So this is the age of the full frames!
Nikon, Canon and shockingly Panasonic [!!!] have all announced or indictated they are joining Sony in the brave new world of full frame mirrorless cameras.
Has anything really changed?
I’m not sure.
These beasts are likely to be so expensive that they remain the preserve of wealthy enthusaists and pro photographers. Their lenses remain heavy and the mirrorless versions are sometimes larger to make up for the new mirrorless dimensions. Maybe then everything remains the same just without mirrors.
The approx £2000 price tag will price out many hobbyist photographers, so my main concern is how seriously panasonic will take micro four thirds now. Because if almost everything stays the same, just mirrorless, then the big issue is whether mft as a format will still receive investment.
Now if manufacturers were willing to bring the price of digital cameras down then that would be interesting. If full frame cameras were within reach of more people, and at a price point that recognised that they need replaced every four years, that really would be a thing!!
With all this talk of increased frame rates, megapixels and more and more K video, what I really really want, is an inxepensive, relatively low tech, minimalist full frame camera, that I could afford to replace every few years. And of course, a few decent primes!
I can dream…
It was fun when it lasted but 10 years after the micro four thirds format was launched perhaps the end is night.
A couple of years ago I lamented the ever increasing size of mft cameras and the subsequent loss of their advantage. At the time I mused that thankfully pro end mft cameras remained smaller than their larger format counterparts (https://davebobphotos.com/2016/07/18/is-there-a-benefit-to-micro-four-thirds-cameras-in-street-photography/).
But this is no longer the case. I had read some criticism in the blogosphere about the large size of the Lumix G9. And today I have finally been able to compare it online to Nikon’s full frame mirrorless Z series. They are nearly identical sizes. And for the record the Sony A7 III is smaller than the G9. (See camerasize.com)
The size difference will remain in the lenses. Mft lenses can be smaller and lighter, and because of the crop factor effectively longer. So under certain circumstances I can imagine a comparative advantage to mft.
But for someone shooting primes in the wide to short tele range, I suspect there will be less advantage in mft lenses. And the image quality and noise handling of full frame is likely to persuade many away from mft.
Where mft used to excel was size and price but now both have crept up close to their ff equivalents.
I hope I’m wrong. But if I was a pro or wealthy enthusiast, I’d be hard pushed to consider mft now.
Perhaps Olympus and Panasonic have acquiesced to the ff mirrorless crew. But if not, in my opinion they need to remember the competitive advantage they used to provide by being a little smaller, lighter and cheaper without compromising quality.
It’s 10 years since the first mirrorless camera appeared on the scene. Amateur Photographer magazine has a whole issue devoted to the subject (Saturday 18th August 2018).
One article compares the first mirrorless camera, the Panasonic Lumix G1 with its contemporary counterpart the G9. Unsurprisingly, there are great improvements in the latter over the former model.
However what struck me was the relative similarly in the sample images. Yes the G1 delivers noisier shots. But given that there has been a decade between the cameras I was surprised with how well the G1 images compared.
Now, of course their have been very significant changes in other areas. The viewfinders today are a huge improvement on the laggy earlier offerings. Image stabilisation, autofocus, focus peaking and 4K have also made their mark. But basic image quality has possibly improved less that some other technologies.
I have seen similar comparisons of each iteration of Canon 5D. Yes their have been improvements, but the actual images can appear similar without too much pixel peeping.
The thing we have to remember is that photography is not just about art, it’s about business, marketing, sales and profit. There is an industry devoted to parting you from your cash with the promise of better images. But new cameras and lenses will probably make a marginal difference compared to practice and devotion to the art of picture taking.
The blogger Giulio Sciorio confirms this in a recent post saying that after years using and testing the latest camera tech he is now using an older and adequate camera with only a few lenses. However, he sounds much happier than when he had all the newest gear (here).
Sadly we convince ourselves that if we just get a new camera or lens, we will be more satisfied and our images much improved. The problem is that the new gear satisfies for a few weeks and then something better comes along. Our new gadget is psychologically relegated and we remain the same photographer we were before.
Technology moves on and we need to catch up from time to time. But we should challenge more often the myth that the latest gear is most important.
Very interesting and possibly alarming article at the great petapixel regarding consent in street photography.
As you’ll see, this particular context is unusual. But are they really equating candid street photos to abuse as the headline appears to suggests? And if so, is there really any comparison?
Here are some recent shots taken on Ilford HP5 with a Olympus Trip 35. They were processed using the Massive Dev app recommendations using Ifosol 3.
On reflection I think I prefer the look of FP4 film instead, especially in the grain department.
I’ve had a little more time to work with Luminar and in general I’m liking it.
But there are some changes from Lightroom that take getting used to.
- If you use Apples Photos as your Digital Asset Manager (DAM) then your Luminar processing history is not retained by either app. This may be rectified when Luminar’s bespoke DAM arrives.
- This lack of history makes it hard to remember how particular images were processed and therefore it’s can be hard to recreate styles, unless you made a preset of the style.
- There is a vast array of variables when processing in professional mode eg workspaces, filters, presets and LUTS. This makes a powerful processing tool, but it is slightly overwhelming in the early days. Hopefully this will be refined as the software matures.
- The gradient filter appears slightly more subtle than Lightroom’s. Although I may be applying it incorrectly.
- Because Luminar uses layers, sometimes I’ve had difficulty combining these rather than a new layer cancelling or masking an earlier one. Again this can probably be dealt with by understanding blend modes.
Having said all that, I’m generally happy with the results.
I have just started to migrate from Lightroom to Luminar. At the moment it means using Apple Photos as my catalogue and Luminar as an external editor.
Luminar has a few rought edges which I think Skylum is addressing. For example, I find it a little laggy at times, it actually crashed twice during the first couple of hours of experimentaion. There also seems to be an issue with the apparent sharpness of files during processing. With regard to sharpness, I found it best to apply sharpening in Photos itself after processing in Luminar.
The Luminar user experience is very different to Lightroom and I’m taking a while to acclimatise. However, I have hight hopes that I will be able to develop a streamlined workflow.
The main reason I moved to the new software is the subscription model that Adobe has established. Call me a luddite, but, where possible, I prefer the standalone software option; especially at a third of the price (Luminar is currently on sale on the app store).