[i83N]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 07-29-14 at 02:52 ----------

after this video i hope for new mirrorless by pentax

[todd]

after this video I want all those cameras and my pentax full frame

[psychdoc]

This guy is funny! Valid points.

[Gerbermiester]

Interesting perspective; thanks for sharing.

[normhead]

What I've been saying for years..... Jsherman and ElJay, watch that 5 times, until you understand it.

[alamo5000]

Finally someone who said it (again) so I didn't have to.

[kenafein]

As we all know, proper lighting and skill trump sensors, and even lenses, but this guy didn't really put forth any evidence other than other sensors are bigger. We've all seen these size comparisons before; and while it doesn't look much different, the Full Frame is over twice the area of the APS-C. It's hard to believe the video was so long. If he's doing a professional job, as he said, he'll be bringing a lot of other equipment. The added size of a DSLR, full frame or apsc, wouldn't make a huge difference. Though I am a big fan of mirror-less cameras for many reasons, and I certainly think many(aps-c, m4/3 and Full Frame) are up to task. Medium format and larger have their own limitations, optically. I'd love to see some sports footage from that large format camera. APS-C, m4/3 and Full Frame are the sweet spot for a lot of applications, and the comparison to larger formats is a bit absurd.

---

Last edited by kenafein; 07-28-2014 at 06:34 PM.

[kiwi_jono]

APS-C is a pretty good compromise in my view. Especially when you compare IQ versus System Size (camera + lens) versus Cost. And certainly plenty of capability for my skills anyway.

That said if Pentax put out a full frame and it was it was not much more than say a K-3, then I would want it. Can't see that happening though.

[rawr]

This ride never seems to end.

[calsan]

Yes, the large formats existed because:
1. films were slow, so you needed more area to gather light.
2. lenses were hand made using much lower grade of glass than is available today. Therefore, the lenses had to be bigger physically to mask inherent defects.

[Class A]

Jsherman and ElJay, watch that 5 times, until you understand it.

Why would they want to waste their time watching this Fuji commercial?

Clearly, Arias is promoting Fuji here (as an "X-photographer"; he is upfront about his commercial connection to Fuji) and has no real arguments.

1. "FF is better than APS-C, but not better enough": He acknowledges that bigger formats are better but then denies you an FF sensor because it is not big enough of a jump. Really? That's like a salesman denying you to step up from a 100mm lens to a 200mm lens because there are 500mm lenses and 500mm lenses are what you should be using if you want a longer lens.
2. "FF gives you more bokeh, but not much more": More DOF control is just one of the many advantages of a bigger sensor. There are many other advantages.
3. "FF has better high-ISO performance": No, it does not. Only if you are comparing shots made at the same f-stop, allowing the larger sensor to collect more total light, it will appear to have less noise. The widely held belief that larger sensors are better in low light because of their better high-ISO performance is a myth. There are FF lenses that are faster than any APS-C equivalent and you can take better images with these in low light, but that is a lens choice advantage, not a "high-ISO" advantage.
4. "High-ISO performance difference has become smaller": See the previous point. There is no difference to begin with. If one wants to regard the lens choice advantage as an high-ISO advantage (and DxOMark will make it look that way too) then simple physics establishes that the performance difference will always be the same. Sometimes better sensor technology is used for the latest APS-C sensors and sometimes the FF sensors are ahead, but this is an industry game, not a format advantage.
5. "The Fuji is smaller than a big DSLR": As kenafein pointed out, on a professional set, this size/weight difference will not matter at all. And it shouldn't matter for a professional photographer travelling either. FF is not intrinsically heavier than APS-C. When lenses are bigger that's because they are faster.
6. "The important part is the photographer": Yes, but completely beside the point in a format discussion. He did drool when he talked about the 8x10 format, didn't he? Why, if it is only the photographer that matters?

[GibbyTheMole]

[Doundounba]

Didn't like the video so much - how long can you take to make a point? - but the blog post is a bit more interesting, IMHO...

[jsherman999]

What I've been saying for years..... Jsherman and ElJay, watch that 5 times, until you understand it.

Norm, you are that Fuji guy's target market

---------- Post added 07-28-14 at 09:29 PM ----------

Why would they want to waste their time watching this Fuji commercial?

Clearly, Arias is promoting Fuji here (as an "X-photographer"; he is upfront about his commercial connection to Fuji) and has no real arguments.

1. "FF is better than APS-C, but not better enough": He acknowledges that bigger formats are better but then denies you an FF sensor because it is not big enough of a jump. Really? That's like a salesman denying you to step up from a 100mm lens to a 200mm lens because there are 500mm lenses and 500mm lenses are what you should be using if you want a longer lens.
2. "FF gives you more bokeh, but not much more": More DOF control is just one of the many advantages of a bigger sensor. There are many other advantages.
3. "FF has better high-ISO performance": No, it does not. Only if you are comparing shots made at the same f-stop, allowing the larger sensor to collect more total light, it will appear to have less noise. The widely held belief that larger sensors are better in low light because of their better high-ISO performance is a myth. There are FF lenses that are faster than any APS-C equivalent and you can take better images with these in low light, but that is a lens choice advantage, not a "high-ISO" advantage.
4. "High-ISO performance difference has become smaller": See the previous point. There is no difference to begin with. If one wants to regard the lens choice advantage as an high-ISO advantage (and DxOMark will make it look that way too) then simple physics establishes that the performance difference will always be the same. Sometimes better sensor technology is used for the latest APS-C sensors and sometimes the FF sensors are ahead, but this is an industry game, not a format advantage.
5. "The Fuji is smaller than a big DSLR": As kenafein pointed out, on a professional set, this size/weight difference will not matter at all. And it shouldn't matter for a professional photographer travelling either. FF is not intrinsically heavier than APS-C. When lenses are bigger that's because they are faster.
6. "The important part is the photographer": Yes, but completely beside the point in a format discussion. He did drool when he talked about the 8x10 format, didn't he? Why, if it is only the photographer that matters?

Nicely summarized. Not really aware of the guy, so I don't know if he was 'dumbing it down' on purpose and allowing inaccuracies and fallacies in there as a by-product, or if he was demonstrating the extent of his knowledge (gap), but it won't matter to a lot of folks - the message is one they think they want to hear.

PS: his blog post is funny, but does he need to lay off the amphetamine?



Later in post: "I’m just being a jerk. I know math is important. Math or moments? Math or moments? Math or moments? Get a basic hold on some math and then go get those moments!"



.

[SpecialK]

I have APS-C and FF and can't tell the difference from the image. Life is simple.