Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

When you open a topic, look to the right side, just above the opening post, to see how many pages have already been written. Your first comment to John landed on page 15. Comments will post at the end of a topic, even when you're answering something on page 1 or 2. You have to learn how to navigate back to where you were originally - assuming you want to know all that went on in those 15 pages

If you are using the emailed digest, everything on it is already 12 to 24 hours old, and with some topics - like this - comments come fast and furious.

LarryLancaster Loc: Seattle, WA

Bigger, heavier, more expensive....let me see.

Bill P

Where's something that will make your business more profitable in this?

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes, for the likes of me and quite a few others that is an issue, even if it only means going to APS-C and not 4/3rds, 1", or smaller. I will travel one or more times a year and I have not even retired yet. We need our carry-ons as carry-ons, not as cameras. That why I can get away with the personal carry-on size for my camera and still have a regular carry-on. And the way travel is changing, it may not be too soon before all airlines will charge for every regular carry-on and the only free items will be personal carry-ons and small medical devices. For me, let alone weight and cost, size is a killer. Why should I burden myself for what is a very small increase in quality compared to the majority of intended use? There are some that their intended use requires more than what FF can provide and they must go even larger to medium format and view camera to get it. In these cases, the size, weight, and cost become secondary to the actual need. It becomes very important that one learns how to determine what their real needs are and balance that against what is available. Your statement, "Bigger, heavier, more expensive....let me see.", is really perfect.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

Really, then, it gets down to what you're willing to pay to use equipment appropriate to the job. Right?

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Absolutely!!! Even if it means only renting.

Bill P

The answer to that is painfully obvious. That's the answer for most photo gear questions. It works albeit in different ways for both hobby and pro photogs.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...renting works! I've rented a large lens transitioning from west to east...price was OK considering what I was spending on the trip, so all is good. Now I own that lens and my carry-on IS that lens hooked to my body in a Tenba bag that fits in the overhead. Yes, I have to check a bag...dammit. But my 'puter bag fits under the seat and contains lots of odds and ends...but I guess my end-point is that I will spend the dough to get the equipment I need to do the job *to* the job (now, that "job" just might be a vacation trip, but I still want my gear!).

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Bottom line, the choice of camera make and model is a personal choice. That choice will most likely include the budget of the camera purchaser as well as the sensor size and number of pixels on that sensor.

Bill P

Sensor size is kind of important, but number of pixels shouldn't be the big deal it once was. Anything over 20 should be fine.

Norm Rosenberg

When I want FF i dig out my Canon Model 7. Very limited, max usable fl of 135mm. I have, accidentally, looked at SOOC results from the Canon. A very beige not at all transparent strip. Really does need processing. and after processing, needs still more processing to reverse color and density. Is thiss also cheating?

BebuLamar

Yeah!
All the processing for the images taken with my DSLR is primarily only in the RAW converter. I do very little processing one I open it in PS.
I do no processing with images taken with my Iphone 11 but when I used Portrait mode, Slow shutter mode, Panoramic mode it does one hell of processing by itself.
Also back when I managed the photo processing shop, the customers took the pictures and gave me the film. I processed the film, making prints adjusting the color balance and exposure. I wonder who did the cheating???

Ed Commons

Discussions like these offer little more than opinions. Back in the days of film (remember those) most of us used either 35 mm (full frame) and often 2 14x 2 2.4 or 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. These formats had a purpose. If you were doing a sizable enlargement, grain was an issue. the larger format has less grain. If my enlargement was 11x14 or less, the 35mm was fine (film speed also added to grain) Larger images required larger format.

With digital, the same thing applies. The crop sensor can only hold so many pixels. pixels are like grains in film. the large the image the more grain comes into play.

So as a photographer, what do you want to do. I find 11x14 enlargement fine for my use. larger means "digital" grain. But for me a crop sensor is fine. If I want to make 16x 20 images, crop sensor make less sense.

Budget also come into play. Does what I do (I'm an amateur) warrant the extra expense of body and lenses. If I were a professional and selling my work, rather than just enjoying it a sharing it with friends, I would want the best I could afford.... but I draw the line at shelling out $33,000 for a Hasselblad Body and then $5,000 or more dollars for each lens.

So these discussions are moot. Everyone has the right to select a format that fits their need or budget, and make the best images they can

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

They are not moot to the OP and the OP deserves to be answered. It would be no different than if I would ask why should I pick FF or crop over 4/3rds and 1". It would be no different than if I asked why should I choose FF, crop, 4/3rds, or 1" over medium format. Not everyone knows or understands the differences and nuances to each format. This form, in no uncertain terms, will provide more than enough opinions and facts to allow an OP to make an educated decision. Yes, this does open us up to "trolls" and such. But I still find enough information for me to stay with the form.

And as far as pixels are concerned, it looks like Samsung will be the first to the market with a 100 mp camera. Yes, it will be in a smartphone with only a 5X zoom. But I suspect they have developed a better insulative sensor material such that the pixel cell walls can be made thinner and still remain insulative and not become inductive or conductive. This would allow for thinner pixel walls, larger pixels, and retain the same or better noise levels. And straight camera manufacturers, medium format all the way down 1", are going to have to compete with that. And with almost everyone owning a smartphone, and looking for the next step up in smartphones ($1.5K to $2K without deals), they will hardly be looking 50 mp FF cameras for $6.5K that do little other than that, especially without an absolutely phenomenal difference in needed image quality.