Luminous Landscape: The Full Frame Myth

Chris Dodkin

Chris Dodkin

West Coast Correspondent
I found a really good article by Michael Reichman at the Luminous Landscape - covering his thoughts on full-frame vs other (smaller) frame formats, in today's digital world.

It's now been more than a decade since digital imaging hit its stride and changed the way in which we do photography. Back in the day, I was convinced that the future lay in Full Frame digital.
Click to expand...

But then a funny thing started to happen about three or four years ago. Many photographers started to find that they were getting truly excellent image quality from APS-C and Micro Four Thirds cameras. Once pixel count got to about 16 Megapixels, the number of pixels itself stopped being something to pursue just for its own sake.
Click to expand...

sunflowers.jpg

Sunflowers — Credit Valley, Ontario. August, 2004
Contax 645 with 16 Megapixel Kodak DCS Proback 645C and 120mm Zeiss f/4 Apo-Makro Planar

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

Well worth a read - I think he's bang-on the money.
 
Very interesting article. I have been contemplating a mirrorless camera for travel (and I am from North America) and wonder what your thoughts are. I had been thinking about Olympus or Sony.
I would love to bet your point of view on product!
 
i agree that the image quality is just as good. i'd still like a full frame camera though, just to be able to have an 8mm lens that acts like an 8mm lens. if that metabones speed booster gets better than even the ultrawide angle lenses wouldn't be an issue..
 
cosmo Quercia said:
Very interesting article. I have been contemplating a mirrorless camera for travel (and I am from North America) and wonder what your thoughts are. I had been thinking about Olympus or Sony.
I would love to bet your point of view on product!
Click to expand...
Well worth a look Cosmo - The Oly is a category leader this year, and the new Sony has FF of course.

@Darren Bradley from DPR has the Sony, but I saw a post from him on Flickr where he had issues with low light AF - early days for him, so I'll ask if he can provide a user review for us
 
Beth Anthony said:
i agree that the image quality is just as good. i'd still like a full frame camera though, just to be able to have an 8mm lens that acts like an 8mm lens. if that metabones speed booster gets better than even the ultrawide angle lenses wouldn't be an issue..
Click to expand...
@Darren Bradley is using a metabones on his Sony I believe - to enable the use of his Canon T&S lenses

11415042176_829f7b81ca_c.jpg

Image ©Darren Bradley
 
Chris,
Thank you. I have reviewed the olympus and like what I have learned. Thanks again!
Cosmo
 
When I need ultimate versatility, and am working out of a vehicle, the D700 is there. Upon arriving and traveling on foot in an urban venue, the X-Pro1 is there. The right tools for the job. The sensors are not relevant. The Fuji meets or beats the Nikon at any given ISO. Both produce ideal images at the maximum resolution of my printer.
 
Chris Dodkin said:
I found a really good article by Michael Reichman at the Luminous Landscape - covering his thoughts on full-frame vs other (smaller) frame formats, in today's digital world.
Well worth a read - I think he's bang-on the money.
Click to expand...

A lot in what is written, with also being very many different ways to represent a landscape, often detail not being one of them, I think we now have a variety of tools which are more than capable to produce seriously good images.
 
Perhaps worth bringing up, is that very high resolutions are really not needed where action is taking place. There is nothing to be gained by covering sports with a 36MP camera. High resolution is great for landscapes, or product-shots for trade-show booths, to be done as huge prints. Neither requires a high megapixel camera, since stitching is so good now, and both are essentially static.

A decade back, just by successfully joining a panoramic of a few frames, you were considered a master. High precision tripod heads that swiveled about the exact focal point of the lens were required, as well as mastery of user-hostile software. Now, depending upon the size and weight of the camera, shooting can be completely automated by one of the three GigaPan robots. At least the top one will do up to nine exposures at each position, giving you the chance to edit out frames with parts of people or cars in them. It can also be used to create stitched HDR images in order to handle just about any dynamic range one might encounter. The included software makes extensive use of virtual memory, so an average computer can be used to do the stitching, albeit rather slowly. Gigapixel imagery is entirely possible.

