I realize your post is about 6 months old, but wanted to comment regarding FF vs cropped sensors.I don’t know if “fad” is the right word, but it does seem like there is a strong sentiment of ”FF or nothing” out there on review sites and forums. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with FF, but every format has its benefit, IMO, so it can be a pick-and-choose situation. For what I shoot, FF would be a heavy kit, and I really like the lightness of my EM5iii. It’s easy to carry with the 40-150 2.8, and I can get to 300mm (600mm eq) with the MC-20 teleconverter. Now, pair it with a prime, any my body and lens weighs less than 1lb, and I can put two or 3 more primes in my pocket as well. I’m not here to sell everyone on the format I’ve chosen, but I’ll be really sad if my format disappears because another format was pushed too hard. What I have does just what I need.
35mm certainly was the main standard back in the film days, but as a kid, I had a smaller body and smaller film format rangefinder camera that took cartridge-style rolls. So even then, we had format choices, and we really need to have them today, too. I also think that when you get into comparing to film standards, it’s worth considering that any modern digital ILC has way more dynamic range than film, and you don’t need to worry about what ISO film is in the body.
Hope no one hears me wrong, as I’m not trying to discount anyone’s choice—no doubt you arrived where you are at through as much painstaking deliberation as I have!
One important difference relates to depth of field (DOF). DOF is determined by subject distance, aperture, and focal length. Focal length is the actual focal length of the lens (with FF 35mm sensors being the “norm” when discussing this). Lenses for crop sensor cameras usually state their focal lengths in their marketing materials in FF 35mm terms (so for example Nikon lenses have a crop factor of 1.5x and a 24mm DX lens gives the field of view (FOV) of a 36mm FF lens). However the DOF for this 24mm DX lens is what one would expect from a 24mm FF lens and NOT a 36mm FF lens. The principle is the same for any focal length.
This has both positives and negatives. If your goal is to isolate a subject by blurring the background, it is easier to do it with a FF camera compared to a crop sensor camera for a given subject distance, aperture, and FOV.
The flip side is that it is easier to create a larger DOF with a crop sensor camera for a given subject distance, aperture, and FOV. One of the advantages of phone cameras is that they have tiny sensors and they use lenses with tiny focal lengths to obtain their 35mm FF equivalent FOVs. So they have massive DOF even at open (numerically small regarding the f number) apertures. With the caveat that close subjects will always have a shallower DOF and if the subject is close enough you will blur the background to some degree even with a phone camera.
Subject isolation is easier to obtain with a FF sensor, everything else being equal. There are obviously numerous variables in play regarding FF vs crop sensors. But wanted to point out DOF as a biggie.
Getting back on topic, the mirrorless landscape has changed quite a bit since this thread was first created. The recent announcement of the Sony alpha 1 is a game changer in my estimation. It ticks all of the boxes for pretty much any type of shooter. Yes, it’s quite expensive. Have to see real world reviews. But holy moly, this thing seems to be best in class for pretty much anything.
Last edited:
