peterottaway wrote:I carried an Olympus OM 2n for many years as a walking camera. The A7r gives me the same comfortable feeling. It's just that with the Sony it is good enough at most things not to worry about what it can't do.
If I was shooting a lot of high end sports I might have a problem. Or doing a lot of studio flash photography. But I did shoot a Women's Hockey World Cup with a camera certainly no faster than the A7. Or when Steve Fosset prepared for his round the world balloon attempt.
I think the digital cameras in general have become too large for their own good. Although it was a trend even with the all singing, all dancing film cameras.
There's nothing magic about FF/35mm format.
Vidgamer wrote:I consider APS-C to be the "sweet spot". M43 isn't much, if any, cheaper, nor even smaller. The Nex cameras are pretty compact and affordable.
alphaomega wrote:There's nothing magic about FF/35mm format.
Shallower DOF and more pixels.
Some people like it and they can probably make do with F1.8 then instead of F1.4.
If you are into real professional photography and need pixels no APS-C can compete with 36Mp FF in a small or large body, which can even give MF a "run for its money" and is more portable.
If you are into architecture FF with T/S lenses will outdo APS-C. This discussion about 1", 4/3, APS-C and FF boils down to "horses for courses". In my case APS-C and 1" (in RX100) are fine and FF with shallower DoF is actually a disadvantage. Don't need the additional pixels either.
bakubo wrote:Vidgamer wrote:I consider APS-C to be the "sweet spot". M43 isn't much, if any, cheaper, nor even smaller. The Nex cameras are pretty compact and affordable.
I certainly can't argue that m4/3 is cheaper than APS-C. Olympus and Panasonic, like most companies, charge what they think they can get. If they think wrong then they usually adjust. Small size often commands a premium in other things as well. I checked for Barry a few months ago and discovered that a small Toyota Prius and a huge Ford F-350 pickup truck cost almost the same. Different tech and the price the market will bear are more important. Buying big is not necessarily more and buying small is not necessarily less.
As for size, well I disagree. The m4/3 system in most cases is quite a bit smaller than APS-C. See these old links of mine with comparison photos:
Using a NEX 7 instead would make the body smaller in the above photos, but since there were so few comparable lenses at that time (2012) it was difficult to do a comparison. A few minutes ago I tried to do a new comparison using a NEX 7 or A6000, but since then the lens situation hasn't improved much I still couldn't do much of a comparison. Especially because since then Panasonic and Olympus have come out with something like 7 or 8 additional lenses.
I think APS-C is also sort of a sweet spot size, but since the lenses generally aren't much smaller (you can cherry pick a prime and maybe get close to m4/3 size) I like m4/3 for backpack, close to the ground travel. For close to home, throw the camera bag in the car, etc. stuff then APS-C or FF or whatever is fine for me too.
Here's another comparison, both similarly-sized with small zoom lenses, but the Oly is cheaper:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests