 |
| Nikon Z7 MILC, Photo by Nikon |
Nikon and Canon recently announce
their “Full Frame” mirrorless interchangeable lens (MILC)
cameras, along with a few lenses. Reactions are mixed, from
unrealistically enthusiastic to ludicrously negative. In the Micro
Four Thirds camp (of which I'm a part) there was a near panic on some
of the forums.
A lot of Micro Four Thirds users suffer from a gear
angst and feelings of image inferiority already, especially at the
hands of Canon and Nikon fanboys. For these folks, their one “ace
in the hole” was certain advantages mirrorless has over DSLRs. For
these people, having the two leading DSLR manufacturers enter the
MILC race with Full Frame offerings is a direct threat to their gear
of choice (more on why later). This angst was aggravated further by
the rumor that Panasonic will be announcing a Full Frame camera on
September 25th.
Interestingly, while a panic-stricken
contingent of Micro Four Thirds users are squawking like “Chicken
Little” about how their preferred camera format is doomed, a number
of Canon and Nikon owners are just as incensed about problems they
see with the Nikon Z series and Canon R series. You'd think these
cameras were abject failures to read some of the comments from
disappointed camera owners.
It's all really a tempest in a tea
pot, and something average people wanting to take the best photos
possible don't have to take seriously. The vast majority of photos
being produced and shared right now are taken with smartphones, and
that number is increasing. So too is the quality of smartphone
photography, both in overall capability and the resultant images.
(Incidentally, the growth of smartphone photographic capability has
fueled the angst felt by people using dedicated cameras, and common
push back is to belittle smartphones and the photos taken with them.
Don't listen to those folks.)
In the midst of this, “serious”
photographers, or people who want to get serious about photography,
may swear they must have a Full Frame camera. They must also have
the best, fastest lenses to make the most of the Full Frame sensor.
It's easy to drop $10K on a basic Full Frame kit, and still find
yourself wishing for more.
Yet many of these Full Frame
aficionados are producing essentially the same images they could get
with the better smartphones. It's true, because much of the genuine
need for certain capabilities of a camera depend on subject matter
and shooting conditions, then another big aspect is “end use”
(how the photos are displayed and why).
With some variation, about 70% of
photos people make and share are taken of subjects that can easily be
handled by any recent smartphone. The flagship models can handle even more situations.. One reason for this is because something like 90%
of the photos shared nowadays are shared online, and most of those on
social media sites such as Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram etc. Without
going too deeply into the technical aspects of sharing photos online,
especially through social media, suffice it to say that you don't
need a Full Frame camera when it comes to image quality.
In fact, you really don't need any
dedicated camera with a sensor larger than the better smartphones
offer. Internet browsers simply don't offer the resolution and color
space produced by even 1” or Micro Four Thirds sensors, much less
Full Frame. The majority of people view said photos on smartphones
and tablets, so high resolution isn't a factor when viewing on such
small screens.
For the great majority of people, Full
Frame is overkill when it comes to image quality. So, why do certain
people clamor about it (in both positive and negative terms) in
nearly obsessive ways? Various reasons.
They claim they need the lower noise
and wider dynamic range that Full Frame offers, even though neither
are really a factor in how other people may enjoy their images. For
pros, this may be a bigger factor than amateurs, but not nearly as
much as some Full Frame enthusiasts claim.
They claim they need the higher
resolution to produce the sharpest images. See what I said about
about browsers and how most people view images.
They talk about shallow depth of field
and “creamy bokeh”. This is a complex subject and despite the
talk of certain pundits, Full Frame is not a cure all for those
desiring shallow depth of field and creamy bokeh. Knowledge of
photography, specifically the variables that affect depth of field
and bokeh, is as much a solution to the issue as gear.
They cite how “real pros” use Full
Frame cameras. OK...so how does that justify spending thousands of
dollars to take photos of pets and petunias that end up online in
galleries only a few people visit? 'Nuff said on that one.
These are the biggest reasons people
give as to why they “need” Full Frame. Really, it comes down to
that they want it, not need it, and often it has more to do with ego
and bragging rights than actually producing the best possible images.
In my experience, only a small percentage of Full Frame owners are
able to take full advantage of the format.
In fact, I'd say that in terms of IQ,
most ILC owners I have seen could get by with one of the latest
smartphones. There is some real justification in situations where smartphones
still fall short, such as fast action, very low light, or the need
for very wide angle or longer telephoto lenses. Even the bokeh
argument is becoming moot as smartphones have come out that use
computational photography, and even multiple lenses, to reproduce the
depth of field and bokeh effects that Full Frame offers.
Why is it some people have to justify
their desire for Full Frame by citing technical advantages, and why
the angst involving whether or not a Full Frame camera makes the
grade? Because a lot the most vocal camera owners invest much of
their sense of worth and accomplishment as photographers in the gear
they own. They bought into the marketing hype that they must have a
given camera to produce professional level images, and that is what
they fancy themselves doing.
I've found, however, that many of
these people haven't taken the time to learn how a pro actually
produces those marvelous images Full Frame fanboys say they need
their cameras to produce. So they subject the world to an assortment
of high resolution, low noise photos of pets, flowers and their kids,
as though we all are going to look as closely at the technical
aspects as they do.
We don't.
Sure, they have the right to own
whatever gear they want. Buying Full Frame gear helps the
manufacturers' bottom line, which can go toward making lower tier,
smaller format cameras more affordable. You know, the ones that most
people haul out for birthday parties or soccer games when they know
their smartphones aren't quite up to the task. The cameras that make
up 85% or more of total ILC sales. The cameras that many owners find
they are using less and less as smartphones become more capable.
What's the bottom line I'm getting to?
Don't buy into the current furor about Full Frame cameras, whether
positive or negative. At least don't let anyone convince you you need
a Full Frame camera. They probably don't need one: they just tell
themselves that because saying it's just that they want one seems
less impressive to those who don't know any better.
The fact is, that if you want longer
lenses, or better capabilities when it comes to capturing fast moving
subjects or low light events, any ILC or MILC made within that past 5
years will be a huge advantage over a smartphone. If you find
yourself wanting a Full Frame camera, however, right now is a great
time, because the choices are expanding greatly. This means that not
only are there more choices, but also that older Full Frame cameras
are going to drop in price, and that more used models are going to
start showing eBay and Craigslist.
No comments:
Post a Comment