I got out my old Canon Rebel T3i/600D APS-C yesterday just to have a play with it. I was amazed at how loud the clicking was on the front command dial. It sounded like a cheap plastic toy from the 1980s. Good camera for its price, but not a premium feel at all. Likewise, the 18-55 kit lens it came with is just plastic and doesn’t zoom smoothly at all. These things didn’t matter to me at all when it was my main camera, but I definitely feel the difference now that I shoot a modern mirrorless camera.
I do appreciate that Fuji APS-C cameras and lenses all have a high-end feel to them, even the kit lenses. You certainly pay for that as far as the lenses are concerned, but they don’t generally feel overpriced compared to the competition.
I used to be like that as well. But somehow, that changed in the last few years. It feels to me like that was inevitable. At some point I discovered a subject I enjoyed more than others, and found a purpose to my photography. Documenting my life and the people I love.
But no idea whether that applies to anyone else but me.
I use the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM on a 70D (crop sensor) so it’s a bit like a a 80mm on a full-frame, makes a good (too good, says my wife) lens for portrait.
Well, that’s what I do too, and also the places I go. I do have a preference for landscapes and nature for photography, but I haven’t yet settled on a particular genre, and maybe never will. I’ve been enjoying the hobby for about 40 years now and still haven’t found a niche. But I’m ok with that. I like variety.
I am in the same shoes. Approximately 90% of my most interesting pictures (which is, of course, subjective) are those that feature people I know. The rest are well-composed landscapes and similar, but even those look much better with people in them.
I gave up on capturing everything even of those above. After an active holiday of hikes and sightseeing, I don’t need a picture of everything we saw, just about 20 well-made ones that capture the essence of the experience. This allows me to cut back on EDC gear, which these days is one body + lens, and maybe another lens on my belt but that’s about it.
But why stop at FF? I recently talked to a professional photographer in a camera store while I was eyeballing some TTArtisan micro 4/3 lenses, and he told me that full frame was so underutilized in his day work that he sold all his FF kit, and now he has only Fuji medium-format bodies and lenses for interior and fashion photography, and micro 4/3 for everything else.
The ergonomic choice between compact APS-C and micro 4/3 bodies pretty much depends on whether you shoot telephoto; for up to 50-70mm equivalent the difference in lens sizes is not that large and all mount formats have great “pancake” lenses.
Personally, I try to capture every major scene. If we go hiking, I want at least one shot of the hike. One shot of the hotel, perhaps of a restaurant setting if it was noteworthy.
But I’ll be much sadder about not having a picture of the friend I hadn’t seen in years, than any beautiful sunset or mountainscape, no matter how epic.
This can be an advantage too for portrait photographers seeking shallow depth of field. I refer to facts such as these as characteristics rather than advantages or disadvantages because it depends on the photographers needs.
While I agree that everything can be an advantage or a disadvantage, including DOF, I find that in practice even portrait photography does not need an ultra-shallow DOF.
Eg on full frame, you have to be really, really good at composing to the DOF if you want to go wider than f/2.8 shooting a single person at 70–100mm; wider than this and only parts of the face may be in focus, which can be artistic, but 99% of the time it is just weird.
Shooting two people, you have to be a really good photographer to go wider than f/4, unless they are really experienced models and can hold still until you compose. And so on. These you can pull off with are reasonable, but cheaper APS-C or micro 4/3 prime lenses, or some zoom lenses for crop formats.
DOF is one way to separate your subject, and the most gear intensive. One can use shooting angle/height, different background illumination, light, color, or even pattern, and a lot of other techniques. An experienced portrait photographer will crank out photos that are good enough for a company website with a compact zoom (I have seen this happen).
I don’t quite get the obsession with shallow DOF other than for bragging rights and to sell v expensive lenses. How many photos beyond extreme close ups where there’s naturally narrower DOF (and it actually becomes a problem) have a completely blurry background? I can barely think of any by the world’s most renowned photographers. Some separation can be useful but it’s generally good to have a sense of the context of the subject, I find.
My Canon G16 compact camera has taken some great shots that I am really proud of and love and the bonus is it fits in my pocket and has good DoF even at f1.8 on wide angle shots.
I have not yet been convinced to buy a full frame camera because it will not make me a better photographer or improve my compositions. I am pretty impressed with the compromises of a APC sensor. If I want shallow depth of field for a portrait I can achieve that with the right lens choice. If I want extended depth of field for landscape I can also achieve that with the right lens. However, on a recent trip to Morocco there were times where I would have liked a 14mm lens or shorter on a full frame to capture some interior shots, but that would be an expensive and heavy option to travel with for a very occasional image that I couldn’t capture with a crop sensor. Panorama stitching helped with some, but not all of these instances. Maybe one day I will buy a full frame with a good wide angle lens. If I was a real estate photographer I would want full frame for my job. If I was a professional portrait or wedding photographer I would want full frame gear for the BS factor to impress the customer more than the necessity for capturing the shots.
There are some shots that greatly benefit from shallow DoF, but it is easy to obtain with any APC crop sensor using the right lens but pretty much impossible with a compact camera. I wouldn’t use a compact camera for portrait work by choice, but the extended DoF makes my compact Canon G16 great for nighttime street scenes when I travel because I shoot with a 6mm wide angle lens at F1.8 and focus is just not a problem.
I teach photography classes and more than 90% of the students who turn up with full frames don’t need them. They have just been hoodwinked by the salespeople, the marketing and their friends who tell them full frame is the way to go. Hell, I see students turn up with the most expensive full frame gear and they are still asking me questions like what is ISO. But occasionally I have students who would truly benefit from the characteristics of full frame cameras. These include dedicated landscape photographers, astro photographers and real estate photographers.
Agreed. I’m not saying having the capacity for some blur isn’t useful and for some people, depending on taste or use case (commercial, wedding?), maybe having maximum blur is essential. I just find that almost none of my photos or most of the photos I see in almost any context make much use of extreme bokeh given the amount of commentary you see. The only time I see those pics of some moss or a page of handwriting or whatever with a tiny sliver of focus is in reviews or when someone’s saying ‘ta-daaaah’ look at the thing this lens can do. Like the toy effect with tilt and shift lenses. It’s basically a picture of some optical capability rather than a picture of something in the world. I’ve done it myself but I never look at those pics and end up deleting them. That’s fine, though. Rant over!
I tend to agree with your rant. There is a huge push from vested interests in pushing full frame cameras and I just don’t believe the average photographer needs the extra cost and weight. I just acknowledge that some photographers such as real estate photographers definitely benefit from full frames wide angle capability.
I figure there are two specific reasons to need a full-frame camera: 1) low-light performance, and 2) rendition resolution, that is, large print sizes or fine detail.
I went to full-frame for the former, but the need was really for a subset of images, my APS-C D7000 worked just fine for the majority. Doing only web-posted renditions also suited APS-C. If I were to shoot landscapes or large-group portraits, full-frame (or larger) would be prudent. Or, print larger than 8x10 inches.
I believe one should procure the tools they need for their specific situations…
I agree with your reasons, but I’d bump the print size requirements up at least double. I’ve made lovely 11 x 17 prints of (slightly) cropped images out of my 20 MP aps-c camera without any special processing, and still had more pixels than the printer could print. With a bit of attention in post processing, I think I could have gone even bigger. But I don’t have walls big enough for that!
I recently talked to a professional photographer in a camera store while I was eyeballing some TTArtisan micro 4/3 lenses, and he told me that full frame was so underutilized in his day work that he sold all his FF kit, and now he has only Fuji medium-format bodies and lenses for interior and fashion photography, and micro 4/3 for everything else.
