Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 761
Like?
Re: It is only more versatile if you don't want to learn how to use your tools.
In reply to Lee Jay, Apr 2, 2013

ljfinger wrote:

People that claim there is a meaningful difference in physical size are kidding themselves, in my opinion.

You can have an m4/3 sized camera (or a small 35 mm film SLR) dangling around your neck with a small prime lens and it hardly gets in the way, and you can shove it in your (non-photo) backpack along with some other stuff pretty easily.

A modern full-frame DSLR is definitely more noticeable, either hanging around your neck or over your shoulder, because it's a lot deeper and heavier. That also makes it harder to shove in your pack. It starts to become a "dedicated bag" situation.

I'm not saying it's an insurmountable problem, but there is definitely a difference.

I use a small waist pack and carry a full-frame camera with four lenses two teleconverters and a full-sized flash plus accessories like batteries, filters, cards, micro tripods, and even a water bottle, site map and snacks.

Different definitions of "small" waist pack I guess.  

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow