https://petapixel.com/2020/12/31/camera-gear-overkill-why-bigger-and-faster-is-not-always-better/
Happy New Year! I'm out taking photos but hope to have some sunny pix from the Panasonic 20-60mm to share a bit later. Nice day for a walk...
photo: Iceland 2018. G9 + Olympus 12-100mm f4.0.
9 comments:
Nice photo, Kirk. And quite a surprise finding a Gear Acquisition Syndrome antidote on your blog!
Ed
It's true that the differences between APS-C and full frame are grossly exaggerated by many people. To me, the main reason to buy a full-frame camera (though I don't currently own one) would be to be able to use legacy 35mm lenses in the same way that I used them when I was still shooting film regularly.
There are some minor points I could argue with in this article, but only minor ones. For example, he notes that you can get equivalent DOF on APS-C by opening up the lens more. Generally speaking, this is true, but we should note that it's not always possible. If you're shooting at f/1.4 on FF, you need something like f/1.0 to get the same DOF on APS-C, and most likely you don't have an f/1.0 lens. And of course if you open the lens a stop, you have to use different shutter speed or ISO to get correct exposure, which again may not be possible in some cases (though usually it will be).
The point that even large prints look fine at 12 MP is well-taken but has its limits. A 12 MP image will probably be about 4300 pixels wide, so a 43" wide print will have roughly 100 pixels per inch, which realistically should be fine for normal viewing. But this is further complicated by demosaicing, which blurs the image somewhat; additional blurring may come from post-processing that softens the image, such as noise reduction, rotation, or correction of geometric distortion or perspective. And of course any cropping throws away pixels. (He does not say what post-processing was done to the images in this article.) To my mind, the main technical advantage of higher resolution is that it makes these problems more tractable. Even then, though, there is such a thing as overkill. I have yet to be disappointed with the printed results of 25 MP images; I don't really see a need for more than that.
Writers like that just spoil the fun by pointing out the facts. Let me have my GAS and that first moment of unboxing a new S5 and whatever comes next!
I shoot both FF and APS-C, and with adequate lighting the differences are hardly measurable. As lighting diminishes and ISO increases the FF definitely shows its advantages. To me the decision comes down to what lighting you're shooting in.
One factor to consider, which this author didn’t address is that full frame is currently where the most innovation is happening in photo technology, so if you want to be shooting with camera systems that incorporate the latest tech sooner, that’s a good reason to go with full-frame. The author talks about Sony a6400. That camera doesn’t use the latest generation of sensor. Neither does the top of the line a6600. And if I’m not mistaken, both of them still have slower SD-card write speeds than their full-frame counterparts. Sony is just not as focused on making sure their APS-C cameras are best in class, as they are with their full-farm lineup. That’s not just about bodies, it’s also lenses. For example, short tele 1.4 lenses are commonplace on full frame cameras, but when Fuji came out with their equivalent f/1.0 lens for APS-C, it was a big deal because it was the first and only such lens available for an APS-C system. Fuji is one bright spot in the APS-C world. Their cameras are probably the most advanced in that sensor size. However, they don’t have class-leading eye detect autofocus, a good selection of third party glass, or the ability to shoot video for more than 30 minutes, all of which features can be found in full-frame. And their latest XT-4 sells for about the same price as Sony’s A7iii. Granted the A7iii is two years old and it’s EVF is lower resolution, but it’s generally pretty capable and evolved. So to recap, full frame is a place where manufacturers are focusing their efforts in product innovation in areas like video capabilities and autofocus,. Full frame cameras also offer more low-light sensitivity, and faster lenses. Although I’m currently using a Fuji system, I am tempted by full-frame, but I’m waiting for something better that’s yet to come. That’s my treatment for GAS, think about what’s not yet on the market. And by the time that arrives, there will be something even more appealing on the horizon. At least that’s how it’s worked so far.
I'm proud to say I haven't bought any photo gear all year!
I will state that I'm with Eric Rose on this. I haven't bought a piece of photo gear now for this entire new year! such restraint. (Thank goodness the lens hood arrived yesterday).
The other consideration is that if you buy into an APS-C system, you're probably buying APS-C lenses. If you decide you need better tech for some reason, you have a choice: go to FF and buy all new lenses, or wait for your camera company to bring the new tech to their APS-C cameras...which might or might not happen. APS-C feels stranded to me, not notably lighter or smaller than FF, and not notably better or cheaper than FF entry-level cameras. (And entry level FF cameras are really very good, if you don't demand pro-level resilience.)
Although his diffraction example doesn’t hold up - at least as seen on my iPad, many generations of compression away from the original - I take nearly anything written by Alan Adler as handed down from God Himself. The man is a genius. I am reminded of that several times each day as I use my Aeropress. Every detail of its functional design is exquisite. If it weren’t rendered in truly pedestrian plastic it probably would have a place in the Museum of Modern Art.
Post a Comment