[mecrox]

"Trend towards smaller cameras with bigger sensors."
Like a small bodied FF SLR?

If the D800 is now within reach of the prosumer end of the market, next year or so there will be a mid-range FF and so on.
In the face of this competition, when FF is affordable, who would want to buy an APSC?

I was thinking of the Sony RX100, for example. I'd guess it will be quite a few years before small FF cameras can become credible let alone affordable. Electronics will need to be shrunk further and much faster but also smaller processors developed to shift all that data around. Then you will need more powerful and longer-lasting but not larger batteries. Developing all of this is not trivial, imho. Until then, we'll get FF cameras which don't do much really, masquerading as small and svelte. They''ll still be expensive, probably not that well made, and their performance won't be up to much. In any case, the moment you add in lenses for a camera, the weight and space saving of a "compact" FF over a regular one will be minimal. No thanks.

I think the vast majority of all camera buyers would prefer not to buy an FF for the reasons I gave and the same applies to a hefty proportion of present APS-C users. Would I want to lug an FF kit around when I travel on holiday, for example? No way. Maybe in fifteen years FF sensors will be so cheap you can buy one in a 200-buck compact but until then I think a great deal of the stuff associated with FF is just fantasy unless you are a professional who knows exactly what you want in which case chances are you have one already.

[Pål Jensen]

"Trend towards smaller cameras with bigger sensors."
Like a small bodied FF SLR?

If the D800 is now within reach of the prosumer end of the market, next year or so there will be a mid-range FF and so on.
In the face of this competition, when FF is affordable, who would want to buy an APSC?

FF cameras cost the same now as three (or is it five+) years ago. They are not affordable for 95% of DSLR buyers. There are no signs of price drops. Who want an expensive FF camera when you can get an APS camera at half the price with a sensor a generation in font of the FF one with image quality almost impossible to differentiate in large prints? is also a relevant question.

Pentax will release a high-end APS camera. The FF camera is almost certainly the same body (internally) with a larger sensor. I'm afraid there will be no cheap FF from Pentax anytime soon.

The bigger sensors Pentax is talking about is APS; their mirrorless will stick to this large sensor. The Q-system, which is successful, will continue.

[Pål Jensen]

I think the vast majority of all camera buyers would prefer not to buy an FF for the reasons I gave and the same applies to a hefty proportion of present APS-C users. Would I want to lug an FF kit around when I travel on holiday, for example? No way. Maybe in fifteen years FF sensors will be so cheap you can buy one in a 200-buck compact but until then I think a great deal of the stuff associated with FF is just fantasy unless you are a professional who knows exactly what you want in which case chances are you have one already.

One of digitals advantages is that you can get print quality rivaling film medium format cameras from formats smaller than 35mm.

[prime]

"Trend towards smaller cameras with bigger sensors."
Like a small bodied FF SLR?

If the D800 is now within reach of the prosumer end of the market, next year or so there will be a mid-range FF and so on.
In the face of this competition, when FF is affordable, who would want to buy an APSC?

in some days. today is history! next year you want something that you never thougt today. Have you ever learn something??? go back, and take something that you can be rememberd of, photo perhaps??? and it wont mather if it is an aps.

[blacknosugar]

One of digitals advantages is that you can get print quality rivaling film medium format cameras from formats smaller than 35mm.

What do you base that on?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the impression I got is that FF digital cameras are only now catching up to the IQ and dynamic range a of a modern fine grain low ISO 35mm film when scanned, and that MF is still far ahead.

[builttospill]

One of digitals advantages is that you can get print quality rivaling film medium format cameras from formats smaller than 35mm.

If you're not saying he's wrong, I will. This is completely incorrect. Film image quality and dynamic range is much, much better than any 35mm digital sensor.

[Pål Jensen]

If you're not saying he's wrong, I will. This is completely incorrect. Film image quality and dynamic range is much, much better than any 35mm digital sensor.

What film do you use? Even my K-7 have larger dynamic range than any film I've used. In fact, it was the dynamic range advantage that made me switch to digital. And wasn't talking 35mm sensors but smaller than 35mm.
I hardly use graduated Nd filters anymore for landscapes. You cannot shoot landscape like the one below without Nd filter with film and Nd filters won't work on this shot cause it would be visible in the trees.

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 11-03-2012 at 05:37 PM.

[builttospill]

There are many films with a much wider dynamic range than APS-C and 35mm sensors.

Pal, that is a beautiful shot. I can see where you're coming from, but I'd also like to know how much PP went into this and I'd also really like to see this picture taken with film. I would expect there to be a lot more detail in the mountains with film, but I won't say for sure without a direct comparison. But if you can take a picture like this and it meets your needs and gets the job done, I wouldn't worry much about the difference.

[gazonk]

There are many films with a much wider dynamic range than APS-C and 35mm sensors.

Are you talking about b+w or color negative film?

I used to shoot almost only slide film, and that must be the most unforgiving photographic medium that ever existed, since the exposure had to be nearly perfect for the image to be usable (at least directly as a slide). Even when you print/scan slides, I'm pretty sure the DR must be quite dismal compared to digital.

[thibs]

Yep, slide is known to have "narrow" (was another word but mod thought it was a too graphical, not supposed to be used here word) exposure latitude.
Pretty sure slide wasn't considered in builttospill response.

[blacknosugar]

Exposure latitude and dynamic range are not the same thing.
Digital actually has a pretty narrow slide-like latitude.

[normhead]

Exposure latitude and dynamic range are not the same thing.
Digital actually has a pretty narrow slide-like latitude.

Surely this is the kind of thing you can test for. I'm not taking anyone's word for something like that.

As in the APS-c FF debate, if you can get done what you want to do with APS-c, FF offers nothing. If you can get done with digital what you can do with film, why would you use film?

With digital, I can bring up the image and check out the histogram, to get my curve exactly where I want it, that's not so easy with a film camera.

[drugal]

I find this subject really interesting, although it won't change my mind about staying with digital.

There seems to be a lot of debate on the web, this guy seemed to do at least a quasi scientific test Evaluation

So about 15 stops for 100 ISO Fuji Reala film

[Blue]

Surely this is the kind of thing you can test for. I'm not taking anyone's word for something like that.

As in the APS-c FF debate, if you can get done what you want to do with APS-c, FF offers nothing. If you can get done with digital what you can do with film, why would you use film?

With digital, I can bring up the image and check out the histogram, to get my curve exactly where I want it, that's not so easy with a film camera.

1) because I want to
2) there isn't a 6 x 7 digital in my price range and certainly not a large format
3) because I can

[normhead]

Exposure latitude and dynamic range are not the same thing.
Digital actually has a pretty narrow slide-like latitude.

1) because I want to
2) there isn't a 6 x 7 digital in my price range and certainly not a large format
3) because I can

I have to say Blue, that's the one thing that would get me back into film would be the chance to shoot with a 4x5 view camera. There's a place in Toronto that would process my film, so it would be doable. The digital scanning back for said camera is $17,000 and takes 300 MP files. If there's one thing I hate about digital it's the lack of large sensors. And that's not a minor complaint. That's major. But I also don't have 17 grand to blow on a scanning back, and scanning backs take very long exposures 52 seconds to 15000 seconds depending on exposure. For landscapes, your light could change while you're taking the picture. People talk about having more control with FF have obviously never used a view camera with tilting rotating fronts and backs. Now that's control.