Jump to content

Is full frame really necessary?


Emanuel
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Why pay for fullframe and not use it?  I don't agree with movies changing aspect ratios between shots, but I've no problem mixing fullframe and S35 and many productions do mix the two.  Were I to do so, I would choose a S35 cinema camera mixed with fullframe hybrid.  Each have their advantages.  

However this has nothing to do with the argument, is fullframe necessary.  Its more a question of how important fullframe is currently needed to shoot with.  I still feel that its not.  Yes, fullframe hybrids are dominating the market, but S35 is still popular for cinema cameras, and we can expect to see it continue for many more years.

First, it is silly to say that any aspect ratio, sensor size, etc. is necessary, so let's not waste time saying FF is not necessary. Of course it is not necessary. And one cannot generalize whether FF is "needed" or "important" either - depends on what look you want. So, debating what is needed is a waste of time too.

Second, the Sigma fp is a cinema camera, and it shoots full frame and APS-C. No need to switch cameras. to choose S35 or FF.  One may not like the camera for other reasons, so there is the Sony Venice...

In any case, having a FF cinema camera that has the option of crop mode, is better, all else the same, than having an S35 cinema camera because it provides more creative options. I do not think that is debatable also. You could say all else is not the  same - lenses larger, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focal reducers do not change cameras. they change lenses.    They just mean you can use some lenses for larger systems differently by making them faster and shorter.     There would be practically no difference if a lens existed natively to one that has the same specs after boosting.    To me, what to use comes down to if a system has what I want (and as I said earlier, for a wide angle tilt shift in low light that is still only FF for ME).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, markr041 said:

 

In any case, having a FF cinema camera that has the option of crop mode, is better, all else the same, than having an S35 cinema camera because it provides more creative options. I do not think that is debatable also. You could say all else is not the  same - lenses larger, etc.

If I owned a fullframe camera and therefore fullframe lenses, I would shoot fullframe and not S35.  Why wouldn't I use the camera to its best advantage.  If I pay for fullframe, I use fullframe.  There is no look as far I as I am concerned, just advantages and disadvantages to each sensor.  S35 isn't more cinematic than fullframe and vice versa.

What matters more is if I were to buy say a S35 URSA 12K, I wouldn't feel disadvantaged because fullframe was considered necessary.  As you say, fullframe isn't necessary and those owning and using S35 and MFT cameras are not going to be cast into a pit of irrelevance along with those shooting video on 1" sensors.  🤣🤣

If looking at a new camera, I won't care if it is fullframe or S35, I will judge it on other matters like codec, colour, DR, and other video functions.  However once I go for that camera, I will use the full width of that sensor.  To not do so, is a waste of resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The mid- to low-end cameras pole-vaulted, from 1/3" to FF35. This is because at 1/3" they had no bokeh, and FF35 gave them bokeh. But I wonder how well they would have been satisfied with a bunch of S16 cameras, seriously done. The jump to FF35 is an artifact of history: "Oh, we're already making FF35 for still photographers, so we'll just add video to them." Someone doing a clean-sheet design, what would they have come up with as the ideal sensor size?"

From user combatentropy over at DVX, where they are having a similar discussion.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?368299-Putting-lenses-into-perspective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Necessary, no. Inevitable, yes.

The lack of product vision at the Japanese camera companies is causing them to lean into bigger and bigger sensors to try and stay ahead of the cellphone market that is currently feasting on their limbs.

Sony seems to get it. But I’m not very inspired (currently) by their phones or their cameras. They will bully everyone else out of the market with Sony Semiconductor as the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

 

Sony seems to get it. But I’m not very inspired (currently) by their phones or their cameras. They will bully everyone else out of the market with Sony Semiconductor as the club.

I do not think that is the case.

While Sony is the owner, the semi- conductor business is run apart from the camera business and Sony semiconductor will sell sensors to ANYONE.     Sony USED to be the major shareholder in Olympus but sold out not so long ago (they must have seen the writing on the wall).

Sony still owns about ten percent of Tamron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kye said:

This thread is a duplicate of the thread where...  the one about...  well..   actually, the thread where...

...anyone tries to have a conversation about MFT and the FF fanboys walk in.

Sorry Kye, my apologies, I thought the thread was titled "Is full frame necessary".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, noone said:

Sorry Kye, my apologies, I thought the thread was titled "Is full frame necessary".

Just poking fun..  people get so absolute and polarised.  FF is either unusable or non-FF images are unsaleable!  Brand X either has garbage CS or mandatory CS!  

We've lost the nuance of saying that everything has pros and cons.  Even if someone offered me an Alexa 65, I still couldn't use it because it's too big and heavy for what I do and I'd be nervous about it getting stolen, so I have my GH5.  Is my GH5 perfect?  Hell no.

So, the correct answer to every question is "it depends", except for questions about something being mandatory or usable, in which case, nothing is mandatory because everything has a work-around, and everything is usable, in some situation at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kye said:

Just poking fun..  people get so absolute and polarised.  FF is either unusable or non-FF images are unsaleable!  Brand X either has garbage CS or mandatory CS!  

