[biz-engineer]

There are very few professional landscape or art photographers who can really afford and justify a medium format kit. I've never had a rock or a tree pay me to take its picture. The current generation of crop frame medium format sensors just arn't quite big enough to really set themselves apart from the high resolution FF sensors on the market. With FF is just too versatile compared to APS-C or the current MF options. A camera like the D850 or the A7r3 can shoot just about any subject. They might not be the most ideal for all subjects, but any competent photographer can get the job done with one of those. I would love to be shooting with a GFX-50, but its just to limiting. I need a camera that can cover a wide range of assignments. I'm not one of those filthy rich fine-art photographers.

I agree with the cases you wrote here , but I don't find it given an "big picture" view of what formats are about. It's camera format about how the final print compete with each other. For news papers and magazine type size printing and displaying, including for sports, full frame is adequate, (also for sport, high performance AF and bust rate and high iso are more key success factors , resolution requirement comes last) and for no sport apsc and micro 4/3 would be just fine. For large prints, commercial prints, fine art deco prints, full frame prints don't compete favorably with medium format prints, slow auto-focus and long lenses are the least of the concerns for medium format type applications. And the how those camera systems are specified seems to be matching well with the requirements.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 10-23-2018 at 11:16 PM.

[Rondec]

To the whole question of whether it benefits a company to have third party lenses available for it, it probably does, but that doesn't mean that they want them available. From Pentax (or Nikon or Canon)'s perspective it has to look like every lens Sigma sells in their mount is lost revenue. Certainly it is good simply to have people buying your camera bodies, but you want to make your R and D back on your lenses too. For sure, Pentax isn't going to pay Sigma to turn out its lenses in K mount. Much more likely would be to expand current relationship with Tamron to cover holes in the line up -- super zoom or whatever. In that case, Tamron has no risk as Pentax pays them up front for each lens manufactured and Pentax gets some revenue off of each lens sold.

I see FF as a potentially orphan format, in fact, despite the current furore. If I were a landscape or high-end art photographer, I would go straight to medium format. If I were after sports or wildlife, I would head for APS-C or in some cases even M43. For general knockabout stuff, a sensor as small as the M43 one is in fact perfectly fine and will deliver good, publishable results in good light or even quite bad light if IBIS is engaged. Of course this is easier said than done because the big manufacturers are trying to force formats on people, so lens choice, AF questions and professional support start to crop up because they are reserved for some models/formats only. Still, strip it all out and that doesn't leave all that much for which FF is a must-have rather than just a preference for the vast majority of customers.

I guess you are serious, but I think you misread the market pretty badly. Medium format is still very expensive because you have to consider not only the price of the body, but the price of lenses too. Buying into the Fuji GFX plus a couple of lenses is going to run you 7500 dollars, easily. And with that investment, you get significantly less functionality (auto focus, auto focus tracking, frame rate, etc) than you would get with a camera like the K-1 and DFA 24-70 and a couple of older primes. The biggest reason full frame is here to stay is the large library of lenses that exist for it.

I really don't see any of the current sensor sizes going away. It makes sense to use smaller sensors for things like wildlife. At the same time, finding that you can use iso 12K and have pretty good results on a camera like the K-1 II is eye opening.

That said, I do think smaller sensor cameras are bound to be squeezed a bit in the future. If you can buy a full frame camera for 1500 dollars or less, it is going to be hard for four thirds or APS-C cameras to sell much above that unless they offer some amazing functionality (like the D500 does). Sensors for all sizes seem to have plateaued a bit and clearly even Panasonic sees the writing on the wall, which is why they are launching a new full frame camera, looking forward to the Olympics, rather than another micro four thirds camera with added functionality. I am sure Olympus is looking at options too as I imagine their sales are a little stagnant at this point and they need new options for the photographers who use their gear.

---------- Post added 10-24-18 at 06:20 AM ----------

I agree with the cases you wrote here , but I don't find it given an "big picture" view of what formats are about. It's camera format about how the final print compete with each other. For news papers and magazine type size printing and displaying, including for sports, full frame is adequate, (also for sport, high performance AF and bust rate and high iso are more key success factors , resolution requirement comes last) and for no sport apsc and micro 4/3 would be just fine. For large prints, commercial prints, fine art deco prints, full frame prints don't compete favorably with medium format prints, slow auto-focus and long lenses are the least of the concerns for medium format type applications. And the how those camera systems are specified seems to be matching well with the requirements.

If you look at the "professional" market it is mostly made up of people who shoot things like weddings and portraiture. The landscape pros are extremely few and far between and while a lot of people shoot landscape, few of them just do that as they would be living in a homeless shelter if they did. Journalism as a photography market is in bad shape. I've read plenty of stories where journalists were instructed to start using their smart phones to take photos for stories and plenty of stories that are on the internet just use stock images. News papers are just in bad shape and odds are they are giving their journalists older cameras with kit lenses rather than expense out new gear.

