In recent years, we have seen budget full frame cameras become more affordable while medium format prices have become competitive with upper-level full frame options. At the same time, APS-C cameras have continued to grow in capabilities and performance, and micro four thirds is enjoying a resurgence. So, should a new photographer follow the old wisdom of using a larger sensor for the best image quality or consider the benefits of a smaller system? This great video makes a case for the latter.
Coming to you from Robin Wong, this interesting video makes a case for using smaller camera systems, like those from Fujifilm and OM System. It used to be that if you wanted professional image quality, you prioritized sensor size above almost everything else. However, in recent years, the image quality we have seen from APS-C and micro four thirds cameras has gotten to the point that the difference is often negligible in a lot of situations. And as such, it is worth considering the advantages of these smaller systems. Perhaps the most obvious are their smaller footprints and weights, but there is much more to it than portability. Both Fujifilm and OM System offer robust user experiences and feature sets that can't be found on any other cameras, and you may find that those better suit your needs and desires than any full frame or medium format system. Check out the video above for Wong's full thoughts.
Large "full sized" cameras are so much more comfortable to hold and use than small cameras. One reason I haven't switched over to mirrorless yet is because there is only one mirrorless camera I know of that is large enough to be used comfortably, and that is way above my price range (the Canon R3).
So if I prefer large cameras, then it seems to make sense that if I am going to have a camera of a larger size I might as well have a large sensor in it. Does that logic make sense? I mean, I can't see why I should carry and use a large camera with a small sensor in it. Small sensors make more sense for those who prefer smaller cameras.
I actually prefer smaller cameras but also prefer FF which is why I ended up with a Sony camera.
I much prefer light. For decades now, we've had polycarbonate - used for bullet proof glass - so durability and strength is NOT the problem. Size shouldn't be a problem for anyone. Show me the light!
Time for all the "big hands" guys to weigh in.
Yep! Since I've gotten serious about photography, I've had a grip on every camera I've owned. I'm using an R5 with grip now and it is a joy to shoot with. Small cameras just don't feel right. Yes, it's subjective, but how a camera feels is the reason I never switched to Sony. Just did not feel right.
My hands are very average, or slightly below average, in size, yet I find that a large camera is much more comfortable and easy to use.
My 1D Mark 2 and 1D Mark 4 were perfectly sized for comfort and ease of use. They weren't good for carrying around, but I care about how the camera is to use, not about how good it is to carry around.
The very large cameras like Canon's 1 series are big enough so that when holding it in a shooting position, none of my knuckle joints would need to be bent more than 70 degrees. When holding a tiny Sony A6400 a couple years ago, several of my knuckle joints had to bend all the way to over 120 degrees! If anyone thinks it is comfortable to hold a camera with their knuckles bent to 120 degrees and beyond, they are fooling themselves.
Don't allow ease of carrying to be confused with ease of shooting - they are two utterly different attributes of a camera.
Well, a bigger smartphone would also be easier to use, wouldn't it? But few seem interested.
I too am an m43s user. I have discovered that all the negative talking points about my Oly cameras and gear is a bunch of hooey. Don't get me wrong, many of the talking points are true, but they are also totally irrelevant. I have never felt constricted by my gear, and I think I'm a pretty good photographer.
It's all about the "intended use" of the photos. Few of us can be totally honest with ourselves and admit we're not going to need a 6 foot print for a gallery show. And then there's the "300dpi" myth, which never seems to die.