[normhead]

50 years ago, in Photo Arts at Ryerson Polytech, there were very few assignments we could use 35mm cameras for. I thought of 35mm as a personal camera suited to a photography student, not a professional camera. They were too expensive for most people, most people didn't want to mess around with the settings. Nothing has changed, except for in digital there are no 4x5 and 8x10 sensors.

So the question I'd ask would be how long before sensors get big enough that 35mm goes back to its place in the world instead of masquerading as high end? With the Hasselblad H6D-100c Medium Format DSLR Camera in production, to a certain extent its already happening. It's only a matter fo time before 35 is once again the portable option, not the quality option. And it will always be a distant choice behind the smaller cheaper formats and phones.

The value of 35mm in digital has been vastly overrated, just because there is not much bigger. IN film, there was as much bigger as there was smaller, hence it's relative insignificance.

IN film, there was 645, 2 1/4, 6x7, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 that were commonly available. Digital has only caught up to 645, If anything, 35mm is all down hill from here as larger and larger sensors become available and more affordable.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-03-2018 at 09:06 AM.

[biz-engineer]

50 years ago, in Photo Arts at Ryerson Polytech, there were very few assignments we could use 35mm cameras for. I thought of 35mm as a personal camera suited to a photography student, not a professional camera. They were too expensive for most people, most people didn't want to mess around with the settings. Nothing has changed, except for in digital there are no 4x5 and 8x10 sensors. So the question I'd ask would be how long before sensors get big enough that 35mm goes back to its place in the world instead of masquerading as high end? With the Hasselblad H6D-100c Medium Format DSLR Camera in production, to a certain extent its already happening. It's only a matter fo time before 35 is once again the portable option, not the quality option. And it will always be a distant choice behind the smaller cheaper formats and phones. The value of 35mm in digital has been vastly overrated, just because there is not much bigger. IN film, there was as much bigger as there was smaller, hence it's relative insignificance. IN film, there was 645, 6x7, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 that were commonly available. Digital has only caught up to 645, If anything, 35mm is all down hill from here.

That's an interesting perspective that does let the reader think twice... Maybe why there is so much marketing push on FF these days.

[normhead]

That's an interesting perspective that does let the reader think twice... Maybe why there is so much marketing push on FF these days.

For the first 35 years after I graduated, every successful wedding shooter I knew ( those who made an equivalent of $80k or more) from their wedding businesses shot 645. A 35 mm wedding shooter was definitely the low end of the market. 35mm was used for candids and reception hall images. All formal wedding portraits were shot with 645 Hassy's. It won't be long before 645z successors move into that spot. The only thing stopping me from getting a Bronica 645 coming out of school was the price. 35 wasn't a format I preferred even then. It definitely wasn't because I didn't want one. The thing stopping me from getting a Pentax 645 is, it's still too expensive, and it's a crop 645, so really a highbred FF/645. Just as between APS_c and FF, that's not enough advantage for some of us. 50MP vs 36, yawn, 36MP vs 100 MP, now you're talking.

Now that I'm doing a lot of wildlife, I really like APS-c. For me, a K-3 and a 6 x 4.5 645 would still be the ideal set up. But, I'm not as strong as I used to be for carrying 645 gear. (25 years ago I was carrying a Mamiya 645 in a fanny pack camera bag.) That day is long gone. I'm settling on a K-1 which I quite emjoy. But, it's still settling.

[photoptimist]

The dominant mainstream camera is the smartphone both in terms of units sold and pictures taken.

Even in 2017 (and Jan 2018), compact cameras (which typically have smaller sensors) still out-sell interchangeable lens cameras although I'd think that ILC owners take more pictures.

There's a broad Goldilocks-style curve for camera performance as a function of sensor size. Smaller sensors have lower IQ but larger sensors require larger bodies and lenses. Small sensors can also do video and high frame rate stills at less cost than can larger sensors (especially if the larger sensors are optimized for IQ). The broad center of that curve is somewhere around APS-C which seems to offer decent IQ, decent video, decent FPS, decent body & lens size, at a decent cost. The physical size of the human hand (which sets optimum grip size and lens diameter) and typical light levels on planet Earth (which affects optimum pixel size) seem to favor something around APS-C to FF size.

Full frame may be rising in popularity, but I'd expect the market to equilibrate to a more even distribution of M43, APS-C, and FF based on different customers having different priorities on size, cost, video, still image IQ, low-light, etc.

[monochrome]

The dominant mainstream camera is the smartphone both in terms of units sold and pictures taken.

Even in 2017 (and Jan 2018), compact cameras (which typically have smaller sensors) still out-sell interchangeable lens cameras although I'd think that ILC owners take more pictures.

There's a broad Goldilocks-style curve for camera performance as a function of sensor size. Smaller sensors have lower IQ but larger sensors require larger bodies and lenses. Small sensors can also do video and high frame rate stills at less cost than can larger sensors (especially if the larger sensors are optimized for IQ). The broad center of that curve is somewhere around APS-C which seems to offer decent IQ, decent video, decent FPS, decent body & lens size, at a decent cost. The physical size of the human hand (which sets optimum grip size and lens diameter) and typical light levels on planet Earth (which affects optimum pixel size) seem to favor something around APS-C to FF size.

Full frame may be rising in popularity, but I'd expect the market to equilibrate to a more even distribution of M43, APS-C, and FF based on different customers having different priorities on size, cost, video, still image IQ, low-light, etc.

