Is Full frame still the most versatile?

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,718
Re: It is only more versatile if you don't want to learn how to use your tools.

olliess wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow