The photography thread

Bridgehouse

dazzajl said:

Bridgehouse said:

dazzajl said:

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

So you’re looking for a small camera with a big(ish) sensor and a built in prime lens? 

I know the x100 series gets a lot of love but it’s no smaller than very similar bodies for the XF lenses. Then you can choose the prime that suits you mood on the day. 

Believe me, I’ve done a lot of research and thinking. 

I don’t want to invest in another ILC system - given I’m balls deep into Nikon Z which is £££

Going into another system will just mean I end up buying more and more lenses. And they aren’t small enough. 

The XA2 is pocketable - an X100 isn’t - I’d say the GR series is, but there’s no EVF. I’d say the old sigma DP series was, but no EVF. 

Broadly, I’m odd and the market doesn’t produce what I would like to buy...

I think ‘Bridgehouse’ would be an excellent brand name for a new line of niche cameras that are small in stature and mighty in resolution

“Bridgecamerahouse”

Jimbro66

Bridgehouse said:

dazzajl said:

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

So you’re looking for a small camera with a big(ish) sensor and a built in prime lens? 

I know the x100 series gets a lot of love but it’s no smaller than very similar bodies for the XF lenses. Then you can choose the prime that suits you mood on the day. 

Believe me, I’ve done a lot of research and thinking. 

I don’t want to invest in another ILC system - given I’m balls deep into Nikon Z which is £££

Going into another system will just mean I end up buying more and more lenses. And they aren’t small enough. 

The XA2 is pocketable - an X100 isn’t - I’d say the GR series is, but there’s no EVF. I’d say the old sigma DP series was, but no EVF. 

Broadly, I’m odd and the market doesn’t produce what I would like to buy...

The X-E3 with 27mm pancake lens seemed tiny after being used to my DSLR kit and extremely portable (fits nicely in my handbag ) but, like just about every other digital camera with a viewfinder, it will dwarf an XA2.

Bridgehouse

Jimbro66 said:

Bridgehouse said:

dazzajl said:

Bridgehouse said:

boogieman said:

Bridgehouse said: I’m now thinking about getting a small large sensor compact to do the same sort of thing with. Problem is, I want to keep it small and have as large a sensor as possible with a fixed FL lens, but I want to retain a viewfinder of some description. It’s not an easy choice. 

Sony RX100? Mostly fits your bill, except for the fixed lens. It’s very compact, decent sized sensor, EVF. I can’t believe the IQ in the one I’ve just bought, it’s almost not worth converting the RAW files as the jpegs straight out of the camera are that good. 

I’ve considered one - the zoom puts me off a bit, but I’d have to have the MkVII (gear addict) and F me they are pricey!

So you’re looking for a small camera with a big(ish) sensor and a built in prime lens? 

I know the x100 series gets a lot of love but it’s no smaller than very similar bodies for the XF lenses. Then you can choose the prime that suits you mood on the day. 

Believe me, I’ve done a lot of research and thinking. 

I don’t want to invest in another ILC system - given I’m balls deep into Nikon Z which is £££

Going into another system will just mean I end up buying more and more lenses. And they aren’t small enough. 

The XA2 is pocketable - an X100 isn’t - I’d say the GR series is, but there’s no EVF. I’d say the old sigma DP series was, but no EVF. 

Broadly, I’m odd and the market doesn’t produce what I would like to buy...

The X-E3 with 27mm pancake lens seemed tiny after being used to my DSLR kit and extremely portable (fits nicely in my handbag ) but, like just about every other digital camera with a viewfinder, it will dwarf an XA2.

My Z7 is almost exactly the same body size as my f80 film SLR. However in terms of IQ, functionality etc it blows film away. 

But for compacts, there’s no real comparator to a small light compact with a sharp small fixed focus fast prime lens on it. 

They either have no viewfinder, a crap EVF or are significantly bigger or heavier

dazzajl

The X-E3 and 27mm is a mighty combo in a very small package but it's true, there really isn't anything that fits Bridgehouse's wish list. Although there were many back in the film era.

Bridgehouse

dazzajl said:

The X-E3 and 27mm is a mighty combo in a very small package but it's true, there really isn't anything that fits Bridgehouse's wish list. Although there were many back in the film era.

That’s probably my problem - I still shoot a lot of film - both SLR and compacts, mostly just for fun, and I love the portability and quality of a good 35mm compact. 

The X100 is a great modern take on something like a Canon P rangefinder, or fixed lens rangefinders of the 60s - but there just isn’t a digital equivalent of the really high quality compacts around in the 70s and 80s

Jimbro66

Harking back to the pre-digital era, APS film was regarded as something of a novelty and mostly suited to snappers, not ‘serious’ photographers. Yet there have been more aps-c DSLRs and digital Mirrorless cameras marketed than any other format.

Bridgehouse

Jimbro66 said:

Harking back to the pre-digital era, APS film was regarded as something of a novelty and mostly suited to snappers, not ‘serious’ photographers. Yet there have been more aps-c DSLRs and digital Mirrorless cameras marketed than any other format.

I’d say the link is erroneous. APS film was all about the canister and how it made loading easier. The size meant smaller bodies and manufacturers could get away with supplying less film. 

APS-C sensors came about because FF sensors were originally just too expensive to produce, and most manufacturers had geared up to provide APS sized equipment - thus an easy transition and full parts bin.

ThePrettyDamned

35mm is only a standard because someone liked the 2:3 ratio.

Which is hugely wasteful of image circle I really think it would have been interesting if Panasonic, within the L mount, made a huge 4:3 sensor - it would have greater surface area than "full frame" (which would qualify it as medium format, I suppose...) and still have the AF performance and lens selection of the 35mm L mount. 

Alas, it was not to be. I suppose 35mm makes more sense for movies, which are cropped more pano anyway. 

Guys, I am LOVING the output of my new (to me) Canon 6D. The colours and tonality are ace, and the sharpness is fantastic with the nifty 50 STM lens. 

Just need me that 100-400mm mark ii and I'm set! 

dazzajl

I’d agree, of all the Canons I’ve used and owned, the 6D files outshone all others for my taste. 

It just hits a sweet spot in so many ways. I’d have loved to see that sensor in a camera with a bit more speed of focus and full weather sealing. 

sev112

Thanks to the various prompts from here, I’ve now benefits on two nature walks with my daughter with her new RX100 and my old Sony A500.  She has a natural eye for a picture and has got some fabulous pics indeed.  
So next thing is to work out what is the easiest way of storing and indexing them.  
We have a Mac at home that she uses for homework. Whilst I’ve loaded my pics onto the Mac in the past (mainly so that I can incorporate them into iOS Photos and view / edit them on my iPad) I REALLY HATE (:( ) how to view Pics on the Mac without using Photos.   
So what do people receommend she uses to store, index and edit her pics on the Mac?  There must be some simple apps or tools that are good ones to start with.  
We are not doing  Photoshop type editing just yet because we are just learning about composition and aperture control.

Bridgehouse

sev112 said:

Thanks to the various prompts from here, I’ve now benefits on two nature walks with my daughter with her new RX100 and my old Sony A500.  She has a natural eye for a picture and has got some fabulous pics indeed.  
So next thing is to work out what is the easiest way of storing and indexing them.  
We have a Mac at home that she uses for homework. Whilst I’ve loaded my pics onto the Mac in the past (mainly so that I can incorporate them into iOS Photos and view / edit them on my iPad) I REALLY HATE (:( ) how to view Pics on the Mac without using Photos.   
So what do people receommend she uses to store, index and edit her pics on the Mac?  There must be some simple apps or tools that are good ones to start with.  
We are not doing  Photoshop type editing just yet because we are just learning about composition and aperture control.

Although you may not be editing yet - Lightroom’s CC packages with online storage are very good. I use Lightroom to store, edit, catalogue and share my images and it’s well worth it imho. 

Grumpyrocker

Noise/dynamic range is so good now on all kinds of sensors that you don't have to spend big money on a 35mm sensor anymore. A Fuji APSC sensor outperforms all but the most recent EOS 5D cameras. 

Look how close the Fuji sensor is to Canon's 35mm sensors here. It spanks the Mk II and Mk III at lower ISO and is really not £2000 away from the Mk IV. The graph below is dynamic range, the noise graph is almost the same. The X-T30 costs £799 the 5D MK IV is £2700.




