Full frame mirrorless Who needs it ? 6 September 2018

This month heraldsone of the more productive seasons in recent history for announcements of new models which actually are new.

The photography internet is buzzing with news, reviews and comment about the new “full frame” mirrorless models from Nikon and Canon.

What does “full frame” mean ?

In the latter part of the 19^th Century a new type of movie film was introduced. This was 35mm wide with sprocket holes on each side. The image frame size was 24x16mm with the long side across the run of the film.

Then in the early part of the 20^th Century the same film was used for still photography. The frame size was increased to 24x36mm this time with the long side along the run of the film. Still cameras using this “35mm” format appeared from about 1913 and became well known when Ernst Leitz 

Camera (Leica) adopted the format.

In the early days when “real” photographers used large format and medium format cameras, 35mm was known as “miniature” format and the even smaller 16mm (also using movie film) was the “sub-miniature”  format.

Fast forward ninety years to the early days of digital photography and we saw camera makers wanting to control their R&D costs and keep prices down for consumers. Cameras which replaced the 24x36mm (diagonal 43mm) film format with a digital sensor “full frame” were prohibitively expensive so the “crop format” was introduced. Canon crop format, also known as “APS-C” as the size is similar to the short lived format of that name, uses a sensor 27mm on the diagonal, Sony and others use a 28mm diagonal.

Thus over the last hundred years the “miniature format” has come to be known as “full frame”. 

The thing which intrigues me is that Sony, with virtually no history in 35mm film or DSLR production and without a huge inventory of legacy lenses to consider chose a 100 year old format for its entry into the “full frame’ mirrorless world. 

Why not use a circular sensor which could incorporate a multi-aspect ratio function providing landscape or portrait orientation without having to turn the camera through 90 degrees ?

Canon and Nikon are forced by their own history to use a sensor size and aspect ratio which is compatible with their legacy lenses so their decision to stay with the old 24x36mm format is understandable.

So  Sony, Leica, Nikon and Canon each for their own reasons has elected to stay with the old “35mm” format which looks to me like a giant lost opportunity for Sony at least.

Anyway, on with my little story:

Sony, leading the way as usual with new technology, started the trend to  full frame mirrorless ILCs with their A7 and A9 models.  The first generation A7 models in 2013 were a bit of a disaster with poor reliability, shutter shock, some dodgy lenses, poor ergonomics, poor battery life and a host of other problems. But Sony iterated quickly and enough customers liked what they were doing to make the enterprise viable.

Now in their third generation the Mk3 versions of the A7 series are mostly well regarded products with a lot to offer serious enthusiast and professional photographers.

Sony has never been very good with camera ergonomics however leading to ongoing issues with the user experience.

Nikon (pronounced Nykon or Nikkon or Neekon depending on where you live) recently revealed their all-new Zee (or Zed, also depending on where you live) full frame MILC duo to a somewhat mixed early reception.  There have been grumbles from reviewers about the single card slot, the very small buffer, the AF system configuration and operation and various other matters.  As Nikon’s future as a camera maker depends heavily on the success of the Z program one might have expected they would resolve some of these issues in the planning stage.

Canon has just joined the party with its all new EOS-R model and brand new lenses. As usual Canon has approached this new product type with a decidedly pedestrian, not-far-above-entry-level model. 

It does threeframes per second  with AF-C in focus tracking priority mode……Wow ???

It looks to me as though the EOS-R is seriously lacking in processor power, just like all the EOS-M models to date.

It also appears Canon thinks the EOS-R will keep users happy despite lacking IBIS and without a thumb-stick for moving the AF area.

Good luck with that given that the Sony A7/9 and Nikon Z6/7 do have these features as do the current top tier Panasonic M43 models so I think it highly likely these features will be included on any Panasonic full frame model.

Both Nikon and Canon have been forced to invest in a completely new lens mount for their FF MILC enterprises, presumably making this an expensive R&D project for both companies. In addition they have to figure out what to do with their legacy DSLR camera line up.

But wait: now we hear that Panasonic is about to make a foray into the full frame MILC arena with an announcement on 25 September.  No details have yet been leaked.

Oh my goodness, it appears we will have five makers battling it out for a share of the FF MILC market. 

Leica has been there with the SL since 2015 and to be strictly accurate Leica put the first mirrorless FF ILC, the M9,  on the market in 2009, but that had an optical viewfinder not an EVF.

Why has there been an apparently sudden rush to produce full frame MILCs ?

Well, it might appear sudden but my guess is that these projects have been in the R&D works for several years.

Here are some of my thoughts on the FF MILC initiative:

1.  Each of the FF MILCs which have been released by Sony, Nikon,  Canon and Leica has numerous problems regarding specifications, capabilities, performance or ergonomics which are sure to disappoint some potential users who are not already rusted-on brand faithful supporters. 

Note that image quality is not likely to be a problem with any of them. The image quality available from each of these full frame models will far exceed the requirements of most users.

Any significant differentiation between the brands and models will be in the user experience.

This being so I think it is rather disappointing that there is some kind of user experience problem with each of them

2. Of greater interest perhaps is the next question… Who needs them ?  This question devolves itself into two parts:

2a. Who needsfull frame ?   

Professional sports photographers, and maybe portrait photographers who need to blur out busy backgrounds.

There may be a few minor additional reasons but blurring out cluttered backgrounds is the main one.   

Nobody else needsfull frame.

I fully understand that enthusiast photographers want the best gear they can afford because that is their mind set.

