Which Format?

Herman

Herman

The Image Stimulator
Location
The Netherlands
Name
Herman
As seen on internet. Format discussion.
Is Medium Format worth it? (Canon R6)
I'm asking:
Is Full Frame worth it? (APS-C)
Is APS-C Format worth it? (MFT)
Is MFT Format woth it? (1 inch)
Is 1 inch Format worth it? (compact sensor)
Is Smartphone Format worth it? (?)
What you think?
 
Herman said:
As seen on internet. Format discussion.
Is Medium Format worth it? (Canon R6)
I'm asking:
Is Full Frame worth it? (APS-C)
Is APS-C Format worth it? (MFT)
Is MFT Format woth it? (1 inch)
Is 1 inch Format worth it? (compact sensor)
Is Smartphone Format worth it? (?)
What you think?
Click to expand...
Worth it. Well let’s have a look at the meaning of worth ie, equivalent in value to the sum or item specified. On that basis, then as long as you can cough up for whatever your gear and you like it, then I suppose it’s worth it. Or was the question meant another way?
 
I am happy with full frame. I do have an M8.2 which does admirably with its APSH sensor. I have a Pentax Q-S1 which punches well above its weight. The M8.2 is my B&W camera with a Canon 28mm LTM f/2.8 and is just great that way. My M9 is full frame and has any of my few lenses on it one time or another. Currently it is having a fling with that '57 KMZ Jupiter 8. It does well with the other lenses but the Jupiter is color honest, at least on an M240. It seems the same on the M9.

So what sensor size do I use the most? The M9 18MP 24x36mm sensor. Because it is CCD as is the M8.2. The M240 is close but I just tend to use the M9. But they are all good. The problem is always the same, who is aiming the camera not the sensor size.
 
I have been quite happy with M-4/3 IQ and had plenty of success in low light, something many of the 'influencers' say is impossible. Meh.

Had I not become frustrated with Panasonic's DFD it's likely have I would never have added FF to my kit. However, I've been pretty stinkin' geeked with the results. It should get even better as the camera becomes more familiar. The only trade-off so far has been lens size, but then only on the longer lenses. Many of the primes and wider zooms are more similar in size than many people think.

In my past, many excellent images were made with the tiny little sensors in the FZ and ZS-70s.

Whatever works for you is the right answer. If you can afford it, go get it. Life is too short, and they way things are going it could become shorter.
 
For me, it’s been not as much about the sensor, but how the camera manufacturer delivers the package. As I wait for my new-to-me X-T3 to arrive, I’ve been reading the manual, and the more I read, the more I think I’m going to like the Fuji layout. This is where it can get really personal, but I don’t like going into menus to change things—I’d rather there be a knob, button, or dial. Fuji seems to deliver that like no one else. Might take some getting used to where everything is, but I think I’m going to like it. Time will tell!

Also of note is the subtle results of the pictures that goes beyond noise and DR. Having shot both Panasonic and Olympus M43, both 20MP sensors even, I like the warmth from Olympus files better, and that even includes RAW. I always had to add warmth to Lumix, and even then, the output feels more…clinical?
 
Is it worth it? In general I agree with the others. They are tools, get the right tool for the job that fits your budget.

For me personally? My first digital camera was a 3MP Pentax and I shot events with a 36MP D800. I've also played a little with a couple old medium format digital as well as a 4x5 view film cameras. My current kit is more capable than the kits I used to create some of my favorite images over the years. For that matter so are the current crop of 1" sensor P&S cameras.

So I can appreciate what larger formats can offer, but they are definitely not worth it for me. But I also wouldn't go smaller, not because of sensor abilities, but because (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't a system that provides as enjoyable a shooting experience. That's what I'm looking for these days, personal enjoyment.

The D200 is the camera I had before I started shooting event professionally. So 1" and m4/3 sensors are easily more capable.

1646678705909.png
 
DM Larson said:
I use m43, Fuji, and Nikon Z7 and love them all. I used to want a Fuji medium format, but it would only be for landscape and I am so happy with my Z7 and Z lenses for landscape that I no longer lust for a medium format.
Click to expand...
Interesting! The same happened to me with the Z 7 II - it's all I can wish for in high-resolution camera; it put an end to my considering the Q2 or GFX100S (or Sony A7R IV - but that wasn't a real contener, to be honest).

I use 1" (Nikon), :mu43: (Olympus, Panasonic), APS-C (Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Ricoh), APS-H (Leica M8) and FF (Leica, Nikon). However, my sweet spot definitely is FF. Why? Because it can do everything smaller formats can do - but not vice versa (I use shallow DoF a lot); mirrorless have made FF manageable and portable, too.

But ... I still love the fact that the E-M5 III with 12-45mm holds its own against the Z 6 with 24-120mm in many ways - at half the size and less than two thirds of the weight. 90% overall performance while saving this much bulk? Count me in any time!

Anyhow, my usual EDC choices have been APS-C for a while now (with Nikon Z ousting Fujifilm as we speak - even though I still think the X-E3 is a very nice camera). As compromises go, I quite adore APS-C. But, again, in bad weather, the E-M5 III combo tends to take over the EDC bag ... It's definitely the "no worries" choice.

Bottom line? They all have their merits, and depending on your preferences, smaller sensors may even win. If, that is, the cameras containing them offer a compelling package.

M.
 
I think of things in two different "budgets" - one cost to buy, the other the weight cost of carrying the camera and lens(es).

For me, FF is approaching "worth it" with cost some of the time (Panasonic S5 and Pentax K1 II), and size some of the time (Leica M, Sony A7C, RX1rII), but not yet both at the same time. Irritating!

APS-C is worth it most of the time in both budgets, especially now that lenses are for mirrorless and are generally smaller and lighter than the ridiculous ones for APS-C DSLRs ten years ago. Personally APS-C sensored compacts are my sweet spot.

M4/3 is worth it on both budgets most of the time, but not for new flagships - the OM-1 is really expensive for the IQ of a 20MP M4/3 sensor, although if you need the great speediness of that camera, there you go.
 
I must confess that I have an old sweetheart, a 2000 Sony Cybershot DSC-S70 with a 3.2 MP sensor. I paid US$2000 in 2000 when I bought it. When the zoom failed I bought another off eBay. For US$30. It gave me sweet images with great color and resolution:

flickr.com

Dia de los Muertos

This is serious. Especially in Michoacan, in the Patzcuaro neighborhood where this is. Try this link; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dead
flickr.com flickr.com

flickr.com

Mexico

Various photos taken while living in Mexico, Baja California Sur and south of Guadalajara
flickr.com flickr.com

flickr.com

Bakery - Santa Rosalia, BCS

The bakery is run by the fellow in the white cap and glasses with a white moustache. He has youngsters from the area with no future working for him. He teaches them a trade and "raises" them before letting them go to work as bakers up and down the Baja peninsula. The bakery is in the desert and the oven is fired with scavenged wood. He is the prime supplier of baked goods for a one hundred mile radius. His shop has marvelous light in it which made for a few good pictures. They bake hot
flickr.com flickr.com

I have to charge the battery and take it out for a whirl.
 

Similar threads

drd1135
The Medium Format Look
Replies
3
Views
539
MiguelATF
MiguelATF
AlwaysOnAuto
To frame or not to frame...
Replies
11
Views
960
AlwaysOnAuto
AlwaysOnAuto
DeeJayK
    • Like
Film Medium format folder discovery
Replies
8
Views
2K
DeeJayK
DeeJayK
Back
Top