Originally posted by junyo I'm agnostic as to FF (I'd probably think about it if one where available, but I don't think it's crucial). But objectively, there are some absolute advantages to FF:
- DOF at a given FOV and F stop
- Lower noise with a given sensor technology
- More pixels to work with so cropping leaves a better quality image
How crucial/big of an advantage those points represent is up to a particular user, but they do exist.
These are advantages, but not absolute advantages. I'm trying to use the word in a very simple sense, really I am. Not sure why this distinction is hard to grasp.
If I show you a video and tell you it was taken on a camera, you can be sure that it was NOT taken on a K20D, because the K20D doesn't do video. This is (I hope) a clearly absolute difference, and if you regard the ability to do video as an advantage, then it's an absolute advantage. This camera can do it, that one simply can't, can't do it even badly. It's a simple, unambiguous distinction. No advantage of 36x24 is this clear cut, this black and white. You simply CANNOT show me a photo taken with a 36x24 camera that simply could not have been taken by an APS-C camera. You can show me 36x24 photos that would be hard to take with APS-C. You can show me photos that, if taken on APS-C, might have a little more noise. But these are matters of degree, not absolutes.
The depth of field advantage?
Let's say that, first, I show you the photo below. This is a very small plant in a very small vase. The mouth of the vase is not much more than an inch in diameter. In the photo, the tip of the nearest leaf of the plant is in focus, and so is the tip of another leaf that seems to be on the same focal plane; but otherwise, the rest of the plant is out of focus, most of it in fact very significantly blurred. Depth of field in this shot is a tiny fraction of an inch.
Now, looking at this photo, you could, with some confidence, say that the photo probably wasn't taken with a point-and-shoot/fixed-lens camera, because none of them are capable of extremely narrow depth of field. But it would only be a safe bet; photographer might have done something to surprise you. I guess I'd say this is an almost absolute advantage. Certainly a compelling advantage of the larger sensors over the (
much smaller) point-and-shoot sensors.
On the other hand, if the question was, "Was this picture taken with a K20D or a Canon 5D MkII?", I contend that you simply wouldn't be able to tell from the depth of field alone. Because if you go to a little bit of trouble, you can get very narrow depth of field from a K20D as well. After all, I did it here. (K20D with Sigma 105 macro at f/2.8, with a tip-of-lens to tip-of-leap distance of about 6 inches.)
You might be able to get even narrower depth of field with a 36x24 camera, true. But at some point, depth of field is so narrow that, well, you can't SEE it any more.
Depth-of-Field Master online tells me that, a Pentax K20D with a 100mm lens, at f/2.8, shooting from 3 ft, has a depth of field of 0.03 ft; while a Canon 5D MkII, with a 150mm lens, at f/2.8, shooting from 3 ft, has a depth of field of 0.02 ft. That 0.01 ft difference is, well, not enough to justify the extra expense.
I would note also that the depth of field issue, to some extent, cuts both ways. It is certainly the case that the easy, deep depth of field you get from a point-and-shoot is an advantage for the majority of ordinary users.
The megapixel advantage?
Megapixels are also not an absolute advantage, unless you work in some field where some really high minimum resolution is required, for some reason. There seems to be a reason for medium-format digital cameras to exist. I don't really know what it is, but I acknowledge that it's there.
Still, for the work that most photographers do, it's quite clear that file resolutions in the range of 12-16 MP are
more than adequate for most purposes. I have 20"x30" pro-lab prints of my photos that are, well, breathtakingly sharp. Ben Kanarek observed in this forum years ago that his photos (taken with the 10MP K10D) were able to be blown up VERY large indeed for use on kiosks.
The idea that you can, occasionally, crop tighter on a file with more megapixels, is a an accidental and non-absolute advantage. It's nice, when you need it. But I would not pay thousands of dollars for this "feature." If I needed to "get closer" to my subjects, I'd buy a longer telephoto lens.
The wide-angle advantage?
Which brings me to the alleged wide-angle advantage of 36x24 cameras. I don't feel the need to say much about this at all, because we now have very good wide-angle lenses for our Pentax, APS-C cameras. I love my Sigma 10-20, which is a wonderful lens even at 10mm. Pentax's 15mm prime seems to be a terrific lens. Anybody who routinely needs to shoot wider than these lenses can go, might have a good reason to go to 36x24. But for most of us, this just isn't an issue.
I think it IS an issue for the 4/3 and micro-4/3 cameras, although I don't know a great deal what lenses they have. But I'm not defending the 4/3 or micro-4/3 systems.
And again, the "crop-factor" or field-of-view equivalence issue cuts both ways. If what you need is telephoto reach, then APS-C has an advantage.
The high ISO performance advantage?
OF the alleged advantages of 36x24 digital cameras, better high ISO performance seems to me the most compelling. But it's not an absolute advantage either. Indeed, this is an area where it's pretty clear APS-C will continue to improve.
Perhaps 36x24 will improve, too, but to be honest, I don't need a LOT of improvement here. I'm already able to shoot in dark churches, at ISO 1600 or 2000, with good to acceptable results. Yes, of course, I wish that my ISO 2000 shots were reliably GREAT, virtually noise-free, etc. If I were charging $3000 per wedding, I probably would be shooting with a 36x24. But my clients are very happy with the results I get. I make the most of what I've got by shooting with fast primes—I shoot at f/2 a fair bit. I've shot candlelight ceremonies and other very poorly-lit events. So far, nobody has actually asked me to shoot a wedding in total darkness.
No absolute advantages
Bottom line: no absolute advantages. If APS-C can do the job more than adequately, which it clearly already can in the majority of circumstances, then WHY would I want to spend more for 36x24? If I truly needed it, I'd be there already.
Is 36x24 inevitable?
SO let me address the inevitability argument, which I think may be the one that 36x24 advocates are really most persuaded by.
I don't know if it's inevitable. Nobody else does either, including nobody at any of the top camera makers. Somebody at Pentax knows right now if Pentax is releasing a 36x24 camera this year. But whether they do or don't, doesn't tell us whether that camera will be a hit or a miss, and it certainly doesn't tell us whether 36x24 will ever have more than 5% of the interchangeable lens digital camera market.
As I suggested earlier, the market is being pulled in two directions. There clearly is some kind of market for 36x24, as there is some kind of market for medium format. At the same time, there's an enormous market for smaller, more compact and better cameras. 90% of the market wants to take better pictures without having to learn anything about photography. They want to upload their photos to Facebook without effort, too. They can do this now—on their smart phones.
Will 36x24 bodies get cheaper? The components will get cheaper, PERHAPS. That's assuming we don't have a global melt-down of some sort, like a world war, or some other major hit to the economy. And that's an iffy assumption right now. I don't go to bed scared, yet, but I do say my prayers at night.
But even if the components get cheaper, the cameras themselves might not. Nobody is going to be selling 36x24 camera bodies in my lifetime for, oh, $500. Entry level DSLRS have been selling for $600-$800 for the last 4-5 years. My wild guess is that $2000 is the floor for 36x24 bodies. The higher-end bodies always have a higher profit margin. Remember this is a camera that very few people ACTUALLY NEED. Those that think they DO need it, will pay for it.
*
Well, we'll see what Pentax does this year. But as I said, it almost doesn't matter to the points I'm making. If they do release a 36x24, I'll take a look at it. But almost the only thing that would drive me out of APS-C right now, would be the feeling that the engineers had stopped trying to improve APS-C. And if that happens, I won't be buying Pentax anymore.
Will