Every time I start believing the 35mm upgrade path myth I make myself watch this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

That's not to say there aren't people who have a genuine use case for a 35mm sensor. But the number of people with that genuine use case is way below the number of people who actually buy cameras with bigger sensors. But like hugely expensive guitars for home play - that's up to you, if that's what makes you happy, buy them. But we shouldn't pretend most of us actually "need" them. 

Bridgehouse

Grumpyrocker said:

Noise/dynamic range is so good now on all kinds of sensors that you don't have to spend big money on a 35mm sensor anymore. A Fuji APSC sensor outperforms all but the most recent EOS 5D cameras. 

Look how close the Fuji sensor is to Canon's 35mm sensors here. It spanks the Mk II and Mk III at lower ISO and is really not £2000 away from the Mk IV. The graph below is dynamic range, the noise graph is almost the same. The X-T30 costs £799 the 5D MK IV is £2700.




Every time I start believing the 35mm upgrade path myth I make myself watch this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

That's not to say there aren't people who have a genuine use case for a 35mm sensor. But the number of people with that genuine use case is way below the number of people who actually buy cameras with bigger sensors. But like hugely expensive guitars for home play - that's up to you, if that's what makes you happy, buy them. But we shouldn't pretend most of us actually "need" them. 

The photography enthusiast market is not dissimilar to the guitar community to be honest. 

I have a FF digital, a Nikon z7. Would I recommend it as a camera to buy? Nope. Not for 99% of people who want a camera. Why?

Well, I have a very specific use case. I wanted a new digital ILC, but I also have a lot of legacy lenses and I love shooting film. I hate scanning. 

The simple fact is if you want to digitise film, it’s easier as a 1:1 reproduction and resolution is king. So, I was looking for a high MP FF camera. 

Shooting legacy lenses means adaptability - the Z mount has the smallest flange distance out there at 16mm - I can even adapt lenses from a Sony A7 if I want (and get autofocus!) 

I also wanted a normal camera, and having borrowed a Nikon 50/1.8S with a Z6 before I bought, I knew the Nikon Z mount would do the job for me - I’ve shot Nikon for years and love the ergonomics. Choice made.

And so for most people APS-C is more than perfect. It’s weird tho, as Nikon just launched the Z50 - an APS-C Z mount body at £899 which is basically a mini Z6, but the “enthusiast” market has bleated on that APS is dead so what are Nikon thinking? Who knows what goes through some people’s heads. The reality is, like a guitar, a camera is a tool and you pick one that suits your needs - not based on what the internet tells you is right or wrong.

dazzajl

Grumpyrocker said:

Noise/dynamic range is so good now on all kinds of sensors that you don't have to spend big money on a 35mm sensor anymore. A Fuji APSC sensor outperforms all but the most recent EOS 5D cameras. 

Look how close the Fuji sensor is to Canon's 35mm sensors here. It spanks the Mk II and Mk III at lower ISO and is really not £2000 away from the Mk IV. The graph below is dynamic range, the noise graph is almost the same. The X-T30 costs £799 the 5D MK IV is £2700.




Every time I start believing the 35mm upgrade path myth I make myself watch this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

That's not to say there aren't people who have a genuine use case for a 35mm sensor. But the number of people with that genuine use case is way below the number of people who actually buy cameras with bigger sensors. But like hugely expensive guitars for home play - that's up to you, if that's what makes you happy, buy them. But we shouldn't pretend most of us actually "need" them. 

That’s a great little video and would be even more true now than it was back a few camera generations. 

My personal experience is that now is a good time to move from FF to APS 

goldtop

Grumpyrocker said:

Every time I start believing the 35mm upgrade path myth I make myself watch this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

That's not to say there aren't people who have a genuine use case for a 35mm sensor. But the number of people with that genuine use case is way below the number of people who actually buy cameras with bigger sensors. But like hugely expensive guitars for home play - that's up to you, if that's what makes you happy, buy them. But we shouldn't pretend most of us actually "need" them. 

Hmmm... I am a rank amateur behind the camera. (Although, I spent many, many hours at the other end of the chain, developing and printing 35mm and 6x6/4.5cm film, all shot by professionals.)

The arguments in the YT video are seductive, but he's talking about two processes and moving between them as if it was irrelevant. The video would be a lot more persuasive with real-world examples. To illustrate the simple point he was making, he could show analogue results from 35mm film and compare them to 6x6cm or 5x4in. The difference IME is huge. We used to send 5x4/10x8in film to another branch in a bigger town. The results we got back were always gorgeous, no matter how boring the shot was.