Some of these people might think they need full frame to make “better”  photos.  But I think they are chasing rainbows.

I have been using cameras to make photos for 65 years. I have been through the whole cycle of wanting better image quality and buying ever larger cameras to achieve this. The apogee of this cycle was the 4x5 inch view camera which I dragged around for several years causing permanent back damage in the process.

Then I had an epiphany and realised that the best camera for me was the one which gave me “good enough” quality for my personal needs. I was greatly impressed by an exhibition of aerial  photos by Yann Arthus-Bertrand.  These had all been taken with the same 35mm film cameras which I owned and looked just fine when exhibited at poster size, greater than 1 meter on the long side.

In the digital era I have come to realise that my cameras which use the so-called “one inch” (15.9mm diagonal) sensor are giving me even better image quality than I ever achieved with 35mm film.

2b. Who needs a mirrorless ILC ?

Nobody, really.

MILCs do not make better pictures than DSLRs.

Professional sports photographers are going to continue using their DSLRs because for the moment at least, these things have better continuous AF performance than MILCs.

However some people might prefer the mirrorless variety as it does provide some actual or potential benefits to the user experience.

These are, smaller body depth (there being no flipping mirror), easier design of ultrawide lenses, no viewfinder blackout (only available on a few models thus far), global shutter (coming, sometime), option for silent operation when looking through the viewfinder, better WYSIWYG experience when looking through the viewfinder, ability to configure the viewfinder and monitor to look the same for a seamless transition from one to the other and no need to calibrate lenses for focus accuracy..    

3. So why are the main camera makers moving, herd like,  to full frame MILCs ?

I suspect the answer to this in one word is “survival”, they hope.

Let me recap here briefly:

Only a very small number of photographers actually need full frame cameras.

Nobody needs a FF mirrorless camera although some might prefer the user experience enabled by the better models.

So the push for FF MILCs is not being driven so much by the consumers as by the makers.

I think there are two reasons for this:

The first is that in a few year’s time the only people left on the planet still using cameras to make pictures will be enthusiast amateurs and professionals.  These people will pay serious money to get what they consider to be the best possible gear. For many buyers a camera will be a vanity purchase.

So the makers oblige by pushing their entire product lines up market. The customers are happy enough, we hope,  and the makers get more profit per unit which they desperately need.

Second, either about now or in the near future MILCs will be less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs as  MILCs have fewer parts in total and fewer moving parts requiring accurate alignment.

So on both counts the makers hope to make more money per unit than they are now doing.

They need this in order to survive in a falling market.

What about image quality ?

I have been using smaller sensor, meaning smaller than “full frame”  cameras since the beginning of the digital era.

I discovered 14 years ago that I could make high quality poster size prints about one meter on the long side from an 8Mpx  Canon EOS 20D which used the Canon 27mm “crop  sensor” size.

Since then I have come to realise I can get excellent very large prints from micro four thirds cameras which have a sensor diagonal of 21.6mm and cameras which use the so-called “one inch” sensor with a diagonal of 15.9mm.

The strong rumor is that Panasonic will move into FF MILC territory soon. Why on earth would they do that ?

They are already making excellent Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras which produce top quality results.

I have no inside knowledge of course so I have to guess that their decision is likely motivated by the same desire for survival as the other manufacturers.

The thing which matters is consumer perceptions which drive consumer behaviour and the pointy end of that is what people buy.

If significant numbers of potential buyers think or believe for any reason, rational or otherwise that full frame is “better” or just want full frame for the heck of it then the maker had better be able to offer full frame or lose that sale to some other mob.

It has nothing to do with image quality or even anything to do with making photographs.

7 September 2018 update:  My main interest is in stills not video so the really obvious reason that Panasonic might want to move to a larger sensor slipped my mind at first. It is of course, 8K.

Consider:

1080P (2K if you will, although its not called that)  has a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels for 2.07 Mpx.

4K is 3840x2160 for 8.3 Mpx

8K is 7680x4320 for 33.2 Mpx

There have been plenty of rumors that Panasonic wants to hold/and/or extend its lead in video by moving to 8K and for that they need a sensor which gives 33.2Mpx in 16:9 aspect ratio.  With current technology that is likely too many pixels for the M4/3  21.6mm sensor. Hence the requirement for a larger sensor.

Of course nobody actually needs 8K. Our TV set at home is 1080P and it looks just fine. Even 4K is over the top for most of us.

However as I said above, the manufacturers are pushing these larger sensors for their benefit not yours or mine.

7 September another update. My brain is a bit slow today, maybe every day, whatever. 
It's about the 8K thing.

It occurs to me that if a camera can shoot 8K preferably without rolling shutter effect, which implies  a global shutter or at least a very fast e-shutter scan speed then the difference between stills and video pretty much disappears. The user can just press the button and subsequently select stills or video as desired.

If Panasonic can deliver a product which does that it will make existing models including all the recently announced FF MILCs look like antediluvian relics from a bygone era.

At the top I of this post I put the provocative question “Is FF MILC a hoax”?

No, well not deliberately.

FF MILCs are no more a hoax than are medium format digital cameras, another category which hardly anybody actually needs.

You may notice in all the promotional blurb about FF MILC s that the manufacturers carefully do notsay that their new wunderkamera line  makes better pictures than previous models.

They are also not saying something like …”we offer you these products which we think are really good (and they mostly are with certain reservations) and if you the consumer are gullible enough to spend $5000 on a camera when a $2000 one would do the job just fine, then we have a product for you.”