Do you really need a larger format?

[Emanuel]

Because of most recent announcements and camera releases...

 

Amongst other several ones, here are two interesting sources FYA:

 

https://fstoppers.com/education/no-larger-sensors-do-not-produce-shallower-depth-field-254158

 

 

[noone]

I don't need larger than FF.

For most uses, for me, I have found APSC and M43 (and even Pentax Q) can be fine but FF is what I prefer.

MF is too expensive and lenses to take advantage of the larger sensor to allow shallower DOF are few and far between (though adapting fast FF lenses on the current medium format digital cameras seems to counter that with little issue going by Andrew's use of the FD 85 1.2 on his Fuji MF camera).

 

I want low light (walk around at night with any lens, not just a fast one) and I want wide angle done easy and including tilt shift.      Current  APSC and even M43 is much better than it used to be with the first lot of APSC DSLRs but FF is better as well.

The old A7s  can fit in a large building from up close using a wide angle tilt shift lens and if it has a projection running, use a higher ISO to keep a fast enough shutter speed for stills and I can shoot a band with whatever aperture I choose in a dark beer garden at night and have all the band members in focus from close to the stage.

I can use a 300 2.8 AT 2.8 and with a person as a subject at a normal distance for that lens and have the whole person in focus but the background blurred out. just behind them.

 

 

[Robert Collins]

I think that camera brands (apart from Fuji and Olympus) are really trying to 'push' FF onto consumers - 'FF is where serious photographers should be'. APSC seems to be somewhat orphaned (Sony E - one new lens in 5 years) (EF-M what future?) even though that is where the majority of the demand is.

Even Panasonic is getting in on the act. I love this back-handed compliment to M43 from Panasonic reported by DPR ' Panasonic stressed that it will continue to sell and develop the Micro Four Thirds system in parallel with its L-mount system, which will be targeted at high-end users.'

[kye]

I want shallower DoF than I can currently get with my XC10 fixed 24-240mm zoom but don't want to give up the flexibility of the large zoom range and IS.

A 24-105mm F4 zoom on a camera that shoots 4K in full sensor and crop mode would do for me, and FF is the only system with a fast zoom. I'd happily use any sensor size, in fact the smaller the better, it's the lack of fast zooms in any other mount that is pushing me to FF.

[nigelbb]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

I want shallower DoF than I can currently get with my XC10 fixed 24-240mm zoom but don't want to give up the flexibility of the large zoom range and IS.

A 24-105mm F4 zoom on a camera that shoots 4K in full sensor and crop mode would do for me, and FF is the only system with a fast zoom. I'd happily use any sensor size, in fact the smaller the better, it's the lack of fast zooms in any other mount that is pushing me to FF.

The Sony RX10II has a 1" sensor like the XC10 but has a really great 24-200mm constant F/2.8 aperture lens with built in ND filters & motor zoom. It's a shame that Sony haven't put that lens into a newer more video oriented camera.

[Mako Sports]

Honestly as intriguing as the FF stuff is like the A7III and new Panny's i'm happy with Supa 35, Sony just give me a headphone jack on the A6700 or an FS5 with A9 like video auto focus and gg!

Digital medium format is still pretty expensive overall. 

[kye]

2 hours ago, nigelbb said:

The Sony RX10II has a 1" sensor like the XC10 but has a really great 24-200mm constant F/2.8 aperture lens with built in ND filters & motor zoom. It's a shame that Sony haven't put that lens into a newer more video oriented camera.

By the time you account for crop factor, the f2.8 on a 1" sensor is more like f8.

[JurijTurnsek]

We also don't need nice new cars and flagship phones, but there are powerful emotions being used against us by marketing and the sales people in stores. If you have the budget, you are going to (over)spend it more likely than not. This kind of behavior keeps the capitalistic gears grinding, so there this upside I guess. Companies have to exploit this to keep afloat and being budget-minded requires a strong commitment.

Before anyone jumps in and proclaims how they bought into FF with a 2-3 generations old body and a bunch of MF lenses, you must realize you have to be pretty knowledgeable about photography to accept and work around the limitations of such a setup. Most consumers want as much convenience as they can buy (so the latest AF, smartphone connectivity etc.).

[Jimmy]

I'm a firm believer in your glass being one of the most important things, so would far rather great glass on a m43 sensor than crappy glass on a FF sensor.

I like s35 as there are great, affordable cine lenses along with nice still lenses

[mercer]

6 hours ago, kye said:

By the time you account for crop factor, the f2.8 on a 1" sensor is more like f8.

Yes, but you aren’t going to find the convenience that a 1” sensor compact or bridge camera offers. If an equivalent lens from the RX10ii was available in FF, it would be a $2000-$3000 lens and the size of an artillery canon.

In my opinion Sony peaked with the RX10 line with the Mark II. After that model they dumped the built in NDs and the constant aperture for the sake of reach. In my opinion there is a gap in the market now. The XC10, RX10ii, FZ2500 are point and shoot cinema cameras and the 1” sensors only help with that convenience.

This is one of the reasons I’m thinking about getting a camcorder. If you look at the features and quality from the Z90 or DVX200 or XF405, they rival what you would get with a cinema camera that’s twice the price. At $3-4 thousand dollars for a new FF camera, I’d rather spend the extra money for a cinema camera for the extra features. But for the money, bridge cameras and camcorders are giving you those features and adding a small form factor and convenience.

Full Frame is awesome, I love shooting full frame, but everything is bigger and heavier. Focus is more difficult, IBIS doesn’t work as well, lenses are bigger and heavier and more expensive (for the most part)

But from a business stance, FF is great, the manufacturers aren’t spending that much more in R&D and production but they can charge nearly twice as much.

If you can make a good film with a FF, there’s no reason why you can’t make a good film with a 1” sensor camera. You just have to think differently.

Hell, The Walking Dead is shot on S16 and I never once thought while I watched that show that I wished there was just more shallow depth of field.

[kye]

@mercer yeah, the XC10 is a hard act to follow but when I watch the footage I just get disappointed with how flat it looks.

It's totally possible to shoot a good film with a 1" sensor and get good 3D images if you control the locations and lighting, but that's just not how I shoot.

I shot a few videos with the 700D and 18-35 1.8 and the separation was what I was wanting.

The A7iii and 24-105mm F4 goes longer with APSC mode, and longer again with a bit of digital zoom. It's not the ideal form factor and I'd love a tiny cinema camera, but I'll see what there is once the dust has settled from the current frenzy of announcements.

I'm in no rush, but a look with a bit more depth is calling.

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, kye said:

@mercer yeah, the XC10 is a hard act to follow but when I watch the footage I just get disappointed with how flat it looks.

It's totally possible to shoot a good film with a 1" sensor and get good 3D images if you control the locations and lighting, but that's just not how I shoot.

I shot a few videos with the 700D and 18-35 1.8 and the separation was what I was wanting.

The A7iii and 24-105mm F4 goes longer with APSC mode, and longer again with a bit of digital zoom. It's not the ideal form factor and I'd love a tiny cinema camera, but I'll see what there is once the dust has settled from the current frenzy of announcements.

I'm in no rush, but a look with a bit more depth is calling.

Yeah I get that, everybody has different needs and wants but separation isn’t impossible with 1” sensors, it just requires a different strategy. Now I understand you shoot a lot of travel and family videos so you don’t always have the luxury to go run back and frame your shots accordingly, so in your instance, a bridge camera may not work for you. For others, it definitely can.

[fuzzynormal]

If the market meets the level of my finances, I could see myself having a Medium Format camera mostly for talking head interviews. Until then, I'm good.  Figure I might rent one in the near future to see how I like it. 

I'm kind of loaded with debt at the moment so I'm on a spending freeze.  

[kye]

42 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah I get that, everybody has different needs and wants but separation isn’t impossible with 1” sensors, it just requires a different strategy. Now I understand you shoot a lot of travel and family videos so you don’t always have the luxury to go run back and frame your shots accordingly, so in your instance, a bridge camera may not work for you. For others, it definitely can.

Absolutely, my complaints about the XC10 are few and relatively trivial, and my situation is not the norm by any measure.

If you're shooting with a bit of room then you can just get further from the background to get some defocusing and adjust lighting for more contrast.

In a sense I am looking to create the polished and slightly dreamy impression that we have of memories. I make the footage a bit on the warm side, I use the nicest moments and angles I can, I add cheery music. It's just a slightly different aesthetic.

There is lots of criticism of people wanting to buy more equipment or have more features, and sometimes that criticism is warranted, but when the desire for features comes from starting with the creative process and working backwards then it's mostly not warranted.

I think it's like writing an essay in school, you can say anything you like as long as you can back it up.

If you want new features and can back it up with real-life creative needs then go for it. No-one criticises Hollywood productions for shooting in 4k or RAW or on huge rigs, or people shooting hair commercials for wanting great slow motion because we understand that the equipment choices are relevant for the task at hand.

That should be the only criteria.

[Drew Allegre]

Do I need a FF sensor in a dedicated video camera? No

Do I want a FF sensor in a hybrid camera that will also be used for stills? Yes, absolutely.

[mkabi]

"Want" in many instances will supersede "need".

Can you get by with a m43, of course you can... but many people still crave FF.

In the same respect, if you know MF is great for both stills and video, and that the industry is slowly moving that direction... why not crave that too... but you can still get by with a m43.

For me, as I stated in another thread, I think given... that thats the direction its all going... I'm going to save up for the next 3 or 4 years (using whatever I have right now till then) and get myself a Fuji GFX 100S or Hasselblad X2D if one or the other comes with all the bells and whistles discussed on this forum...  

Despite my own wants and needs... I would still recommend the XT3 - amazing bang for buck, hands down.

[Castorp]

I’ve never had an M43 camera but I love the idea of one. I also much prefer the 4:3 ratio to 3:2. 

I like Olympus and what they do. I can imagine carrying an EM-5 and two 1.8 primes is a real treat. 

[Mark Romero 2]

What I "need" for both RAW stills and video is good low light ability, great dynamic range,  great UI, awesome colors, weight low enough to use on a smaller sized gimbal.

The UI of my a6500 is killing me. It just frustrates the heck out of me.

The X-T3 looks tempting despite lack of IBIS. Not a FF but it might be a great hybrid solution (my main concern with some of the Fuji cameras I have seen in the past is that the auto ISO function looks "stepped" with noticeable changes in ISO).

The new Panasonic L cameras look interesting too. As does the Z6. 

However, with the X-T3 and the Panasonic L cameras doing 4K 60p, probably next year we will all be saying "4K 30p is so 2018."

[mercer]

32 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

What I "need" for both RAW stills and video is good low light ability, great dynamic range,  great UI, awesome colors, weight low enough to use on a smaller sized gimbal.

The UI of my a6500 is killing me. It just frustrates the heck out of me.

The X-T3 looks tempting despite lack of IBIS. Not a FF but it might be a great hybrid solution (my main concern with some of the Fuji cameras I have seen in the past is that the auto ISO function looks "stepped" with noticeable changes in ISO).

The new Panasonic L cameras look interesting too. As does the Z6. 

However, with the X-T3 and the Panasonic L cameras doing 4K 60p, probably next year we will all be saying "4K 30p is so 2018."

I don’t know if what you need really exists in a single camera. You may be better off getting a video/cinema camera (C100 mark ii?) and a stills camera.

[Drew Allegre]

Honestly sounds like the a73 comes pretty close to checking those boxes (colors always debatable and subjective of course).