weight and always being second class in the lens lines of the companies that used it.

I like the 4/3rds crop and the relatively full lens line ups. And the fact that those cameras and lenses are finally the the right size. "35mm" (and APS for that matter) digital cameras, but really their lenses, were always too big.

I don't think you are being a wet blanket at all.
I really believe both Nikon & Canon need both pro level and consumer level APS c cameras
As a professional there is a great deal to be gained from having an APSc body in addition to FF. Many sports & wildlife photographers swear by them. They provide pixel density that use oozes detail.
And at the consumer level they can always be made smaller and lighter than FF..
Digital sensors are also a LITTLE, like film now, whee if you want a jump in quality you need more area. But since small sensors are better than small film the analogy is imperfect.
There is nothing wrong with m4/3, but it appears to me that that size will be squeezed out in favor of APS c & FF or Crop MF

We use Both Nikon & Canon in our business and in both systems we use FF & APS-c -- it makes huge sense. I don't think Mirrorless changes that.

In today's market I don't like APS-C systems from Nikon, Sony or Canon because they don't make a decent set of prime lenses for them. Sure you can use the longer lenses from the FF systems, but they're larger than they need to be. And there are almost no wide primes. With the exception of Fuji, APS-C cameras are just frustrating to consider. Might as well go MF, FF or MFT.

I know, today you are more a ccc than usual, because the Fuji XT3 was announced an has no IBIS. Me too.

Agreed Mike APS-C is the sweet spot for camera and lens size and performance. I regard FF as medium format and medium format as 4x5.
Nikon and Canon have been dragged to the party late and will take time to catch up with Fuji who are now in the position to bring out specialty glass with tilt and shift and fast primes etc. As a pro I do not need more than 24 mp, any more and things just get more trouble to handle, faster cards and larger drives are needed.

This video seems as relevant as ever: https://youtu.be/PHYidejT3KY

It's the sweet spot for me. All the depth of field I could want, but also as little as I want. More than enough definition.

Being a Pentax man, I've noticed that Pentax have, like in the film days, three main formats; they've just moved down a size but the differences are fairly similar.

In the old days, they gave us 35mm (full frame), then 2.69 X bigger is the 645 film format, then 1.69 X bigger again was that giant SLR, the 67.

Now they give us APS-C, then 2.25 X bigger is full frame, then 1.68 X bigger is the 645 digital.

I reckon this was the plan all along.

A digital mirrorless 67 camera would be a most entertaining device. But don't hold yer breath!

I suspect that many of us shoot with a sensor one size above what we really need on the off chance we might shoot that great image which just has to be printed big or severely cropped. It's like "image insurance."

APS-C is the one for me. Just in case. 8-)

The question really comes down to, how quickly and how much will cellphones eat into APS-C sales? Maybe full frame is the future because full frame will be the last format standing.

At this point I think the only reason to favor "full-frame" is to be able to use legacy 35mm lenses and get the same angle of view they provided on the cameras they were originally designed for. If I didn't have a bunch of old lenses I still like to use, I would be completely satisfied with my Fuji APS-C X-E2s. As it is, the recent FF mirrorless announcements from Nikon and Canon are mildly tempting but I will probably continue to stick with Fuji because I really like the images I'm getting and the Fuji user experience (aperture rings on lenses!).

I have thought that image quality was "there" since about 2005. After that, it's all about what you can do with your lenses. I have enjoyed 24x36 less because of the poster sized prints that were possible, and more because a 135mm lens always produced images that looked like they were taken . . . well, with a 135mm lens. Relationship of fore and aft - that's what I am going for. I realize this strays dangerously close to the depth of field minefield. [Ducking!]

Truth be told, I throw out the majority of my pixels anyway. Too large/unwieldy for what my goals are. Ahh, for the days of 12 MP.

I'm with you.... Except I shoot M4/3, not APS-C but let's not argue about that right now because I also still put the occasional roll of film through my Mamiya RB67 so when my full-frame friends get a bit too much, I tell them that their small sensors would ruin the depth of field of my (RB) lenses ;-)

I know it's a terribly subjective topic, but personally I find that full frame is excellent, and APS-C is good enough. I find m4/3 lacking. But as you indicated, it depends on what you're doing with your files.

Personally, the X-T3 is the recent release that really has my attention. The Canon 28-70 f/2 looks fantastic, but it's monstrous and the fact that the camera is FF plays a role in that. Fuji may seem to be compromising by using an APS-C sensor instead of FF, but at least they can release lenses that are legitimately smaller and seem to pair well with the smaller bodies. All these large FF lenses on small FF mirrorless bodies feel imbalanced to me, saves a few primes here and there.

I feel like I've said this before. Hmm...

Its not really about 3-foot wide prints, Mike. I had a Fuji X-Pro2 APS-C which was as good at large prints as my Leica. The main difference for me was the difference in depth-of-field between a "normal" 50mm lens on a full frame and a "normal" 35mm lens on an APS-C. Sometimes Ilike some details a bit more out of focus.

You have some odd enthusiasms (lens design, stick shifts, pool) but APS-C is one of the oddest. I can't think of why anybody in their right mind would prefer it. It's just a crop of a FF sensor; the only reason for it is the price differential between APS-C and FF back when digital was new. APS-C has a camera and lens set that must be as large and ungainly as FF, while offering less quality; and just below the size of APS-C sensor you have a well-developed m4/3 ecology, which offers much more compact bodies and lenses. And below that, a group of excellent all-in-one bodies, and then the cell phones.

And perhaps you don't want three-foot-wide prints, but perhaps you want 24-inch-wide prints, but you want the ability to sharply crop and still retain the highest resolution. Nope. For cultivated eccentricity, I believe you should stick to lens design and stickshifts. (But not [shudder] pool.)

I have a stunning, three-foot wide print hanging in my dining room taken with a 16MP APS-c camera. What is wrong with that?

I thought I'd be a 135 format digital photographer forever. Then (like everyone else) I got old and started valuing lightweight and small size.

Honestly, I never needed full frame anyway. I only wished that what I did was serious and important enough for a fancy camera.

As you point out, the market leaders want to push customers to FF and therefore don't provide the most satisfying crop sensor products.

Given that crop sensors are just perfect for us old geezers, I guess that means we should buy cameras from companies that don't sell FF.

Ok, I feel the need to warn people. This is a Grumpy old man post.

I'm getting fed up with the Internet's breathless marketing of full frame. Its no news - Sony has had a full frame mirrorless camera out for about 5 years now. It's just a regular camera release.

They are still the same old cameras just without a flappy mirror. Nothing's really moved forward.

Oh yes, they're cheaper to make so more profit for the camera companies.

Enjoy your day with your choice of camera.

I agree. Which is why I can't make sense of Canon's decision to launch an RF mount but - it seems - not allow for them to be mounted on their APS-C mirrorless cameras.

APS-C has been good enough for a while now. By "good enough" I mean that to my eyes switching to a larger format doesn't give any visible improvement to strong subject matter. And a weak image is still a weak image.
With the XT-1 I'm making 24 x 36 inch prints from the files. Admittedly there isn't a lot of room for severe cropping, but there is nothing wrong with the detail in the prints. Maybe good lenses make the difference.

Label me an contrarian as well. All this hubbub over the new FFM cameras sorta leaves me cold. From the little I've read of the new Canon and Nikon models, I'm sure they're really good cameras because everything is really good these days. I'm sure the new Panasonic will be really good as well. But I'm unconvinced FF is the wave of the future. And I'm positive it's not the wave of MY future. Don't need it. APS-C is more than enough for me. M4/3 is fine as well. I've done some really nice pictures with tiny sensor pocket cameras. One of my favorite pictures taken on film was done with a Kodak disposable.

So I'll join the cranky, cantankerous contrarian movement. Sign me up.

Especially when I read posts like this from the Wanderinglensman I must agree with you

[I watched the video Dennis referenced,


and while it's certainly interesting, I think the test falls down somewhat because he's photographing daylit, middle-distant subjects, presumably at low ISOs, and there aren't great demands being placed on dynamic range or low light capability.

BTW, at 7:10 he says what sounds very much like "I'll have to have a little fink about it." What in the world can that possibly mean? I turned the sound up and listened to it carefully about six times trying to figure out what he might be saying. When I was a kid, "a little fink" would have meant "informer" or someone who is held in contempt, but I can't see how that makes any sense in context. Google was no help in terms of UK meanings. "Fink" is some sort of slang, I presume? Whatever is he saying? --Mike]

I'm still very, very happy with APS-C. I don't want huge lenses, I have two kids and shoot on vacations mostly now. I can shove a X-T2, batteries, several lenses including a stabilized 50-140 2.8 into a backpack, along with my X70 and IR Coolpix A, and I've got any picture i'd want to take covered. And it's not a big bag, because it has to fit on Disney rides:)

I switched to Fuji initially because even Nikon's DX lenses were big - as much as I loved the 17-55 2.8, with the hood, that thing was a beast.

APS-C remains the 'Just Right' size - for me, of course.

I’m totally with you here, the standard for “really good” performance is getting smaller and smaller. I started digital photography with an Olympus E1, a 5 Mpix camera, and the only fairly obvious jump in quality was when they came up with the Olympus E3, a10 Mpix camera. From that point the quality improvement after each new introduction has been just incremental, a very tiny bit each time. I have an EPSON 7880 with which 22x30” prints of good, carefully made photographs are indistinguishable whatever they come from the 2012 introduced 16 Mpix OMD EM5 or from the 20 Mpix EM1 MK II. I even have 22x30” prints from the 12 Mpix FT E5 that are as good. I do same size prints for friends that have 24x36mm FF cameras, and the difference with my MFT prints is just zilch. Having a good quality lens is by far more important today, a weak lens shows clearly in a print of this size.

Of course, a fraction of a full size 45 mpix FF image close to a fraction of a full size 20 Mpix MFT image in a 5K computer screen display evident differences, but the differences disappear in a 20x30” print. To appreciate the benefit of a 45 Mpix image one have to go to very large print. During film time we had cameras from 8x10” or larger through 35mm to Minox. I lived in Tucson for 4 years during the eighties, my second home was the Center for Creative Photography where I saw many exhibits and got to know many photographers and employees. Although I went to many exhibitions of large format photographers, usually displaying large prints, the small prints exhibits impacted me much more. The Edward Weston contact prints are awesome, even across the gallery. The Eugene Smith 11x14” prints are sublime. I remember an exhibit of around 50 4x6” dye transfers prints from Kodachrome 25 transparencies of Dean Brown, a landscape photographer, the tiny prints were just exquisite.

To me, if you have to go to a large print to cause an impact is because the image is not worth. When I think one of my photos is worth to print, y do a 6x8” print on a letter size paper and hang it on my living room, just the paper, no frame no glass. I live it there for a month or more, if I get bored with it, I just drop it. I also consider the comments of my family and friends that come to visit me. I end up throwing more than keeping. A good photograph made with a MFT or an APS-C camera will not be better if you have made it with a FF camera. A bad photograph made with a MFT or an APS-C camera will be a bad photograph to if you have made it with a FF camera. Today we are swamped with high resolution junk images, and the camera makers push this trend in order to survive. So, it seems that any one of us will end up having a digital 8x10 equivalent (to do what?)

You don't have to convince me. I "downgraded" from a full frame to an APS-C sensor. I doubt I'll be doing much printing beyond 17" x 25". At that size, I struggled to see relevant, significant differences between what the full frame 36MP sensor could do compared to the 24MP APS-C sensor. Plus the smaller sensor allows me to apply the camera movements I use in most of my pictures, while still maintaining a small kit.

As you say, use whatever works for you. Most of what photo-enthusiasts fret about (ultimate image quality, blah blah) isn't that important if you're getting the results you're after.

As a fellow DX diehard, just want to let you know I've made 3 foot wide prints from my trusty d7000! (they were stitched panoramas though)

I used to think APS-C was the sweet spot. Still do from a technical perspective.

But it's pretty clear at this point that aside from Fuji, the sweet spot on cameras and lenses is largely back to FF.

For Nikon, unless you need 8+fps, the best combo of lenses & body in terms of performance per dollar is a D750 and either the f4 zooms or the f1.8 primes. The Z6 will slot in there alongside the D750.

For Canon, it's the 6DII and the f4 zooms. When the EOS R has its inevitable 6D-style price drop it will slot in there (in the meantime, for Canon shooters an A7 variant with adapter is probably the best mirrorless option in terms of price/performance)

For Sony, it's the A7mII and A7mIII, although their lens line is a mess from the perspective of good but not too expensive.

All 3 have largely abandoned APS-C lens development, although they continue to iterate bodies to keep the mass market sales.

Hi Mike,

Notice at 1:52 of that video he says "I'm gonna spend the day in Soufend". "Soufend' = Southend (where my Mum grew up). So, "Fink" = Think.


I still do not understand the over the top emphasis on full frame cameras. Full frame is a tiny percent of the camera market. Yes they make a hefty profit on them but how many lenses do they sell for FF cameras? Probably not nearly as many as the would sell for the APS-C cameras. And there's the rub. All those primes lenses Nikon could be selling to ALL those DX cameras owners add up to ZERO.

And now another FF camera. Yes it is mirrorless but so what. A Z body plus one of the Z lenses will put you back a whole lot of ???.

For me the announcements from Canon and Nikon where a big nothing. A couple thousand Pros will MAYBE buy them.

I'll wager you that Nikon will take years to bring to market a DX mirrorless camera. And then with only one or two Zooms or maybe none. They'll just tell you to buy one of their over-priced Z lenses.

I left Nikon for Fujifilm and I now have four prime lenses and I'm waiting for the release of the 16mm f2.0 lens in 2019.

Like I said a while back in another post: "APS-C is the 35mm of the digital era. Enough said."

When I grew up (in northern Alberta, Canada) "fink" was synonymous with "snitch". Someone who told others, especially the authorities whoever they may be, about dodgy goings-on that the group that used the term "fink" had perpetrated.

Since about 2012, when I replaced some faded C-prints made from 645 160ISO color negs with same size (large; up to about 30x40" prints) shot with an m43 camera with 16mp, and judged the new prints superior in a technical sense, I have gone full in on m43.

If the small sensor can produce technical quality of a standard that served as the mainstay of my professional photography business for decades, then it's good enough to be the mainstay of my retirement photography. Also, it's easier to lug around and has greater reach when needed. Add on amazing stabilization (noticeably better than on any FF camera), 60fps in RAW with up to 15 frames pre-shot and we're truly spoiled. The specs on the new Nikon and Canon look rather pedestrian in comparison, while the lenses look like SUV's compared to many m43 offerings. Not going to catch me carrying those things around for fun.

I do use a hi-res FF camera occasionally, when I know I need better file quality, but I rarely miss it when I don't have it with me. I might sell it, as it really hasn't produced images that I like better in the end.


I'm so used to people saying 'fink' for 'think' that I thought you were being very dry! :)

fink = think. The mispronounced "th" is supposed to indicate, ironically, that the person is of a lower class and therefore less well educated.

Fink = think, "a little think about it " just his English accent :)

fink= think

Cor Blimey Mike, Aintcha errd a cockney geezer thinking?

-Simon de London

I think that a Thom Hogan is correct when he suggests that the recent action at the lower end of the full frame market will put further pressure on APS-C and m4/3 camera prices. At the moment, here in the U.K., you can pick up the previous generation A7II for under £1200, compared to £1350 pre-order price for the X-T3 and £980 for the X-T2 (a recent offer, it’s still £1250 in most stores). Can you honestly see Olympus being able to ask £1850 for the OMD EM-1 Mark III, which was the EM-1 Mark II’s original list price? With the release of the Z6 & Z7, EOS R and the rumoured Panasonic full frame system just a few weeks away, Sony have even started discounting the current generation A7 series bodies.

To be fair, if you’re starting from scratch, you can get top quality X-mount and m4/3 lenses for a fraction of the price of full frame glass (though Sigma and Tamron’s support skew this back in favour of the “big three”).

Fink ..... Cockney !

“Whatever is he saying? --Mike” Fink = Think. Just accent or bad pronunciation depending on your point of view.

To Michael Walsh. Thanks for the laugh. There are so many different accents in the little place that is the UK, and we've already had quips about Scottish accents this week.

Were I to put on a cockney accent, my reply might be, "You ain't fought about it ave ya? At least, dat's wot I fink."

Best wishes, and don't spend too long THinking about it!

Fink = think, people from southeast England often pronounce ‘th’ as ‘f’

"f" for "th" in some southern accents in England, innit.

What he said was, “I’d like to have a little think about it.” To American ears, some Brits pronounce “th” with an f sound.

Regarding "fink", it means "think".



