is a full format DSLR rellay worth it?

Ray Maines said:

HL53 said:

If I did not use a camera for a living I would be quite content with a crop format camera because its lighter as a system and gives results that are on a par with FF up to 16"x 12".

Click to expand...

Ray Maines said:

Now, please don't misunderstand me the A900 is a fantastic stills camera and is much underrated.... However if you have a need or desire for live view, video, lower cost and versatility then crop format is the only game in town for you at the moment. If in doubt hire an A850 and try it out as a camera should always sell itself and there is no substitute for a, “hands on”, evaluation.

Click to expand...

You are So totally, 100%, perfectly right!!! For about 90% of us, a crop sensor camera is 100% perfect. There is some amount of prestige and snob appeal to a FF camera, but beyond pure vanity there really isn't much of an advantage for most of us. And it's big, heavy, expensive, and has a limited lens selection. When I start earning some money with my camera we'll renegotiate, but as long a photography is just a hobby I'll continue with APS/C.

Click to expand...

In the days of film cameras, they didn't have APS-C cameras, everyone used full frame and nobody even thought to ask for a smaller format! So, I don't really think all these "full frame" film camera users were snobby, any more than A900 owners are now! I just happen to slightly prefer my A900 over my R1 mainly because of the enormous cropping power of the A900.

I carry my A900 in a small bag, and from a distance, nobody would ever know that it's a full frame camera. I don't have a sign on my camera bag that says: "This bag contains a $5000 full frame camera" so there is no prestige or snob appeal to be gained. I don't even have my full name on my hobby web site, I'm just "Rob", so I don't gain or earn anything from owning the magnificent prestigious A900!

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/blog-21-august-2010.html
A900 blog about a very rare visit to Eastbourne of a leopard seal.

Robsphoto said:

In the days of film cameras, they didn't have APS-C cameras, .....

Click to expand...

Back in the day, 35mm cameras were the equivalent of todays APS/C cameras and the really cool photographers, and people with money to burn used medium format cameras, while those of us with delusions of grandeur and normal size budgets dreamed about them.

The size of our cameras has changed, but not much else. There are exceptions to every rule and you're the exception to this one I suppose, but APS/C cameras work just fine for most of us.

Robsphoto said:

Robsphoto said:

And it's big, heavy, expensive, and has a limited lens selection.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Serious overkill, and not even close to worth it for most of us unless you just have to keep a step ahead of your peers.

--
Tacoma, Washington, USA

With one of the current full-frame cameras, the lack of a pop-up flash means having to carry a flash around with you quite often. I'd find that really annoying, as I use fill flash quite often during daylight hours (which I guess marks me as an amateur).

It's what puts me off buying an A850. Just thought I'd mention it.
Renato

Yes, FF is totally worth it. But only for people who don't mind the additional weight and who look for the ultimate resolution, shallow depth of field, focus accuracy.

If a perfectly sharp 12MP photo does it for you, and if DOF is no priority, then an A560 is just fine and certainly more economical.

--
Sony Alpha 900 user...

see some of my images at
http://christianriedel.com

Yes some day I may want FF but I am concerned about the shallow DOF. Cropped sensors lend themselves better for the kind of photography I do and because of the better DOF it offers.
--
Photo eye

Renato1 said:

It's what puts me off buying an A850. Just thought I'd mention it.
Renato

Click to expand...

Not trying to sound snobby here, but if carrying a flash is what puts you off to buying an a850, you are definitely not ready for it.

Ben Karim said:

I'm travelling to Dallas (Las Colinas) in few days for a business training and I've put some money apart, I'm a bit confused about either buying the new Alpha 860 with full HD video, or going to the upper level and invest into a full format Alpha 850.

I do have a couple of pretty good lenses: Sony 50:1.4 and Sigma 70-200:2.8 and done already great job with those couple of gears simply using my old Alpha a200 ( http://http://photolog.karim2k.com/ ).

So, is it really worth that money to get a full format or should I carry the APC-S censor?

Click to expand...

There are a number of places where you can rent a Sony FF and try for yourself. IMHO there really is no better answer... as someone else said in this thread, the camera should sell itself. I think that anyone who can afford it should put an 850/900 to their eye with a fast lens at least once, and have a memory card along in order to look at the pictures later. If you can't afford it, that's probably not a good idea.

And well worth reading too!
--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/

Riker D said:

Yes some day I may want FF but I am concerned about the shallow DOF. Cropped sensors lend themselves better for the kind of photography I do and because of the better DOF it offers.
--
Photo eye

Click to expand...

I don't want to start yet another tedious depth of field discussion, but per authoritative Bob Atkins.com:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

"If you use the same lens on a Canon APS-C crop sensor camera and a 35mm full frame body and crop the full frame 35mm image to give the same view as the Canon crop image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL."

Other DOF comparisons are also made on the above web page. Note the references to "field of view"!

