[reh321]

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.

In the days of film, 35mm was the most popular format.

I don't see any reason for that preference to change as digital costs level out ----- and customer preference is a powerful market force.

[mecrox]

In the days of film, 35mm was the most popular format.

I don't see any reason for that preference to change as digital costs level out ----- and customer preference is a powerful market force.

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, make that $3K with a decent lens, because it just has to be FF and besides all your friends and especially these here “Pros” will laugh at you otherwise. This is clever marketing, but also nonsense. Digital has freed up the old format wars.

[normhead]

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, make that $3K with a decent lens, because it just has to be FF and besides all your friends and especially these here “Pros” will laugh at you otherwise. This is clever marketing, but also nonsense. Digital has freed up the old format wars.

No kidding. I would conjecture the whole 35mm thing was based on convenience and not image quality, in film. 35mm film was widely acknowledged to be lacking in IQ for serious work. APS-c today has better dynamic range higher practical ISO and image quality than 35mm film did. I've never seen an estimate for 35mm film that was over 7 mp, for a standard colour film. By that metric, APS-c blows it away. FF is up in the range that used to be occupied by Medium format. So advocating FF use is more akin to advocation MF film than to advocating 35mm film. I have no film images from my old Mamiya 645 film camera that compare to my every week, week to week shooting with my K-1.

Compared to film, APS-c is better than what you had in 35mm film, by a considerable margin.

[RonHendriks1966]

Nope, FF is here to stay; it reaches a sweet spot of high image quality and affordability. You just cannot buy a medium format camera for the price of a K-1
It's enough to be "just a preference for the vast majority of customers", don't you think?

I think I read that exact same phrase some years ago and this was about aps-c then.

[reh321]

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, make that $3K with a decent lens, because it just has to be FF and besides all your friends and especially these here “Pros” will laugh at you otherwise. This is clever marketing, but also nonsense. Digital has freed up the old format wars.

K-1 costs just under $1500.

[normhead]

K-1 costs just under $1500.

As I said, much heavier lenses to do the same job. Cost has little to do with it. I've already paid for my K-1 and my K-3. But there are more times I'm comfortable with the K-3 instead of k-1. There are some images that I just won't get with a K-1, that are easy with a K-3. Moreso than the other way around. If you don't shoot any long glass, action, or anything requiring burst mode and buffer though, a K-1 may work out well for you. Personal use varies. IN terms of raw number of exposures, I came in with 1000 K-3 images the other day shooting from my blind. To get the same number of images with a K-1 would have taken at least 2.5 times the amount go time.

For images like these the thought of using a K-1 for the whole shoot makes my skin crawl, and I break out in hives.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/241198-k3-sample-shots-po...ml#post4495611

How long would it take to shoot 1000 exposures with a K-1. The mind recoils just at the thought.

[Kunzite]

I think I read that exact same phrase some years ago and this was about aps-c then.

Maybe. I'm not responsible for some anonymous phrase written some years ago though

And if APS-C reaches a sweet spot, it might be a different one than the FF's.

[normhead]

Maybe. I'm not responsible for some anonymous phrase written some years ago though

And if APS-C reaches a sweet spot, it might be a different one than the FF's.

The APS-c sweet spot is more subject resolution and reach with the same glass as FF.
Sitting in the blind, it's hard to reach for the K-1. You have to be in the mood for a special kind of abuse. A camera that is waiting for it's buffer to clear half the time, and isn't god for more than about a a 1 second burst, the 2-4 seconds waiting for the buffer to clear. The FF's strength is sitting on a tripod in a great well lit landscape.

[Kunzite]

Sure; people's requirements are different so there can't be a single sweet spot, right? I don't expect your optimal choice to be the same as mine. I don't expect my optimal choice to be the same every time I'm out to take photos. Or even in the same day.

However, the K-1's buffer clearing issue is not a format issue.

[reh321]

How long would it take to shoot 1000 exposures with a K-1. The mind recoils just at the thought.

For me, shooting 1000 exposures with a K-1 would take slightly longer than shooting 1000 exposures with my K-30 (*), about 13 months.

The slowness of the K-1 in emptying its buffer is more a result of its 36mp sensor than a result of its format. A 24mp FF camera should have roughly the same frame rate as a K-3ii does. On the other hand, a FF sensor should provide better high-ISO images.



(*) I 'waste' the first few exposures each day now because of Dark Image Syndrome

[clackers]

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.

A lot of the time I think you get the big picture wrong, Mecrox, but here you've nailed it, IMHO.

Nothing against all the people who've 'upgraded' to a K-1 (plenty of 'em, me included), but this is all about upselling customers to a premium product because the low end of cameras is poison to the companies. The low margins don't justify all the effort and marketing.

[Winder]

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.

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.

[bobmaxja]

I am on a 4 month trip of western Canada and USA national and state park . Honestly, the majority of DSLR I see are the small one made by Canon, very few Nikon and no Pentax. In mirorless, I see more Lumix than Sony.
But the largest group is by far phone and tablet.
Yes compactness I believe is key. I have a KP and a Lumix ZS 100 and on many hike , the Lumix is the only thing I carry. I never saw a FF in any hike, they stay on the more tourism place.

[clackers]

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.

You've got my absolute sympathies, Winder.

But to get employment in various high-end fields, you do need what's seen as the right portfolio and equipment.

In sports, a 400mm f2.8 is de rigeur, not some 55-300. In wildlife, a 600mm f4. In architecture, tilt shift. Underwater photography, a case costing as much as the body.

I've done several workshops run by a guy who's a commercial fashion photographer, has his own studio, does editorial and campaigns, and he's an F-Stoppers photographer of the month, using most often a 5D Mk III and a 50mm prime or the 70-200 f2.8.

He's just bought a secondhand Pentax 645Z because that gives him the extra quality and 'look' to take on jobs at the next level.

But it's costly.

An 'allrounder' will miss out jobs to an already established pro with specific gear, and as you realize, in the current market may never earn the money back to pay for the lens or body required even if they do go into credit card debt.

[mecrox]

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 would not argue with that for a moment, though there wil always be people who can afford such things and competing with them might be tricky. Go to a site like LuLa and there are quite a few of them. However, professionals and a handful of high-enders aren’t enough to keep the whole camera market going. I was equally thinking of enthusiasts or just regular folks who’d like a decent camera. I’d expect they are by far the majority, in numbers anyway. Mostly I don’t think they need or can afford the FF bandwagon. Selling them an FF camera may keep the companies happy but is not doing the customers any favours if they end up boggled by the size and cost and trade the beast back in for a smaller, simpler item anyway. If or when this sinks in, then yes FF may turn out to be an orphan format because by far the majority realize it is not right for them.

Still, there is hope for us all. Earlier this year I went to the wildlife photographer of the year expo in the UK. Among the winning entries there were several taken with quite basic cameras, down to things like a D90 or if I recall a D200. These were from photographers who live in parts of the world where costly cameras and lenses are completely unaffordable. The images were still stunning. Talent will out.