Er, he's saying 'think'.

Mike, no slang involved, the chap in the video is just saying that he needs to have "a little THink about it", i.e. think about it some more...

"BTW, at 7:10 he says what sounds very much like "I'll have to have a little fink about it." What in the world can that possibly mean?"

"Have a little think" - British slang for "Think about it for a bit"


"Fink" is a London pronunciation of "Think". He shows other traces of the same accent, for instance dropping the "t" in "got".

Understand -and Dennis’s examples are also interesting (linked in his article) - I would also suggest those are the conditions a lot of us are frequently photographing in.

As to Fink - a very “East end” way of saying think - UK slang

Hello Mike

This is a statement that Einstein made frequently when stumped, "I'll have to have a little think about it". Various dialects in England pronounce "th" as f.

It’s a regional pronunciation of “think”. Have a little think is a common construction meaning to consider something further - and less obtuse than saying “I’ll have to sleep on it.”

He probably said “ A little think”. Some British accents make the f and the th sound very close.

Bigger is better! That's what she said anyway.

At the moment, for me, APS-C represents the best balance of compromises for both still and motion photography. And I don't see that changing any time soon. Sure there are always going to be occasions when a larger or a smaller sensor would work better, and fewer occasions when a different format would be the only way, but 80% of the time, APS-C is at least good enough.

What I want to know is: Why do I need to choose a sensor size? I mean, we've sent a dozen probes to Mars, and beyond, but my photo kit still has to be built around a sensor size? I'm half joking, of course, but only half.

I switched to FF reluctantly at a time when APSC was still not quite capable of delivering the kind of performance I wanted.

It took several years of traipsing around under a heavy rucksack before I dipped a toe back into the APSC world to ease the burden of travel, and discovered that it had already caught up and even exceeded my requirements.

Not only that, but someone (Fuji) was producing quirky APSC cameras with excellent optics that put the fun back in photography. After a couple more years, I settled comfortably back into the APSC world, to the great relief of my thoracic vertebrae.

Thank you Fuji, and thank you Sony for creating the sensors that made it possible.

I’ve fought about it and I fink he said “think”.

This, so far, appears nothing but a justification of the cameras (formats) the writers own, rather than an objective analysis.

I have Nikon's D200 and their D700. The older, smaller format camera gets more use because I like the equivalent 75mm optic that the 50mm used on it gives. I don't want to buy an 85mm and use the D700, because I feel I have too many lenses already. When I want to play around with shallow DOF I go to the D700 and use my longer lenses.

Were I to be starting from zero, I would have today's D810 or D850. Why? Because I think that if I were to quibble about the relative weights of cameras and use that as arbiter of choice, then I would feel I was being stupid. The larger format allows more versatility, and as my modus operandi these days consists of taking one camera and one lens out of the door with me, I don't give a fig about "outfit" weight. Bags and boxes have been left behind with pro life. I would certainly not buy smaller than Nikon's FX. Photographically speaking, size (as in larger) matters.

Actually, the practice of taking out just a single body with a prime attached makes for happier shooting because the time otherwise wasted thinking about focal length choices (the indecision) is removed from the process, and the photographer is thus in the position of making the best use of the thing he has with him. If it's for fun, then it matters not if you suddenly see something not suited to your outfit du jour; forget about it, concentrate on the things that are suited to your chosen focal length.

At the risk of proving I’m not a real photographer. The look that the 20mp micro 4/3 sensors have still takes my breath in a great photograph. For the way I look at and make photographs, nothing more needs to be done.

“Actually, I think it's likely that the standard for "really good" performance will get smaller and smaller. As it has been doing.”

Exactly. Been saying that for years.

I think at the moment and for a few years, MFT is the perfect size. (Only hankered if you need highest ISO.) Beyond a few years, it’s probably too large.

Heck, my own personal sweet spot is the 4/3 sensor size, so I'm with you there!

Wotsup wiv 'at Michael Johnston bloke then? Izzy deff or summat?
Anyone wiv arf a brain can tell the toff's sayin "Fink" - yer'no, as in "finking" bowt it. Issa ferb not a nowan.
Like es splainin, doan matta if you get a wissal from C'n'A or Saville Row - still a bleedin' wissal innit?

(Wissal = Whistle, and Flute = Suit.)

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007