I am sure that the majority of sales for gear actually come from amateurs and the question there isn't what they "need" but what they want and can afford. I'm sure medium format isn't going away and will slowly come down in price, but with the lenses priced where they are and the lack of general functionality, I just don't see it growing a huge amount either.

[biz-engineer]

If I were after sports or wildlife, I would head for APS-C or in some cases even M43. For general knockabout stuff, a sensor as small as the M43 one is in fact perfectly fine and will deliver good, publishable results in good light or even quite bad light if IBIS is engaged. Of course this is easier said than done because the big manufacturers are trying to force formats on people

Nope, the very first digital cameras (1D series) make for sport photography were made out of full frame sensors with large pixels and low pixel count, even with fast glass such as 300 f2.8 was already available, simply because shooting sports put a of stress on the ISO setting, precisely where smaller sensors with smaller pixels are weak. And with regards to your point about image stabilization, they are helpless for sport shooting because you need at least 1/250th, mostly 1/1000 and up shutter speeds to get sharp photos of sport action. The situation is different for shooting birds feeders in the garden.

---------- Post added 24-10-18 at 15:07 ----------

FF is a minority pursuit, quite markedly so to date. The essential scam being run by the big manufacturers is presenting it as the majority pursuit, in fact the only sensible option. Why, you can’t buy a decent camera for less than $2K

Price is less related to sensor size than it is to sales volumes, so forcing full frame onto customers is a good thing for them as they get better image quality for the same price. And evidence that price is driven by selling quantities rather than sensor size is that micro 4/3 cameras are getting as expensive as full frame cameras these days, even though the u4/3 sensor having grown larger.

[mecrox]

I guess you are serious, but I think you misread the market pretty badly. Medium format is still very expensive because you have to consider not only the price of the body, but the price of lenses too. Buying into the Fuji GFX plus a couple of lenses is going to run you 7500 dollars, easily. And with that investment, you get significantly less functionality (auto focus, auto focus tracking, frame rate, etc) than you would get with a camera like the K-1 and DFA 24-70 and a couple of older primes. The biggest reason full frame is here to stay is the large library of lenses that exist for it.

There’s not much point being too serious, is there? No one gets out alive. Folks can be as awfully seriously as they want but they’re going down all the same.

And on that cheerful note I’ll simply say that FF is a minority format. Relatively few people buy into it just as only a few people spend thousands on camera kit. The vast majority never have. What may perhaps kick in is the powerful reality distortion field on enthusiast photography forums coupled with the marketing wiles of the big manufacturers. Pretty soon it can seem as if world + wife are spending like crazy on all the top-end kit and anyone who doesn’t is barmy.

The reality out there is a raggle-taggle army of bits and bobs sometimes segundo mano and far removed from the marketing brochures. Out of about 10-12 in the photography group I hang with here only two have FF and neither camera is top-range. Everyone else has crop or M43 sometimes quite ancient. And yes, those who do have serious money buy MF. There aren’t many of them but there are enough to supply the segment with a business. As a pursuit for some folks, MF photography is rather like forking out on a Harley or a Ducati, I think. Some just do. They have the cash so why not. Obviously FF is a total pleasure for those who use it but it is not ordained that it is a dead cert for the only or majority photo format. Digital gives options.

---------- Post added 10-24-18 at 07:43 PM ----------

Price is less related to sensor size than it is to sales volumes, so forcing full frame onto customers is a good thing for them as they get better image quality for the same price. And evidence that price is driven by selling quantities rather than sensor size is that micro 4/3 cameras are getting as expensive as full frame cameras these days, even though the u4/3 sensor having grown larger.

Mis-selling - conning customers into buying what is not suitable or affordable - is a cynical error which is soon caught out. Don’t go there. FF is the wrong choice for an awful lot of people because IQ is only one of several key metrics in camera choice. A good salesman would understand that and steer the customer to something more suitable. A bridge camera, a 1” compact, a D3xxx or D5xxx, for example.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 10-24-2018 at 02:11 PM.

[biz-engineer]

Mis-selling - conning customers into buying what is not suitable or affordable - is a cynical error which is soon caught out. Don’t go there. FF is the wrong choice for an awful lot of people because IQ is only one of several key metrics in camera choice. A good salesman would understand that and steer the customer to something more suitable. A bridge camera, a 1” compact, a D3xxx or D5xxx, for example.

No, a good sales man never offer less than what the customer already has, otherwise sales would only be replacement sales and all developed economies would collapse. The current economy is based on people raising their standards and expectation. Newer camera models progress in terms of performance at least in one direction. Some camera progress more on video, other camera progress more on image quality.