Anybody else no longer wanting to use full frame or larger?

DigitalRelish

DigitalRelish

Messages
2,238
Name
Will
Edit My Images
Yes
When I first started getting more serious about digital photography (still in a non-professional capacity) some 20 years ago, I found myself longing for that "full frame look". You know, the paper thin depth of field and backgrounds blurred into oblivion. Then, when I ventured into the world of wedding photography, the other benefits such as low light capability and wider dynamic range really brought about tangible benefits.

There had been occasions when I'd looked back on some personal photos shot on full frame and I'd thought to myself, "I wish I had a bit more in focus to get better context of what was around my main subject" after the novelty of having a single eye in focus had worn off.

Fast forward several years later and I'd almost given up stills photography until I lost somebody dear to me. Then it dawned on me that I need to capture more video, but using equipment I can carry easily in day-to-day life. I settled on the OSMO Pocket 3 and it's been brilliant. Shooting video has also rekindled my interest in stills.

I still have a full frame Sony, but find it's just too unwieldy with a 24-70 f/2.8 mounted. I also have Ricoh GR III and IIIx which are insanely pocketable, but I found the shooting experience to not be engaging enough. I love my Fujifilm X100V, but there are times when I want more focal lengths to use. And so, I find myself with a Fujifilm X-T5 and the 16-50mm kit zoom not even a f/2.8. Personally, I think you can't beat having all the dials to control exposure without having to fumble through menus and the compact size of the lens is greatly appreciated.

For my main use case of documenting everyday life and travels, full frame is no longer justifiable. APS-C with its inherently greater depth of field at equivalent focal lengths is the sweet spot for me right now.
 
DigitalRelish said:
Presumably, we have different use cases?
Click to expand...
I'm just shooting mundane stuff right now. Gone back to full hobby mode, therapeutic and zero pressure.

I think it's just my comfort zone and my go to setup. I adore the way light seems to play at a shallow depth of field on full frame. Something about it dreamy and ethereal.

Sorry for the hippy dippy b******t

1000030464.jpg
 
Last edited:
In this day and age of Photoshop et al, you can just get everything in and then de-focus the BG as much or as little as you want in a very short time.
It mattered in the film days but things are different now.
 
I use Fuji for pleasure and Sony full frame for work ...I use small primes on both so the size and weight ...well.theres very little in it . With the full frame I can get shallow depth of field and a large depth of field with a few clicks . I can happily use both and the only advantage with the Fuji is it's simply nicer to use (hence why it's my fun camera) . So for all the above reasons I see no reason at all to move away from full frame .
 
lexidium said:
In this day and age of Photoshop et al, you can just get everything in and then de-focus the BG as much or as little as you want in a very short time.
It mattered in the film days but things are different now.
Click to expand...
And it looks horrendous....I don't think AI or any robots have mastered focus fall off and as Gary says above ...light plays different at different f stops and the robots haven't got there yet either
 
lexidium said:
In this day and age of Photoshop et al, you can just get everything in and then de-focus the BG as much or as little as you want in a very short time.
It mattered in the film days but things are different now.
Click to expand...
I've never managed to pull off something that replicates exotic apertures in a way that feels real. A skill issue no doubt.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I've never managed to pull off something that replicates exotic apertures in a way that feels real. A skill issue no doubt.
Click to expand...
Not a skill issue in my opinion ....it's what it is ....looks keek .....one of the exciting things for me and lenses is the different characteristics they bring . It would depress me to have one zoom lens and then just artificially blur the background .....I've got portrait mode on my phone if I want that look LOL
 
Last edited:
Medium format is my go-to for creative studio work and full frame for events. It’s hard to beat the capabilities they offer in those scenarios. I don’t mind the size and weight of the gear; in fact, I prefer the full-sized camera bodies. For everyday snaps, my iPhone does a great job and really closing the gap for casual shooting.
 
DigitalRelish said:
There had been occasions when I'd looked back on some personal photos shot on full frame and I'd thought to myself, "I wish I had a bit more in focus to get better context of what was around my main subject" after the novelty of having a single eye in focus had worn off.
Click to expand...

A bit more depth is a better fit here than focus. I think the following is worth a read.

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

In Defense of Depth

From Russian Noir by Jason Eskenazi By John Kennerdell If there's a single received idea that fires up the imagination of my young photographer friends these days, it's that for "professional looking" photographs they should buy fast lenses and then...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

I do think that minimal depth is sometimes overdone but FF does more than that. For me one benefit is being able to use focal lengths I'm familiar with without having to think about crop factors. A 35mm looks like a 35mm on FF rather than looking like a 50mm on APS-C. That might not matter to others but having grown up with film I still think in those terms.

I had APS-C for years as there weren't any FF digital cameras at that time and I have MFT and FF now but FF is my most used thing and as I mostly like primes in the 28 to 50mm sort of range APS-C doesn't really offer any real saving in bulk or weight over my A7 set up and FF does offer advantages for image quality over APS-C. Sometimes you have to look for these advantages but they are often there to be seen if you're the sort of person who goes looking.

Glad you're happy. I do think that just about anything is a perfectly valid choice if you're happy with the kit and the results, that's what counts. For me my A7 and also my A7III are amongst my favourite cameras. The APS-C ones I had have been mostly quickly forgotten but I do still look at the pictures I got from them.
 
Last edited:
I go through phases. I’ll buy the latest and greatest, spend a fortune on new lenses, then let it sit in my bag unused because it’s too heavy, or too much effort.

I wonder if I sold it all and forced myself to only own something like the Leica Q3 for travel would that be better.
 
TimHughes said:
Medium format is my go-to for creative studio work and full frame for events. It’s hard to beat the capabilities they offer in those scenarios. I don’t mind the size and weight of the gear; in fact, I prefer the full-sized camera bodies. For everyday snaps, my iPhone does a great job and really closing the gap for casual shooting.
Click to expand...
Likewise, although the medium format gear is huge, the images are spectacular. Just wish I could afford a full frame mf set up ...
 
I'm mainly into close up and macro photography as my hobby, so I have Olympus M43rds for that. I also have FF gear that I will take out if I'm having a photography day (so to speak) but I tend to pick up my M43rds stuff more frequently as it's smaller.
 
Just the x100v these days,I have both converters if needed but I love the simplicity and lightweight and I love a lot of the images I end up with.
 
When I moved from a Fuji XT2 and Nikon D810 to the Nikon Z series, the fact that the Z’s were full frame wasn’t the single determining factor. They simply had all the things I wanted, plus I prefer the way Nikon’s work.

If Nikon had a high end crop Z camera at the time I might well have bought that and saved myself a lot of money. That said, I don’t think Nikon do much by way of crop sensor Z lenses, or didn’t when I bought into the Z range.
 
Of all the various formats available, I like the look that comes from large format - 10 X 8 - the best. Bigger sensors, whether film or CMOS give a sense of depth to an image for me, while small sensors make the image look flat.

My go-to outfit is still Sony A7III plus 50 f1.2 for the way pictures look, but I'm happy to stop down to f11 or smaller if the scene calls for it.
 
My chosen digital setup just so happens to be full frame - I didn't opt for it because of sensor size and my setup is compact. (M11 + 28 Elmarit, 50 Lux)

I think in general, we tend to be too obsessed with photography and equipment that we overlook our user case (as you put it)
 
After shooting full frame for 10 years, I went back to APSC, with Fuji, and have not looked back, some images may not be quite as good, but because the kit doesn't weigh a ton, I take it with me more often, so get a more images. I would never have taken my old FF Canon kit with me on MTB rides, but these days it is rare that I don't take my X100V with me. I also think that it helps that the Fuji system is built around APSC, so I am using lenses designed for the smaller sensors, which in turn are smaller/lighter/cheaper.

Having said all that though, the sensor size I've seemed happiest with over the years is APSH - the 1.3x crop on the old Canon 1D Series cameras.
 
benc98 said:
I think in general, we tend to be too obsessed with photography and equipment that we overlook our user case (as you put it)
Click to expand...
Agreed.

If I have a choice, I use the tool that suits my intention best but as with any task, if I have no choice, I use what I have...

Toolkit in Aluminium case R1 06777.jpg
 
My go-to (weight/size aside) would be the A7Riii and 35GM - without a doubt! I just love the wide open subject isolation and light gathering. Add in a fast 85mm and things get even better imo.

You aren't getting this look from an APSC at f/4

https://flic.kr/p/2qt5qNs
View: https://flic.kr/p/2qt5qNs


Although........ I do shoot quite a bit with the X100f where the size & weight are both lovely, the IQ/look is good enough, and the experience is great.

I don't think I want for an APSC "system" though. I don't travel enough for that :)
 
I change over from Nikon FF to panasonic M43 (G9 and G9ii)system as it is much lighter to carry
 
Glass definitely makes a big difference. I have a Sigma f/1.4 Art for my A7iii which produces similarly sharp photos with a lovely fall-off, but it's about the same size as my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and heavier. The A7iii with a Samyang 35mm f/2.8 is much more compact, but the body and grip are noticeably thicker than the X-T5.

I didn't want this to be just a discussion about gear, but obviously the portability and useability of a tool can have an effect on what output is produced. I appreciate there is no single best fit for everybody for all use cases, but it's good that we all have options available to us.

