Realised this is probably a very British internet meme (taken from an infamous episode of the 90s news parody show Brass Eye) and so makes no sense to anyone else in the world…
2 Likes
Larger formats tend to give smoother results. Over the years I’ve come down to it mostly being about tolerances. Larger lenses more tolerance, larger “negative”, relatively speaking, smaller aberrations.
At wider fov it may also be about focal length but the logic doesn’t make sense to me. It seems though as if wide fov on large format can have a natural, non cruncy look, that you need longer fl for on smaller formats.
None of these observations are about depth of field.
The best recent lenses on smaller formats are closing the gap imho. I’ve seen some really smooth looking apsc photos from the recent top of the line Fuji primes. They’re not small though.
1 Like
I have two large prints around the house, both 1x1.5m, both from 16 MP cameras. If you look closely, you can see a measure of softness in the details. But you don’t look closely at a picture like that. You stand back, and enjoy it for what it is. The bigger the print, the fewer megapixels it actually needs. Billboards are not detailed at all.
The most demanding print size is probably a large hand-holdable size, perhaps A3. We print a photo calendar in A3 every year. At A3, many phone pictures become visibly muddy. But any camera looks fine. Once again, 16 MP are plenty. 24 or 40 are overkill.
I mean, I did get a bit jealous when I was out and about with my photographer pal, and his D850 took visibly sharper pictures than my X-T3. Mostly because he was carrying a full backpack of pro lenses, while my two lenses fit in a lunch box. On my computer, zoomed in to 100%, it’s clear that his images are higher resolution. But printed at any reasonable size, it makes no difference.
6 Likes
The megapixels are a constant in this case. The bigger the print, the farther away the viewer is, so the need print definition decreases proportionally. Your A4 viewed at 50cm is printed at 300PPI, and the A2 viewed at 100cm can be printed at 150PPI, and the A0 viewed at 2M is printed at 75 PPI. All have 3500px on the long side and are roughly 9Mpx.
I had that as a travel camera and have very fond memories too… built like a tank, it took a lot of beating, made great pictures, and fit in a pocket. Even when the lens extension mechanism broke during a trip, it continued heroically and allowed me to make photos provided I was OK with the “fixed” focal length.
Before that, I had a Canon G10.
I have heard real estate photographers talk about full frame dismissively. Apparently the right tool for the job is medium format, preferably Hasselblad 
But of course it all depends. If one is making photos that end up on real estate websites (screen) or home magazines (offset at nominal 300 dpi, but don’t compare to a photo print of the same resolution), a crop sensor will be entirely adequate.
Lens choices are much more important than bodies these days. For ultra-wide angle (non-fisheye), I would choose at least APS-C or preferably full frame, because lenses are not much bigger than for smaller sensors, and they have a wider selection. In contrast, if I wanted to shoot wildlife at 600mm equivalent in a location I would reach after 6 hours of hiking, I would go with a recent micro 4/3 body.
3 Likes
Regarding your second point, isn’t this now an outdated requirement because of 40MP sensors on APS-C?
I was a university student in the UK in the 90s, and Brass Eye (and any content by Chris Morris in general) was a regular part of my life back then. Did you ever listen to Blue Jam?
I didn’t. Or I don’t think so. Was this a radio version of the day today? I now have to look it up.
It was very weird and best enjoyed while high. Not sure what I would make of it these days, but I loved it back in the day.
I know what you mean
Maybe, haven’t looked at any PDR chats recently…
Maybe in 5 years Fuji will bless us with leftover GFX 100 sensors and create a “budget” GFX 100R… One can dream 
A used GFX50r seem like a logical step up for people who already own an APS-C system and want more dynamic range and resolution. For all kinds of photography other then sports/wildlife, that sensor still beats modern full frame cameras by a bit and the system is relatively compact depending on the lens.
1 Like
I’d love to try their GFX cameras, but the lenses will always be huge, which is a turn-off for me. I’d actually really like Fuji to diversify into full frame and micro 4/3 to provide even more choice. I know that it probably wouldn’t be the best move from a manufacturing / market positioning point of view, but I’d love to see their designs in other sensor sizes.
2 Likes
Perhaps I’m weird, but I’m never yearning for more dynamic range these days. Low light performance I get. Resolution I have some appreciation for. More bokehlicious lenses I can understand.
I can shoot my APS-C (from the 24 MP generation on) directly into the sun with nothing but the sun disk itself burnt out, and there’s still enough information in the shadows to raise them into the midtones without falling apart. What more could I want? I’m honestly at a loss.
But I’ve noticed many times that I’m an atypical photographer. To each their own I suppose. I’m also not allergic to noise. Weirdo. I know.
4 Likes
I’d say only peace of mind with easier exposures plus mystique (more than full frame).
I’ve seen some GFX captures and they do look like they have something special and magic to them. This is probably just either placebo, better glass, or older glass, since people often use older large format lenses in those cameras. 
3 Likes
Eventually I’ve got some 6d pictures I thought up to Snuff in this context
I’m not sure if this is a bit late for forum etiquette or if there is even such a thing
I’m wondering if the 70D is quite a good compromise between depth of field and dynamic range
Less chunky cameras as well though sometimes I worry some people I know will cause a scene at a wedding if the photographer is not shooting on full frame so the chunky full frame camera is almost like having the right documentation
4 Likes
I have been to a wedding recently where the photographer had pretty compact Sony bodies, but had two of them hanging from some kind of dual harness. Somehow she instantly reminded me of Clint Eastwood with two pistols in one of those westerns.
So now I am wondering if there is some implicit law, eg that the sensor size has to add up to 35mm equivalent. So eg one could be a credible wedding photographer with four micro 4/3 cameras.
4 Likes
There are likely better cameras that the 70D by now.
Most people can’t tell the difference between a superzoom and a DSLR, or think that your R5/R6 with a pancake lens is a toy.
2 Likes
My thoughts on camera and lenses were like this:
- technically all systems are very close (what actually can be achieved)
- The size of the body is dictated by the number and size of the physical control elements not so much by sensor size
- The weight and size of the entire system is most relevant aka the lens size is extremely important and that depends very much on sensor size (however this is also changing rapidly)
- The benefit of a larger sensor is that your glass can be of lesser quality for the same resolution as a smaller sensor (and some low light improvements)
2 Likes
It is a bit more complicated. Each manufacturer has one or more flagship models, and they are pretty close in some respects (eg sensor noise and DR, given sensor size) but also show marked differences (AF, but that has changed a lot recently too, nevertheless Sony is still the leader, with Nikon and Canon very close, Fuji made recent fw updates but it is too early to say). Some manufacturers expose computational features more readily in entry level models (especially OM Systems).
What changed enormously recently is advances in lens design and manufacturing, it is practically a new generation of lenses now. Sigma and Viltrox, in particular, came out with some amazing lenses at a competitive price. A lot of these new lenses are E, L, and in some cases X mount, Nikon and Canon keep their ecosystems much more closed, and micro 4/3 is typically neglected.
Unfortunately, very few brick and mortar stores stock a large selection of lenses, even for a single mount. Since these lenses are still expensive, the best option may be renting one for a day.