We've lost the nuance of saying that everything has pros and cons.  Even if someone offered me an Alexa 65, I still couldn't use it because it's too big and heavy for what I do and I'd be nervous about it getting stolen, so I have my GH5.  Is my GH5 perfect?  Hell no.

So, the correct answer to every question is "it depends", except for questions about something being mandatory or usable, in which case, nothing is mandatory because everything has a work-around, and everything is usable, in some situation at least.

Agree that it depends though I do not think anyone said otherwise really.

I did a shoot with a band last night (photos only) and I took two bags with a heap of  lenses but only ended up using my 17mm TS on my  FF camera.    It was in front of a large tree with fairy lights and the ONLY way I could have got a shot of the full band with instruments lit by slow sync flash with the tree illuminated was with that....maybe the Nikon 19mm on a FF camera would have worked too.

I still do not know if it worked out (I gave the band the card they are friends).

I loved M43 but now I think I am going to just use a 1 inch camera and a FF camera (and a superzoom with a half inch sensor if I need longer than around 400mm)...I still recognize others will have different needs/wants.

If I was more serious about video I would probably still be using smaller formats just because of cost as I would want better AF and my lenses are old and or MF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, noone said:

Agree that it depends though I do not think anyone said otherwise really.

I did a shoot with a band last night (photos only) and I took two bags with a heap of  lenses but only ended up using my 17mm TS on my  FF camera.    It was in front of a large tree with fairy lights and the ONLY way I could have got a shot of the full band with instruments lit by slow sync flash with the tree illuminated was with that....maybe the Nikon 19mm on a FF camera would have worked too.

I still do not know if it worked out (I gave the band the card they are friends).

I loved M43 but now I think I am going to just use a 1 inch camera and a FF camera (and a superzoom with a half inch sensor if I need longer than around 400mm)...I still recognize others will have different needs/wants.

If I was more serious about video I would probably still be using smaller formats just because of cost as I would want better AF and my lenses are old and or MF.

Yes, there are small pockets of uniqueness right at the edges of what is possible that maybe can only be achieved with one camera system or other.  I experience that when I am shooting 120p on my GH5 and I enable ETC mode on the 70-210mm + 2x TC to get a FF equivalent focal length of 2100mm, which isn't something many camera systems can do.

Other things aren't so difficult.  My GH5 and the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens would have done a half-decent impression of the shots you captured above, minus the TS aspects of the shot of course.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, kye said:

Yes, there are small pockets of uniqueness right at the edges of what is possible that maybe can only be achieved with one camera system or other.  I experience that when I am shooting 120p on my GH5 and I enable ETC mode on the 70-210mm + 2x TC to get a FF equivalent focal length of 2100mm, which isn't something many camera systems can do.

Other things aren't so difficult.  My GH5 and the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens would have done a half-decent impression of the shots you captured above, minus the TS aspects of the shot of course.  

The TS thing is THE reason I can only do this with FF.     People either get the tree in full from far off or they get people/ a person in shot with a small PART of the tree but never both or even the full tree by itself from up close (it is a local instagram thing). 

As I said above, WHEN there is a high quality 8.5mm TS for M43 (that works in low light to at least ISO 25600 with decent DR, THEN M43 will come back into it for me.

I can  do the 120p (in NTSC mode 100p in PAL but it is not even full HD I think) with my old A7s.

 

As for "reach", I actually would prefer Panasonic ETC to be variable like Sony clearzoom...I CAN in a pinch get to 6300mm with my A7s but it would not be pretty  (1200mm equivalent would be better if still not great) but again, if I want a lens longer than my 300 2.8 (600mm with 2x clearzoom) I will use my Fuji superzoom.

 

I am looking for four thirds (not M43) lenses to use cheaply to experiment with since I have discovered some of them cover APSC fully and are not far off covering FF.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, noone said:

I do not think that is the case.

While Sony is the owner, the semi- conductor business is run apart from the camera business and Sony semiconductor will sell sensors to ANYONE.     Sony USED to be the major shareholder in Olympus but sold out not so long ago (they must have seen the writing on the wall).

Sony still owns about ten percent of Tamron.

Eh, the more I learn the more I think it could be argued that that is not the case.

Strict licensing agreements for cellphones and cameras and perhaps even other companies. Are you telling me that Sony Semiconductor wouldn’t come to an agreement with Sony Corporation’s camera division on wether to sell the latest sensor to them? Are you telling me Sony Corporation would not somehow pay any price to Sony Semiconductor to acquire the latest advances in PDAF or whatever the latest technology is?

No, something fishy going on behind the scenes.

Panasonic committing slow seppuku With their cameras over AF because they don’t believe in PDAF? Smells like bullshit. I’m sure they are willing to pay a hefty price to acquire the licensing agreement like othe companies seem to have done. Their camera business’ survival depends on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not "necessary", but certainly unique while shooting. Same goes for Medium Format.

There's always that "look" defined by shooting perspective, lens, distance to subject, sensor size, etc.

For shooting photos I much rather prefer a FF DSLR than a APS-C model. Video is debatable, though, since most of the time I'm looking at an LCD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...