For giggles, here's a little side-by-side. I badly wanted to love the GRIIIx, but I've not been able to gel with it as well as I have the Fujis which is a shame given they've been able to cram an APS-C sensor in such a compact form.

2024-11-25_12-03-59.jpeg
 
For me, it's about the photo first. If the gear I have with me won't create an image that I like then I may as well not take a picture, except where I need it for information. I'm not interested in 'gear' for it's own sake.
 
With the size of full frame mirrorless and many of their lenses there's less justification for smaller sensor systems for me. I've been round and round in circles trying to find the balance between size and image quality but nowadays you can get the benefits of full frame in a relatively lightweight package.
 
snerkler said:
With the size of full frame mirrorless and many of their lenses there's less justification for smaller sensor systems for me. I've been round and round in circles trying to find the balance between size and image quality but nowadays you can get the benefits of full frame in a relatively lightweight package.
Click to expand...
for me size was not the question but weight is. I can quite happily carry around all day My M43 Panasonic G9ii with a 100-300mm lens ( 520gm/18.3oz)
against a Canon lens 3.05KG (6.7lb) to 11.83kg(26.0lb) depending on model.
there is the justification to go with a smaller size sensor camera
 
Last edited:
LeeRatters said:
My go-to (weight/size aside) would be the A7Riii and 35GM - without a doubt! I just love the wide open subject isolation and light gathering. Add in a fast 85mm and things get even better imo.

You aren't getting this look from an APSC at f/4

https://flic.kr/p/2qt5qNs
View: https://flic.kr/p/2qt5qNs


Although........ I do shoot quite a bit with the X100f where the size & weight are both lovely, the IQ/look is good enough, and the experience is great.

I don't think I want for an APSC "system" though. I don't travel enough for that :)
Click to expand...
Cracking shot and please don't take this the wrong way but at initial glance I wondered if it had been processed using the lens blur feature in LR. Obviously not - I guess I'm not used to seeing cars / landscape with such separation of the background
 
realspeed said:
for me size was not the question but weight is. I can quite happily carry around all day My M43 Panasonic G9ii with a 100-300mm lens ( 520gm/18.3oz)
against a Canon lens 3.05KG (6.7lb) to 11.83kg(26.0lb) depending on model.
there is the justification to go with a smaller size sensor camera
Click to expand...
I didn't say there wasn't any justification, I said there's less justification ;)

If using telephoto lenses then m4/3 will definitely be lighter, but for other use the gap isn't necessarily that big now.
 
taxboy said:
Cracking shot and please don't take this the wrong way but at initial glance I wondered if it had been processed using the lens blur feature in LR. Obviously not - I guess I'm not used to seeing cars / landscape with such separation of the background
Click to expand...

Hence the deliberate choice to use FF & 85mm at f/2 :) And also the deliberate choice to shoot it as a 9 image panorama.

As I said, I couldn't give up the subject isolation & light gathering in certain situations.

It's nice to have a choice :)
 
LeeRatters said:
Hence the deliberate choice to use FF & 85mm at f/2 :) And also the deliberate choice to shoot it as a 9 image panorama.

As I said, I couldn't give up the subject isolation & light gathering in certain situations.

It's nice to have a choice :)
Click to expand...
f/2??? :eek: :p

As it's a 9 shot stitch I guess you've got a bit of a brenizer thing going off hence why it has so much pop and slight diorama/miniature effect?

It's a great shot, this is different to the one you posted in the Sony thread?
 
snerkler said:
f/2??? :eek: :p

As it's a 9 shot stitch I guess you've got a bit of a brenizer thing going off hence why it has so much pop and slight diorama/miniature effect?

It's a great shot, this is different to the one you posted in the Sony thread?
Click to expand...

Dark car & chrome wide open......? On the FE85....? :ROFLMAO:

Same shot as the Sony thread a few weeks ago - A lot of my deliberate car shots & landscapes are panoramic.

This one is too


*** by Lee, on Flickr
 
LeeRatters said:
The look, compression & less distractions (y)
Click to expand...
I do like the Brenizer type look but am too lazy to stitch shots :LOL: In what way do you get less distractions, do you mean due to the shallow DOF?
 
I've always been a 4/3 then m4/3 shooter. Just works for me.

In film I've gone from 35mm to 120 to 4x5 and 5x7. I really must stop :)
 
snerkler said:
That's confused me, doesn't taking a pano widen the field of view :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes. Sort of. But an 85mm panorama is more subject focused than a 28mm frame (of the same subject size) with all the distractions around the edge of the frame from the wide angle view.

That image of the Escort with a wider focal length would include much more of the road at the left side, more empty space between the tree trunks, buildings to the sides would be in the shot, rubbish bins, parked cars etc etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top