binsjohn

I agree with you here except for your math on the 1" sensor. You computed the the actual size of the sensor to be 0.1645" by multiplying the length times the width. That yields the area of the lens instead of the diagonal length, which is 0.586", which of course is still way less than the claimed 1". The diagonal length is calculated by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of length and width. :-)

gitithadani

I have both a FF Sony A7r and 2 APS-Cs (A6500 and NX500 BSI sensor 28mb) and some small sensor cameras. I find the difference between FF and the newer APS-C sensors is not so significant - its more the range. I tend to use the wide ranges more with the A7r and for the longer ranges more for the APS-C. The lenses too for the crop mode are significantly lighter and image quality is excellent. I also use a lot of legacy prime lenses on both cameras. The smaller sensor I use in very limited way and there is a huge perceptive difference between full frame and 1 inch. I love the form factor of the above mirrorless cameras and I've paired them with some excellent lenses that donot weigh a ton. It makes a huge difference to bring down excess weight without quality loss

rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

There are some good cameras with 1 inch sensors. HOWEVER, I doubt you will be able to blow up photos taken with these cameras to large sizes as you describe. I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ 1000 because it is very light and has a focal range of 24mm-400mm. But I don't expect the same results as I get with my Nikon DLSR.

dave.m

full frame vs. APS-C vs. M4/3 really only matters with weight, low light sensitivity, and to a slightly lesser extent dynamic range.

Given the same pixel count and good light, 20Mpx in full frame will not enlarge any more than 20Mpx in a phone camera. If you think that unlikely see some of the stuff done by David Bailey with a Lumia 1020. What matters is if you want to push the light levels. With the same exposure (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO set) a low light image in full frame will always look better than the same image with a smaller sensor camera - the pixel count might be the same but the pixels are significantly smaller (inverse square law applies) and so the light gathering potential is reduced accordingly. Similarly the dynamic range is affected with smaller pixels, although some of the camera manufacturers are getting amazing DR with smaller sensors (well according to their specs anyway.)

I have a full frame Canon and with 2 or 3 lenses + a x1.4TC gives me gives me a focal range or 12 - 560. When I get it right the image quality is superb. Bu it is bulky, and gets heavy after a time, and needs a comfortable back pack or similar. When I have to travel really light I have a Panasonic G8 M4/3 in a small camera bag, or pockets at a push, the camera + 3 lenses cover from 18-600 and bulk and weight are a fraction of the full frame - but low light imagery has very noticeable noise. The colours also seem to be less bright with low light.

The APS-C mirrorless cameras are starting to look very attractive to me, and I tested the Canon EOS M5. Very nice it is too although overpriced in my opinion. Also no point getting smaller mirrorless unless you get the dedicated lenses - a 100-400 full frame lens is still bulky and heavy whether fitted to a full frame, or APS-C with an adapter.

Good luck, and as always, whatever you decide there will a better option released somewhere between 1 day and 3 months of you parting with your hard-earned!

PCB_smv

I bought the Sony a6500 with the 18-105 lens, I like it very much. The 35 mm or 50 mm lens is even lighter. It is a lot lighter set and easier to carry around.

Add Loc: S.W.Florida

I am thinking about a Canon Powershot SX 730 HS. Look it up,might work out. I now have a Canon G 15 as my carry around camera. Happy with the pictures,seems a bit heavy on need for repairs,Canon warranty useless. G 15 no longer available.

NBBPH Loc: Indiana

From what I have seen I would say no. Best thing to do is rent a mirrorless system and give it a try.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Your original question "Is full frame necessary?" is really something only you can answer. I'm a detail fanatic. When I shot chromes, I only used fine grain films with low RMS values to get the sharpest image possible (tripod, cable release, the whole 9 yards). If I was only going to look at images on an i-Pad, anything current would satisfy me. I like to look at BIG images and I want them to be as tack-sharp as my Kodachromes were. Comparing images from my daughter's Nikon D80 next to those from my D800, I found a home in Full-Frame.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Since we are all different and we all have different opinions mine is that a full frame is not absolutely necessary. One of the big advantages full frame had was better noise control. New APS sensors perform as well.
Bouquet when doing portraits can be perfectly well handled by the APS sensor with the proper lens.
A smaller camera is what many photographers have come to understand is better for their photography. They are lighter, convenient, capable and easy to carry. Usually, at the end of the day they do not get us as tired as dSLR do.
I did not know that Olympus cameras used full frame in the form of a 4:3 ratio. I have been using that ratio since I have my Olympus cameras and simply go to the 3:2 ratio during editing if I want to make enlargements that simulate the 35mm size. There are other ratios that can be as useful.
I am quite sure you will be able to find a mirrorless camera that will fit your purpose.

Bird Dawg Loc: Georgia

Thanks Jerry for ALL the web sites you provide day after day to all the Hog Members. You are very helpful and I appreciate your efforts. Wes

EngRon

I have a GH5 that I really like. Much lighter than my Nikon with lenses. Will work as good in my opinion except for DOF. But for landscapes, DOF does not matter. You just need a really wide lens.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

There is definitely a difference between FF and APS-C, much less MFT. Quantitatively it appears as higher noise at higher ISOs, but it is more than that. For me there is a "spaciousness" in FF that is lacking with smaller sensors. This is mostly to do with the physical characteristics of the optics--the effect of shallower depth of field with the same angle of view. I find myself shooting differently with the different formats. Of course if shallow DOF is not your thing then the difference become small with high-quality sensors of different sizes. For some shooting I actually prefer smaller sensors.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You're working too hard to fit everything into three categories. Still on the market, even if not in production, is Pentax's Q-7 and Q-S1, MILC's with a so-called 1/1.7" sensor.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I think you and the other whiners are safe. After they get the frauds and find a way to fund their incarceration without taxes, you will probably be long gone.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I'm convinced that Kodachrome wasn't nearly as sharp as we thought it was. When I was first thinking of going digital, I had a professional scan some Kodachrome slides of mine, and then I compared apples to apples - slide on screen to scan on computer; every detail on the slide was also on the scan ... and these were 6mp scans!! Later, when I got my Pentax K-30, I used the same lens I'd used to take those slides to take some 16mp images, and discovered they were much sharper. We normally looked at slides from a decent distance, but I'm convinced even a lower tier DSLR gives us more sharpness today.