The YTer could then do the same with digital and show the difference between APS-C and equivalent Full Frame cameras. If the up-close-and-personal pixel-peeping evidence shows that the digital sensor divide is so much less significant than the analogue film divide, then it would be worth showing it. Of course, it's a hard test to do (lenses, print technology, etc).

I think the only reasonable conclusion is that, if you were able to compare APS-C-vs-FF in true like-for-like form, cold logic says that there would be a difference, but only in a tiny number of use-cases would that difference be important. That might  offset the size/weight benefits of APS-C for a few photographers. It may also be true that for mere mortals like me, that difference is never apparent.

(Back when I was D&Ping, we only dealt with pros; someone new who turned up with 35mm film was viewed by the account manager with some scepticism. Maybe there's some of that same thought process left over today as a bias against small formats?)

Grumpyrocker

The graph I included does show that exactly that, that these days the differences between apsc and 35mm sensors is.marginal in many cases.

Camera companies do want people to perceive 35mm as an upgrade. There are much bigger margins to be made there. Just like Gibson would rather you buy an R8 than a Standard.

goldtop

It's an interesting website, although it has the 'geek' problem of too many stats without real-world examples to show what the differences mean in practice.

Despite that, using the X-T3 and Sony A7 iii (with my old EOS M3 as the benchmark from which I am upgrading), there's a clearer difference than with the 5D examples you chose.

• Blue line = Canon EOS M3
• Orange line = Fujifilm X-T3
• Black line = Sony A7 iii

Whether the differences shown are worth the cost/size/weight is trickier to decide. Same as when comparing APS-C to Four-thirds, etc.

Also, as per the Webchap's request, here's a link to the tool for anyone who wants to check other cameras: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

RaymondLin

A graph like that is all good and well but it only shows 1 single element of the camera.  So whilst it is true of the DR performance of the sensor.  That's it.

It says nothing about ergonomics.
It says nothing about AF.
It says nothing about video capabilities.
It says nothing about weather sealing.
It says nothing about colours.
It says nothing about the -EV.
It says nothing about the system that body has access to.
It says nothing about CPS.
It says nothing else BUT the sensor.

So it is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR away like Gibson would you pay for an R8 than a Standard.   Because in a guitar it is all the same parts, in a camera there are a million other parts and many different features.  It is nothing like an R8 to a standard, at all.

Also, that graph is comparing 5D2 sensor?  Isn't that a decade old?  colour me shocked new tech 10 years on has better DR, or mk3?  Isn't that like 6 years old?  Colour me shocked again.

So it shows it's not as good as the 5D4, as they are around the same age.  Colour me surprised again that a similar age camera and the FF one is marginally better.   DR isn't just about size of the sensor, but the density of the pixels too.  The fact that they picked those bodies suggest to me they hand picked it to make a point, as opposed to pick the A73 which is like £1500 (instead of £2700) and has better DR than the 5D4.  So the graph is started off with bias, and that to me....I don't like.

Anyway.....the point is, whilst it is all good and well to look at a graph like that, you have to look at it amongst a million other thing, looking at that graph and think APSC is the way to go but when you come to shoot and say "I need dual card slots for back up".   What good is a XT-30 do in that scenario?

These days, all cameras are good, all sensors are good, what persuade me into a body these days are AF, dual cards, buffer, good EVF and lenses.

Grumpyrocker

I chose the 5D line because they are well known. I also made a similar graph with the D850, Sony A9 and new 35mm Lumix. It showed pretty much the same thing. That these differences are measurable, but not something the average user would spot in an actual image. The actual bodies chosen didn't matter, it was a general point of how good APSC sensor tech is these days, rather than pinpointing exact specific camera to camera relationships. 

I think you're arguing at cross purposes. My point is that sensor size is pretty irrelevant for almost everyone - and other features such as dual cards, EVF size, body size/weight, lens lineup, weather sealing ARE more important.

Some people would like a camera that can fit in their pocket that has excellent image quality. That's now possible. This isn't a war, no one is pissing on your 35mm chips. 

RaymondLin

My 35mm chips and my APSC chips and my m4/3 chips.

Biased? It isn't me!