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz

If Full HD Video, Sweep Panorama in 2D and 3D mode, Auto HDR, Multi-frame noise reduction, articulated LCD screen with live view and phase-detect auto focus, pop-up Flash and 7 FPS continuous shooting are more important features then buy the a560.

If metal body with weather sealing, better OVF (98% vs. 95% frame coverage), much larger files to allow for much heavier cropping/ultimately larger printing, and narrower DOF are more important then buy the a850.

Horses for courses.

--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/

From David Kilpatrick...

“Depth of field

Throughout the domain of the APS-C DSLR, the small sensor format has transformed things. For the same angle of view, a full frame film camera needs 1.5 f-stops more stopping down to get the same depth of field (sharpness in depth). So, a shot which would be sharp enough from foreground to background at f/8 on an Alpha 700 must be shot at f/13 on full 24 x 36mm.

Is that a problem? Not on its own, but it also means a shot taken at 1/125 (which freezes most facial expressions and slight body movements, if not action) would need to be taken at 1/40 instead. There is a big difference. Wind moving foliage, people walking, many slow movements in the real world are sharp at 1/125 but blurred at 1/40.

So, to regain the benefits which have been conferred by the small digital sensor, any full frame digital sensor really needs to offer equal quality at three times the ISO sensitivity figure (or 1.5 stops), just to enable the user to get back to the same actual depth of field and motion-stopping shutter speeds. This means a full frame DSLR must be as good at ISO 400 as an APS-C model is at ISO 125.”

--
http://maxdance.smugmug.com/

no text here, senor.

Ben Karim wrote;

Ben Karim said:

I'm travelling to Dallas (Las Colinas) in few days for a business training and I've put some money apart, I'm a bit confused about either buying the new Alpha 860 with full HD video, or going to the upper level and invest into a full format Alpha 850.

Click to expand...

I suspect that you mean an a560 rather than a860?

Ben Karim said:

I do have a couple of pretty good lenses: Sony 50:1.4 and Sigma 70-200:2.8 and done already great job with those couple of gears simply using my old Alpha a200 ( http://http://photolog.karim2k.com/ ).

Click to expand...

You have an a200 and a couple of great lenses and mention that the gear you have now "does already a great job" ?

Ben Karim said:

So, is it really worth that money to get a full format or should I carry the APC-S censor?

Click to expand...

Sounds as though you are looking for more features like; HD video, which you specifically mention rather than more megapixels?

Therefore, reading between the lines; you need to look closer at the latest APS-C offerings/options/features that you don't have on your a200? Check for any features on the a200 that are missing on the newer models too?

Go to a camera store if possible and handle as many cams as possible while you are in Dallas. Decide if the added features are worth the cost and then make your decision .

Have you considered a bigger flash or maybe a wide-angle lens - a lot of fun can be had with these?

Enjoy your shopping trip and please let us know what you decided to do!

Steve

Its sort of the same oild question as old day folks asking if they should go medium format ( but then they were doing already great on 35mm gears ) ..

Know that the gear do not automatically made you do better photos, what it does is just provide the mean and open the potential. Where your previous gear could not provide. Is it worth it, well, its up to you the photographer to work at it ...

I know of people who buy FF body just for the hack that its full frame. They shoot it on full auto and continous mode. They can easily do that in any other format. the FF certainbly do not help them ( in fact quite the opposite ) .. So how do you and what would you be doing with a FF is the key , not the FF gear itself ..

--

• Franka -

Graham Best said:

Robsphoto said:

ThinCat said:

Gary Friedman said in a recent blog email that he preferred the A700 to the A900 for most purposes. It's easier to get good output from the APS-C camera because of its greater DOF. FF gives you a bigger view finder but unless you want to print huge landscapes it's overkill.

Click to expand...

I think the sheer "cropping power" of the A900 is often overlooked. Even if you don't often want 40-inch wide prints, you will really appreciate being able to make A3 sized prints from a crop of just a small area of an image. There are lots of examples of this principle here:

Click to expand...

Rob,

You apparently have less exacting standards regarding printing than I. A 40" wide print from an a850/a900 is 151.2 ppi. At the native resolution (of Epson pro printers) of 360 dpi, a Sony full frame provides a 16.8" x 11.2" print.

I'm not saying you can't print larger than A3, but you're depending on the printer driver to interpolate your image to the native 360 dpi., and inevitably losing something in the translation. The success of the interpolation is proportional to the complexity of the scene.

If I intend to print much larger than A2, I prefer to stitch multiple images. The noted print-maker/photographer Ctein wrote an article at TOP regarding input resolution and print sharpness you may find interesting. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/more-on-printer-sharpness.html

Click to expand...

I think it's all a case of how closely you want to your view your prints. I have often found that, when printing at 150 pixels per inch using a quality Epson printer and top quality photographic paper, I can look at a print from a very close distance and not notice any defects. If you look at a print from say, a distance of 1 metre, you may find that printing at greater than 150 ppi, doesn't produce a noticeable increase in quality. But if I could see worthwhile increases in print quality (from a "normal" viewing distance) by printing at 300ppi, then I would certainly do this.