I have shot countless panoramas and a few mosaics hand-held, and Photoshop has done an outstanding job of stitching them together. Photoshop CC seems to be faster than previous versions, and extremely accurate as long as there is enough overlap between frames. When practical, I do use a monopod or tripod, but just in the tripod socket of the camera. Content awareness makes the necessary adjustments.
 
It's all about lenses for me ... There are so many 35mm legacy lenses that, should I want to mount them on a digital, wouldn't want the crop factor (or the added cost of a metabones adapter) ...

I still think full frame has an advantage in image quality too. Yes, the fujis have equalled image quality of the likes of the d700 and other full frames of a few years ago... But there they still aren't going to match the d800/e ...

But then, in reality how much "quality" does anyone need? I'm not good enough photographer to get perfect shots out of my d800 so it's basically meaningless to worry about it ...

This pesky digital era has put far to much onus on objective quality ... Sharpness, being the main protagonist in the whole affair ... It's a a load of old toss really! What matters is nice photos, and nice photos come from good photographers with cameras they are comfortable with! Smaller cameras make for more comfortable shooting and that is where these smaller cameras bring real advantage ... Just IMHO of course! :)
 
Hamish Gill said:
Welllll tell me I'm wrong...? ;)
Click to expand...

What you say is spot on, but of course sometimes we need photo's that have textures and detail or as much as possible. So that is my excuse for having tooooo many camera's just in case . :p

The best of my photography and what I like has very little if not detail at all. I'd take the better lens on a lesser camera anyday.
 
I'm so over the focus on equipment. Even before digital I can't tell you how many times I've been told "you must have a really good camera" at the rare moment when someone likes one of my pictures. My comeback is always the same..."that's like telling a good cook that they must have really good knifes after they've served you a good meal".
I fully understand that a pro needs what they feel is required to do the job correctly. I also fully understand that amateurs who have the means have every right to spend their money in any way they see fit. I just don't pay a lot of attention to what took the picture...I find it much more important to try to figure out how it affects me as the observer. The more I learn...and observe here btw...the more I know that I can downsize my photo equipment...and spend my pension on more important things...like good food and better scotch. :D
 
Last edited:
As much as I jest about having lots of cameras ... I have spent a lot of time and thought adjusting my kit recently.
Me and @Ben Jennings were chatting the other day about fatherhood and how before the kids came along we both liked collecting and having a lot of things ... Being a parent, or maybe just getting older has made me want to focus (excuse the pun) on getting kit that really suits me and works for me rather than buying kit that I want to play with. I suppose it's all part of the path, and I certainly won't stop wanting to buy and experiment with kit as time goes on, but at the mo I feel really driven to get my kit "right" for me and be settled on it! It might not be right for everyone, but I think there might be a big bit of peace of mind in doing it that I am aiming for!

And funnily enough, just the other day I changed my twitter description to include "I have too many cameras, so now I'm spending my cash in Whisky" :D
 
Hamish Gill said:
As much as I jest about having lots of cameras ... I have spent a lot of time and thought adjusting my kit recently.
Me and @Ben Jennings were chatting the other day about fatherhood and how before the kids came along we both liked collecting and having a lot of things ... Being a parent, or maybe just getting older has made me want to focus (excuse the pun) on getting kit that really suits me and works for me rather than buying kit that I want to play with. I suppose it's all part of the path, and I certainly won't stop wanting to buy and experiment with kit as time goes on, but at the mo I feel really driven to get my kit "right" for me and be settled on it! It might not be right for everyone, but I think there might be a big bit of peace of mind in doing it that I am aiming for!
And funnily enough, just the other day I changed my twitter description to include "I have too many cameras, so now I'm spending my cash in Whisky" :D
Click to expand...

@Hamish Gill ... in my humble experience...shortly...the "Whisky" part will have nothing to do with cameras. ;) Just wait until the kids are teenagers and start bringing home the loves of their life. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Dodkin
The 50 Greatest Cameras of All Time
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Hamish Gill
Hamish Gill
Back
Top