Decent seems to be the key. The price / value relationship measured in IQ (or user experience satisfaction, or wealth signaling, or chest jewelry) for many consumers with enough disposable wealth to just buy a hugh-end system of camera body and lenses seems to point toward FF dSLR as an equilibrium point for that group.

In my memory the corollary (products) in the 60's and 70's for consumers (excepting true photography enthusiasts) was:

Interchangeable lens SLR and lenses (with a flurry of Polaroid SX-70 toys in the early 70's) >> FF dSLR or Flagship APSc dSLR or MILC and several lenses or f/2.8 Zooms
Good Fixed Lens Rangefinder >> budget APSc dSLR and kit Zoom
Instamatic >> Camera function of a SmartPhone (since they're multi-use tools for texting and internet social media more than fine image capture)

I think the future of digital ILC's will settle into a similar pattern, wherein wealthy Upper-Middle-Class consumers own one, good camera and gradually add lenses (then they will go in a drawer except for true photography enthusiasts).

[StiffLegged]

To me, the question is how I'm going to use the images. Holiday snaps (6x4 or 7x5) don't even need a DSLR. With a 24MP sensor you can print up to A2 at 240 or 300dpi and still might need a magnifying glass to tell the difference from a full frame sensor's image printed to the same size. 1 or 2 metres wide and full frame pulls clear ahead, although might struggle to match medium format. And if you only view your work on a PC or Mac monitor or a projector then full frame is a waste of money.

Just my tuppence ha'penny.

[Asimov]

Hi there!
I have been reading this thread with interest.
Being a newbie in the DSLR field in which I transcended after tens of years of hobbyist SLR photography, I started following a full-fledged photography course.
The thing is that our first year teacher kept banging us over the head with arguments to go for a FF aka 35 mm DSLR.
To him an APS-C sensor was something you tolerate in first and second year.
After that you'd definitely want a FF if you want to be taken seriously as a photographer.
The comments in this thread seem to put those propositions in a different perspective.
I "progressed" from a second hand K100D super to a K5 in two years.
Looks like I have a lot of distance to cover... :-)

[BigMackCam]

The thing is that our first year teacher kept banging us over the head with arguments to go for a FF aka 35 mm DSLR.
To him an APS-C sensor was something you tolerate in first and second year.
After that you'd definitely want a FF if you want to be taken seriously as a photographer.
The comments in this thread seem to put those propositions in a different perspective.

Regarding being taken seriously, if he's talking about a camera used for professional work, he's probably right to an extent. Some people will only hire those with full frame cameras... which is silly, really, because the image quality of more recent APS-C cameras like your K-5 and even newer models is fantastic.

He also has something of a point if you already have a bunch of lenses from film days and want to use them in exactly the same way on your DSLR. The field of view will be the same on a full frame camera as it is on a 35mm DSLR. APS-C cameras crop that image, so the field of view is reduced, meaning that a 24mm lens is no longer such a wide angle to shoot with, or a 50mm "normal" lens is too tight. This is unhelpful for your teacher too, since he might tell you that an 85mm lens is a great choice for portrait, whereas for APS-C the equivalent advice might be to use a 50 - 60mm lens.

But really, a camera is a camera. The different formats each have some advantages and disadvantages, but you can take more or less the same photos with them all, and the quality of modern sensors is such that you'll get great results regardless of format - micro 4/3, APS-C, full frame etc.

[aslyfox]

. . . But really, a camera is a camera. The different formats each have some advantages and disadvantages, but you can take more or less the same photos with them all, and the quality of modern sensors is such that you'll get great results regardless of format - micro 4/3, APS-C, full frame etc.

the " Newest and Brightest " equipment can help but not as much as you might think

it is often the skill of the photographer that makes the difference

luckily, if you put in the effort, you can always improve your skills

the errors in my photos are almost always due to " Operator Error "

[BigMackCam]

the errors in my photos are almost always due to " Operator Error "

Mine always are - no "almost" about it

[RobA_Oz]

I guess it depends on what you're looking for in your travel combination.
Yours does not include anything wider than 24mm FF.
However, at the wider end of the range,
FF lenses for a given angle of view can be smaller and lighter than APS-C lenses.
Compare a Voigtlaender Color-Skopar or Pentax M20/4 pancake on FF
with the APS-C options around 13 or 14mm focal length (e.g., Samyang 14/2.8).

Indeed, there are options at the wide end for both systems. My present widest for 35FF is the FA20, while for APS-C my widest unifocal is the DA14 which is its equivalent for APS-C. Without looking them up, my perception is that there's no great difference there, in terms of weight. Of course, the DA15 is tiny in comparison, if you don't mind sacrificing a bit of FoV, which I don't, so it gets more use in my APS-C travel kit. I also have the Sigma 8-16, which is a bit of a monster to carry in a bag, but so's the nearest 35FF equivalent, the D FA 15-30. I've only considered AF lenses here.

[aslyfox]

Mine always are - no "almost" about it

the first thing I learned about an SLR

you can tell if your finger will be in the photo before you take it

[clackers]

We see more and more content about full frame. Ricoh currently, beside the Theta, main offering is the Pentax K1. Canon and Nikon and Sony also main offering and marketing appear to be for full frame cameras. Aren't we entering a new era of the standalone digital cameras with a come back of the 24x35 format?

That's terrible news for Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus, BE ... should they just give up and go home?

[normhead]

That's terrible news for Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus, BE ... should they just give up and go home?

It won't be long before we get back to "If you want to qualify for high end work you'll shoot at least one MF body."

[lytrytyr]

I've only considered AF lenses here.

On the really wide lenses, AF doesn't seem so relevant.