In the thread linked to below, there were some interesting observations about print size, pixels per inch, and viewing distance. For example, there may be some circumstances, particularly for very large prints, where people may be prepared to print at much less than 150 ppi, even less than 100ppi.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=35899802

Personally, I wouldn't print at less than 150 ppi if at close range you could see pixelation occurring. But for huge prints on buildings etc., some photographers don't worry about pixelation that is visible at close range provided the image looks good from where it is intended to be viewed!

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/Determining-Print-Size-Of-Digital-Images.html
More information about the controversy over print size

Compared to the 560 the 850 is a specialist camera.

Its whole point is lack of features. No flash, no video, no 100+ programmes for special scenes, no hdr, no liveview, no etc.

What's left, however, is epically brilliant.
And well worth the money. IF you don't need the rest.

Yours,

S.K.

Ben Karim said:

I'm travelling to Dallas (Las Colinas) in few days for a business training and I've put some money apart, I'm a bit confused about either buying the new Alpha 860 with full HD video, or going to the upper level and invest into a full format Alpha 850.

I do have a couple of pretty good lenses: Sony 50:1.4 and Sigma 70-200:2.8 and done already great job with those couple of gears simply using my old Alpha a200 ( http://http://photolog.karim2k.com/ ).

So, is it really worth that money to get a full format or should I carry the APC-S censor?

Click to expand...

maxdance said:

From David Kilpatrick...

“Depth of field

Throughout the domain of the APS-C DSLR, the small sensor format has transformed things. For the same angle of view, a full frame film camera needs 1.5 f-stops more stopping down to get the same depth of field (sharpness in depth). So, a shot which would be sharp enough from foreground to background at f/8 on an Alpha 700 must be shot at f/13 on full 24 x 36mm.

Is that a problem? Not on its own, but it also means a shot taken at 1/125 (which freezes most facial expressions and slight body movements, if not action) would need to be taken at 1/40 instead. There is a big difference. Wind moving foliage, people walking, many slow movements in the real world are sharp at 1/125 but blurred at 1/40.

So, to regain the benefits which have been conferred by the small digital sensor, any full frame digital sensor really needs to offer equal quality at three times the ISO sensitivity figure (or 1.5 stops), just to enable the user to get back to the same actual depth of field and motion-stopping shutter speeds. This means a full frame DSLR must be as good at ISO 400 as an APS-C model is at ISO 125.”

Click to expand...

With my full frame A900, I have often increased ISO when I want greater depth of field, and I have been very happy with the results to say ISO 640, and sometimes beyond this, so I wonder whether in practice, the above "disadvantage" is really a major factor to consider?

Regards
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz

...on where you want to go.

Having just spent 12 days on a 55 foot 2.5 m draft yacht I can definitely say that there were times where I'd have preferred a smaller boat.

Mooring space in a crowded harbour, no access to a lot of interesting bays etc spring to mind.

Of course for sheer creature comfort the 55 beats a 37 everyday.

Regards,
Mike
--
I'd prefer my DSLR without video, thank you.
I know it has uses, but not for me.
I like the NEXes, but they are too small for my hands.

My Dynax 3 is a full frame film camera, with a pop-up flash, and its weight is neglible compared to say the Miaxxum 9 or KM7D.

That's all I want in a full frame. I don't need a Pro or semi-Pro body that I can throw off a cliff or use in a sand storm in the Sahara - because I'd never throw the smaller camera off a cliff, or go outside into the middle of a sand storm.

So you're correct, I'm not ready for an unnecessarily heavy camera that can't be used as easily - flash wise - as every other digital camera I've had. I could put up with the extra weight, but the lack of flash is too much of an impediment.
Renato

Acquiesce said:

Renato1 said:

It's what puts me off buying an A850. Just thought I'd mention it.
Renato

Click to expand...

Not trying to sound snobby here, but if carrying a flash is what puts you off to buying an a850, you are definitely not ready for it.

Click to expand...

Ben Karim said:

I'm travelling to Dallas (Las Colinas) in few days for a business training and I've put some money apart, I'm a bit confused about either buying the new Alpha 860 with full HD video, or going to the upper level and invest into a full format Alpha 850.

I do have a couple of pretty good lenses: Sony 50:1.4 and Sigma 70-200:2.8 and done already great job with those couple of gears simply using my old Alpha a200 ( http://http://photolog.karim2k.com/ ).

So, is it really worth that money to get a full format or should I carry the APC-S censor?

Click to expand...

Full frame definitely gives you better image quality, but whether it is worth the extra money will depend on your own value system. If you already have an old APS-C model, the only way to improve image quality noticeably is to get into full frame sensors. They are less affected by diffraction than APS-C models. So, if you want to take macro or landscapes, a full frame is better because it gives you sharper results especially at f stops smaller than f/8. Of course, medium format is even better, but they are a lot more expensive than full frame of course.