 |
| FZ1000. It was a warm sunny day, hinting at the approaching spring. The wattles were full of bees. There was no need for a special lens or tripod. Just hand held with the camera at its closest focus distance for the focal length. |
Full Frame (sensor 24x36mm, diagonal 43mm)
Way back in the good old days of film, about 25 years ago, I got the bug. Not influenza, something worse, the quest for ultimate picture quality.
I got medium format then 4x5 large format.
Success ! I got ultimate picture quality. I also got permanent back damage and eventually came to the realisation that, for me, ultimate picture quality was a goal not worth pursuing.
I discovered that the prints I could make from 35mm SLR negatives were good enough for me and my standards were then and still are very high.
Fast forward to the current era and we find that current model cameras with the 43mm sensor (so-called full frame) now have 36, 42 and even 50 Megapixels. These cameras can make pictures better than I could get with large format in the old days.
But they are big, heavy and expensive and they require a bag full of lenses which are also big, heavy and expensive.
I recently went on a group photo tour around Iceland. Most participants had a full frame Canon or Nikon DSLR and a backpack full of lenses. I noticed that the size and weight of each kit was about the same as I had in the old days with my 4x5 inch view camera.
Did the big cameras make better photos than the Panasonic FZ1000 and LX100 which I used ?
I don’t know.
But what I do know is that if the light was unco-operative no camera could make a good photo and if the light was right just about any camera could.
My point is that the key determinants for good photos are
a) being in the right place
b) at the right time
Back at home I find the photos I made with the FZ1000 and LX100 look just fine on the monitor and print up to around 400 x 600mm with no trouble at all.
I have no doubt that some professional photographers need what full frame offers in order to remain competitive in the commercial world.
But I take the view that the great majority of enthusiast and probably most professional photographers are able to make absolutely fine pictures with formats no larger than M4/3 which has a sensor diagonal of 21.5mm.
So, no full frame for me.
What about APS-C ? Canon versions have a sensor diagonal of 27mm, Sony and others use the slightly larger 28mm diagonal.
When digital sensors first found their way into DSLRs around 15 years ago full frame chips were very expensive so camera makers used the smaller size allowing a consumer affordable price point.
One of the early examples of this was the Canon EOS D30 of year 2000. This 3 Mpx (that is not a misprint) camera was described by reviewers at the time as having “excellent image quality” and “great resolution”. So much for people thinking they need 50 Mpx for decent pictures.
Such was the success of these early 27mm sensor DSLRs that the format became established as the preferred option for amateur and enthusiast photographers.
But technology has moved apace and now we see the 27/28mm sensor being challenged from both above and below.
Full Frame (43mm) sensors are now less expensive than they were and Micro Four thirds (M43, 21.5mm) sensors (and also the even smaller “one inch”, 15.9 size) are much better than they were.
So, does the APS-C format have
a) Most of the image quality advantages of full frame but at a somewhat smaller size/price point
OR
b) Not significantly/substantially better image quality than M43 but much greater size/mass, particularly in the lenses and particularly the f2.8 zooms ?
Take your pick.
I find the image quality from M43 and smaller sensors sufficient for my purposes so the extra size/mass of APS-C is a deal breaker.
So, no APS-C for me.
DSLRs For many years from the mid part of the 20thCentury the dominant camera type was the Single Lens Reflex (SLR). When digital came along manufacturers basically exchanged film for electronic sensors and processing capability, creating the DSLR and leaving the SLR architecture intact.
But technology marches on. In 2008 Panasonic introduced the first Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC), the G1. Since then all manufacturers have joined the MILC cavalcade and the number of models has increased dramatically.
This new technology enables some significant improvements to camera performance and the user experience.
I used SLRs then DSLRs for 40 years. My last DSLR was a Canon EOS 60D in 2011.
Since then I have used only mirrorless cameras, both Interchangeable lens (MILC) types and Fixed
Zoom Lens (FZLC) types.
Advantages of the mirrorless type:
* More accurate and reliable single autofocus. AF is established right on the sensor so if the technology is implemented optimally (which is not always the case in every make/model) then AF is reliably accurate.
* Ability to quickly place the AF box anywhere in the frame and retain reliable focussing.
* Easier, more accurate manual focus. Mirrorless cameras can use peaking plus automatic preview image magnification to establish accurate manual focus quickly and easily.
* Mirrorless cameras use an electronic viewfinder. Early versions had problems but the latest crop of EVFs provide a greatly enhanced viewing experience and have many advantages over the optical viewfinders seen in DSLRs.
These include
# Seamless segue from EVF to monitor, with all image and camera information presented in the same format and style in each.
# Much more camera data can be displayed on an EVF than in an OVF, the user can select which data is required and can cycle between data options including none. These include histogram, peaking, guide lines, level gauge, variable aspect ratio and many more.
# Image playback in the EVF if required.
* Silent operation if desired.
* These technologies permit a more coherent and streamlined user experience.
* No mirror slap, but see below about shutter shock.
* In the early days compact size was promoted by manufacturers as a major advantage of mirrorless cameras. It is true that for any given sensor size it is possible to make a mirrorless camera smaller than a DSLR.
However the difference is not great. Mirrorless camera bodies can have less depth and a bit less height than DSLRs as there is no need for the mirror box. But once a handle is added there is little difference.
Sometimes lost in the hype about smallness is the fact that lens size is mainly determined by sensor dimensions. The early MILCs had smaller sensors than DSLRs of the time and that was the main reason their lenses could be smaller.
Problems/issues/catchup agenda with mirrorless cameras:
* DSLRs have traditionally provided better continuous AF and predictive AF than mirrorless. This is still to some extent true but new technologies such as on sensor Phase detect AF and Panasonic DFD, together with faster data readout speeds are allowing mirrorless to close the gap.
* Shutter shock. Most mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC) have a quadruple acting (close>open>close>open) mechanical focal plane shutter which imparts a shock through the camera and lens at the beginning of an exposure leading to blurring at some shutter speeds.
Manufacturers have developed two main fixes for this problem.
Some use electronic exposure start (so called electronic first curtain shutter, EFCS). This appears to be effective in preventing shutter shock with few adverse effects although some technical analyses have indicated impaired exposure with high shutter speeds, perhaps faster than 1/1000 sec.
EFCS is not offered by all makers or on all models, I know not why.
Some use an electronic shutter. In cameras not using the new high speed sensors, which is all MILCs at the time of writing,
E-Shutter presents several problems. These are
* No speeds longer than 1 second.
* Electronic flash cannot be used.
* Banding in fluorescent and other types of light.
* Rolling shutter effect (distortion of moving subjects).
* Reduced bit rate capture leading potentially to increased shadow noise and reduced dynamic range.
As you can see that is quite a list. I expect most or all of these problems will be fixed when high speed sensors become standard.
By the way Fixed Zoom Lens Cameras do not have problems with shutter shock as they use diaphragm type leaf shutters which operate without the shock of a focal plane shutter.
* EVF refresh rate. Optical viewfinders refresh at the speed of light. EVFs are a bit slower. I expect the new high speed sensors will fix this problem. At the time of writing only the Sony RX100 (4) and RX10 (2) have the super fast sensor.
So you can see that mirrorless cameras especially MILCs have still got some issues which have not yet been altogether fully resolved.
My personal solution to this is to use fixed zoom lens cameras some of which now provide excellent picture quality and performance, all the advantages of the mirrorless configuration, no problems with shutter shock and no need to change lenses. Ever.
Đăng nhận xét