with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?

Started Nov 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
losangeles Contributing Member • Posts: 655
Re: with low light performance of the 5n, what is the appeal of full-frame?

Your arguments are sound, and they really resonate with what I've been thinking myself these past few weeks. Thanks for summarizing it so nicely.

One thing I'd like to add is the versatility of having a single walkaround lens that "covers all bases" as you say it. For FF, it would be the kit you went for, the 24-85 mm lens. It should offer shallow enough DOF for most situations. But a similar lens on NEX (the new 12-50) doesn't, as I has DOF comparable to a point-and-shoot with fast lens like the new Lumix LX7. So in practice I end up having to carry around (and invest into) more lenses, easily bringing the total above $2k and the same territory as the D600 with kit lens. And the FF alternative will still beat the NEX IQ.

In my mind, the only way NEX (and m43 for that matter) can prevail is by building affordable&high IQ&fast lenses. If the Nikon 24-85 can be had for $500 above body-only, there needs to be a 12-55 f2.3-f3 option for NEX for the same price (same DOF control, similarly sized optical elements, hopefully same IQ as the Nikkor).

RicksAstro wrote:

ennemkay wrote:

... but ff systems are WAY more expensive, so that extra stop and a half of dof and iso doesn't seem to have proportionate value.

Not if you are comparing similar capabilities as far as IQ goes. I went from a gripped (for ergonomic purposes) EM-5 with the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8...total cost $1000+$300+$1200 = $2500

I went to a Nikon D600+24-85 f3.5-4.5= $2600

The 12-35 is equivalent to a 24-70 f5.6, so about one stop less DOF control on average compared to the Nikon kit. I compared the results of the 2 cameras and the Nikon's optical quality and sharpness was at least on par across the frame, usually sharper. Anyone who looked at the results from the 2 cameras would choose the D600 at any reasonable output size, not even accounting for any DOF differences.

And the Nikon 85 1.8G is a superb lens on the D600...perfect for portraits! The Olympus 45 f1.8 is great too and about $100 cheaper , but it would be equivalent to stopping down the 85 2 stops as far as DOF control, which is a large amount. And the D600 85f1.8G frankly is magical in comparison.

If you are willing to sacrifice optical quality on m43 or Sony, then you can get a better value proposition. I just picked up a NEX6 + 16-50. It's awesome and compact and gives decent image quality, but that lens isn't in the same ballpark as the previous 2 mentioned. Is it good enough? Only you can answer that. I'll certainly take it places that I wouldn't have taken even the Olympus combo above, which wasn't that small. The D600 is probably the nicest ergonomically if you don't mind the bulk and weight (and conspicuousness).

The best native zoom I've had for the NEX system was honestly the original 18-200, but the weight and off-balance handling (and ridiculous looks) left a lot to be desired. I hope Sony comes up with a quality 2.8 zoom for the NEX system like Panasonic did...then it can be considered a high quality option, but again it won't be cheap.

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