Big or Small

[chuasam]

I think if a two pound camera is too much for you to carry around and use perhaps you need to think about taking up something a little easier like knitting. I understand wanting smaller/lighter for those with physical disabilities. But when did this world decide that smaller and lighter was the answer to everything.

tell that to the people with smart phones.
smaller and lighter is better when I'm on vacation. It's a holiday!
When I'm working, I'm content to use a D810 with a 70-200f/2.8
When I'm playing, I'm happier carrying as little as possible.
Last Year, I took my vacation in London. I used a Lumix GM1. Loved it.
This Year, I used an Olympus TG4 in Singapore.
Next year, it's going to be one of the 1" sensor cameras. The short list is Canon G5x, Sony Rx100 III, Nikon DL24-85. I haven't decided which. The LX100 is the outlier choice.

 

[chuasam]

BTW, a full frame sensor doesn't necessitate a larger camera. My A7RII is much smaller than my 1Dx. They both have the same size sensor.

I see your A7R II and raise you a RX1R II.
A7 series lenses are not much smaller than EF lenses.

I actually shoot my A7RII with my EF lenses. I didn't buy the camera because of it's size, I bought it because of the sensor. 42mp, back side illuminated; the thing is a beast. I use the A7RII primarily from my BAT (big @$$ tripod), while the 1Dx is my event and general walk about camera. Camera size doesn't matter to me, because I only bring a real camera with me when I intent to shoot. Otherwise the camera in my Note5 is plenty.

the A7RII is one hell of a camera. I played with it for a bit before taking the RX1RII on loan.
the A7RII coupled with some of the MasterG lenses is a compelling replacement for MediumFormat.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

Small is beautiful.

 

[table1349]

Small is beautiful.

Said no woman to her man EVER!!!!

Cute maybe but not beautiful.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

Small is beautiful.

Said no woman to her man EVER!!!!

Cute maybe but not beautiful.

It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it that counts

 

[table1349]

Small is beautiful.

Said no woman to her man EVER!!!!

Cute maybe but not beautiful.

It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it that counts

Size Matters

 

[goodguy]

Small is beautiful.

Not in all cases Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge

 

[chuasam]

I was at a presentation by my old editorial photography instructor. He shot at the Rio Olympics and the D500 was his camera of choice for the men's 100m run. He had a couple of D5 on remotes. How's that for a ringing endorsement of Dx

 

[Scatterbrained]

Up until recently sports oriented bodies (1D and 7D on Canon side) had always been crop sensor. The crop sensors having smaller mirrors allowing for faster frame rates. Crop sensors also give more "pixels on target" aka "reach", something that is essential to certain genres of photography like sports and wildlife. Let's face it, the cost between a 300mm lens and a 500mm lens is not insignificant.

Meanwhile Canon always separated their full frame pro bodies as being geared towards studio work (hence the S on the 1Ds line) and portraits. Genres of photography that benefit more from outright IQ than speed, as well as the DOF difference you get using longer lenses on full frame cameras. Canons release of the 1Dx was accompanies by a statement from their top brass that they believed a full frame 35mm camera to be the optimal, and had been their target all along. There were an awful lot of full frame Canon 1DxIIs at the Olympics. Which, if I recall correctly, included everyone shooting for Getty.

Personally, I think that when you're talking about outright IQ for the sake of IQ, there are too many variables to assume a full frame 35mm was the end all in the 135 format family. Figure that for several years recently Sony APS-C sensors were outperforming Canon full 135 sensors in outright sensor performance metrics. Add some top flight glass and you suddenly have an APS-C camera with better sheer IQ than a more expensive 35mm camera. Of course Nikon use Sony sensors and manage to get better performance out of them than Sony does (just compare the D810 to the Sony A7R). If you compare the Sony APS-C offering to their own 35mm offering however, you see that in raw performance metrics the full frame sensor does better.

All of that aside, I'd say that any modern SLR from any of the main manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony) should have no problem turning out top quality work. So long as the photographer is capable of envisioning it. We've long since surpassed the time where the gear was a major limiting factor. Now it's a combination of personal preference, budget, and G.A.S.

 

[photo1x1.com]

The one and only reason I prefer fullframe is the shallower depth. I do love smaller cameras and have never felt that they are awkward to hold.
I´ve had Canons 1DsII and stepping down to the 5DII was a relieve. Simply because you can go to a shoot with a reasonable sized backpack or case.
Now I fell in love with the sony system. Sure the lenses aren´t much smaller than the Canons, but still a bit - and with the small size of the cam you can easily pack a rather small bag with everything you need. PLUS - on location hardly anybody ever stares at you. While bigger bodies always draw attention.
Sure noise is more prominent in crop sensors, but with the years I have found out that clients hardly ever realize. And considering what noise levels we had 5-8 years ago on fullframe, I guess we are more than happy with what many crop sensors produce nowadays.

 

[weepete]

Ach, I find I'm swaying towards medium format myself.

 

[chuasam]

Ach, I find I'm swaying towards medium format myself.

I won't lie. If I had a ton of money, I'd be looking to get Fujifilm's new GFx 50s

 

[beagle100]

Small is beautiful.

indeed .. pocket size is nice
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless