11-13-2012, 01:47 PM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1351949664' post='20806']
As to the supposed cost/size/weight of full frame vs. mirrorless, we have parallels in other areas of the world too. Laptops were supposed to kill desktops. Tablets then were laptop killers. But we still have laptops, and we still have desktops. People using them are different, and they way they are used are changing also. For basic tasks, as technology advances you can do more with less. You don't need a pimped out desktop to check e-mail, but if you want to process gigabytes of data, I don't think anyone would be reaching for a tablet. So in a parallel scenario, a full frame camera still offers tangible benefits that are not practical for smaller sensors. If your uses are undemanding enough, mirrorless may be enough. Even a cameraphone may be enough. But if you need more than that, you can choose that also. Mirrorless can certainly do a lot, but it is far away from doing everything.[/quote]
I have to agree on this:
Want control over depth of field, fast AF response -> FF
Want fast AF response, slight 'telephoto' effect -> APS-C
Want low weight, acceptable (better than camera phone and compact cameras) image qualtiy -> m43
Want low weight and nothing else -> camera phone
One needs to purchase a system based on one's needs. Thom Hogan says it best:
" Same as it ever was: you have to sort out your needs and priorities. What you buy has to meet all your needs, and should fulfill your highest priorities. You won't get everything in anything. By the time manufacturer two gets around to copying something that manufacturer one does (and they will), manufacturer three will have something new you think you want and the whole problem will just repeat itself." - http://bythom.com/
As to the supposed cost/size/weight of full frame vs. mirrorless, we have parallels in other areas of the world too. Laptops were supposed to kill desktops. Tablets then were laptop killers. But we still have laptops, and we still have desktops. People using them are different, and they way they are used are changing also. For basic tasks, as technology advances you can do more with less. You don't need a pimped out desktop to check e-mail, but if you want to process gigabytes of data, I don't think anyone would be reaching for a tablet. So in a parallel scenario, a full frame camera still offers tangible benefits that are not practical for smaller sensors. If your uses are undemanding enough, mirrorless may be enough. Even a cameraphone may be enough. But if you need more than that, you can choose that also. Mirrorless can certainly do a lot, but it is far away from doing everything.[/quote]
I have to agree on this:
Want control over depth of field, fast AF response -> FF
Want fast AF response, slight 'telephoto' effect -> APS-C
Want low weight, acceptable (better than camera phone and compact cameras) image qualtiy -> m43
Want low weight and nothing else -> camera phone
One needs to purchase a system based on one's needs. Thom Hogan says it best:
" Same as it ever was: you have to sort out your needs and priorities. What you buy has to meet all your needs, and should fulfill your highest priorities. You won't get everything in anything. By the time manufacturer two gets around to copying something that manufacturer one does (and they will), manufacturer three will have something new you think you want and the whole problem will just repeat itself." - http://bythom.com/