Firstdance_2000

" There’s only one God, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t wear a dress" - Captain America! :-)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

He has a few good points. It all boils down to the question, "Which camera is best for ME?" Each brand, model, and sensor format has its unique set of features, advantages, and drawbacks.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I'm pretty sure at least one of them would *also* use an iPhone XS Max or a top end Android device. After all, the best camera you have is the one you have with you when you need it!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Nancysc

The writer did describe the list as "myths".

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That is like saying the Earth doesn't have an AU factor. It does — ONE. (one Astronomical Unit = 149597870700 meters, roughly the average distance from Earth to Sun)

Using FF as a reference point of ONE is no longer as meaningful as it was a decade ago.

It was initially ONLY a crop factor because early dSLRs were just 35mm SLRs, highly modified. Kodak and others stuck a small sensor in the middle of the film plane of a Nikon or Canon, drew a rectangle on the focusing screen, and called it a digital camera. There was a "crop factor" only because the projected image cone of the lens was cropped. Photographers needed some way to equate the change in magnification from a lens on full frame to a lens on a smaller sensor, so they could choose the right lens for a scene.

A more appropriate term would have been magnification factor. Modern APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras, used with native lenses, DO NOT CROP the projected image cone, because the lenses are designed for the format. But put a full frame lens on an APS-C body, and yes, you can say it has a crop factor… and a magnification factor.

The distinction is not just a matter of semantics, but a matter of the physics behind lens design. All other things being equal, a lens specifically designed for a given format can be optimized for that format. That APS-C and DX NATIVE lenses are often built to lower standards than their full frame equivalents is just the hubris-blind marketing of the major dSLR makers.

cdayton

With apologies to Colbert!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

4. I shoot 4x5" film in my mirrorless, sensorless, 4x5" view cameras. Lenses ranging from 90mm to 210mm.

10. As far as I know Ansel never went smaller than 6x6cm (2 1/4 x 2 1/4") for his "portfolio" work, never shot 35mm. Though he might have for illustrative or testing purposes for his instructional books.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I think I will have these engraved on 2 stone tablets and put them at the entrance of my light room.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

That's what I did Dave, and I'm nodding...

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

All I gotta say is this: a good big man will beat a good small man any day of the week, or to beat a dead horse: all things being equal the bigger the better the tighter the sweater.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You know, photographers often have reasons for doing things differently.

California's Master portrait photographer of the rich and famous, Phillip Stewart Charis, famously used a large format view camera for most of his portrait career. But in the later years of his life (over a decade ago), he switched abruptly from film to digital capture and workflow.

At one of the trade shows I attended back then (PPA 2006 in Austin, TX, if I recall correctly), Charis was given a lifetime achievement award. At the same time, Photovision Video's founder and educator, Ed Pierce, presented a video detailing how Phillip switched to full frame Canon gear, with post-processing on a computer, and printing with a wide-format Epson printer. Stretched across a wide stage were nine prints — 40x30 inch family, and 30x40 inch individual portraits. The work was gorgeous. Charis made a few remarks and answered questions. He did not regret the switch... it magnified his efficiency, his control over output, and his profits, while maintaining quality and improving the consistency and repeatability of his work. He wished he were 30 years younger. He died in 2015.

I think Adams would be thrilled at the choices he would have today, as would many of his contemporaries. I agree he would probably reach for a 100 MP Hassie, just like Annie uses, but he would be equally likely to use a range of technologies, probably including large format film.

PH CIB

Everyone serious should be shooting Large Format,,,Medium Format for Casual Users,,,Full Frame for Young Adults and Beginners, 4/3rds for Talented Children, and Cell Phones for those caught up on the treadmill of life,,,,or maybe Large Format for people with unbelievable patience,,,Medium Format as a compromise between the stunning quality of large format and the ease of versatility of Medium Format, full frame the most versatile compromise of all, crop sensor for extra reach for wildlife and sports, 4/3rds the smallest and lightest best compromise of all, and Cell Phones for those caught up on the treadmill of life....

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I would respectfully submit that before the mid-1990s, there was no such thing as a "cropped frame" format. We called cameras small format, medium format, or large format.

OviedoPhotos

If the time spent on making silly lists like this were put to other uses we would have less division.

Its not the camera people, but the person behind it. When I got my Brownie back in the 60's as a hand me down, my uncle told me to focus on the photo not the technology. BTW, I still have said camera.