Seven Myths About The Need for Full Frame Camera Bodies

dv312 said:

dv312 wrote:

I won't argue too much on other points for they're negligible to me

However on 2, even though with PS on can mimic shallow DOF it takes a lot of work to make your images look natural; try to do that with hundreds of images after a wedding !

Furthermore PS cannot mimic the soft bokeh of a FF portrait lens say the Canon 85mm F1.2 or even the Nikon 50mm f1.4, no matter how hard you try

Believe me for I've tried this for many years

Not everyone can afford the 75mm f1.8, nor want to use that focal length

This shallower DOF feature is 1 thing I 'm still clinging on the FF system

Other factors I can live without or live with what MFT provides

Cheers, ;-)

Click to expand...

You should try software like Alien Bokeh 2. It allows you create you Bokeh to look like it was made by various lenses. You can set the number of aperture blades and all kind of cool things.

I would not want to use it on 100s of wedding photos though. It is for people who only want to change DoF less often.

Also, your comment, "Not everyone can afford the 75mm f1.8", is a little hollow after talking about a FF camera and the Canon 85mm F1.2 lens. The cheapest FF camera still costs more than the most expensive MFT camera too.

lattesweden said:

lattesweden wrote:

So in low light I'd like a FF. The Sony RX1 would do the trick if it had a 24/2 mounted instead of the 35/2,8. With 2.8 you've already lost one step of the sensor advantage and with 35 mm you need to have shorter shutter times since it is harder to hold 35 mm wide angles still than 18 or 24.

Click to expand...

The RX1 lens is 35/2, not 2.8. that would be something like 17/1.0 on your G5. Also it has more than 3 stops (or 8x) advantage over your LX7.

Gregm61 said:

Gregm61 wrote:

6 months from now, you'll probably be back on the Canon full frame forum preaching just the opposite like you have in the past...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51596741

Click to expand...

Nice, LOL. What is it with some people What a great read that was.

This here is interesing......

"The lack of CRISP SHARP images of birds in flight, cycling photos, even when stopping down at 1/2000s left a LOT to be desired."

I would love to see all these BIF's they have as an example from the FF Canon they had. Bet it doesn't happen.

All the best and that is good.

Danny.

Well that explains who he's pitching his post to - himself.

I'm not particularly interested in a FF sensor myself, but let's be accurate.

Low light: It is quite true that the larger sensor will do better in low light, by virtue of larger photosites. It is also true that sensor tech has evolved to the point where this is irrelevant in all but extremely demanding situations. A classic example of where 'better' doesn't necessarily add up to useable benefits.

Shallower DOF: There, the larger sensor has an advantage in not only capability but quality. FF bokeh is softer and more smooth than M43 bokeh, given the same depth of field in a photo. In all fairness, the PL25 does have lovely bokeh.

I'd say size and bulk, but that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Too easy.

Telephoto: another one that's just too easy. Not only is the magnification half that of a 4/3 sensor, that shallow DOF that makes FF so attractive for portraits becomes a real problem with tele: it's too shallow, forcing one to stop down and lose some of that aperture they paid so much for with a fast tele.

Cost: the cost of a good FF setup is still substantially higher than a really good M43 setup, both body and lens, if we're talking about covering a given range of AOV's at a given exposure.

And all of this comes at a time when sensor tech has eroded some of the larger sensor advantage, in terms of practical, useable benefits, while the shift from reflective (paper) to emissive (screen) display of photos is negating the need for very high MP.

It comes down to the right tool, at the right size and weight, and the right price, for the right job. FF is a tool for one set of parameters, M43 is a tool for a different situation. Arguing that one is better than the other is like arguing that a truck is better than a sports car.

Better for what?

... these types of lists and debates can go on forever!

Some people prefer full frame cameras. Some don't That's their choice. Some people have both.

MFT and FF each have their advantages and disadvantages. It seems to me that it is the same type of person who spouts these 'myths' as repeat them, like the people who send on spam warnings to others, becoming part of the tedious background noise.

If you like MFT, use it. If you don't, don't. You don't need to justify your choices to anyone else. I cannot fathom what difference it makes to me what camera anyone else uses.

You know, I heard all this after Leica started mass producing them crappy little cameras that used that teeny little 35mm film.

Stickarm said:

Stickarm said:

toxinoz wrote:

Disclaimer: My FF shooting experience (over many years & photos) was in 35mm film days, ie before there was a less-than-FF option, really.

Click to expand...

The original Olympus PEN cameras actually used 35mm film in a half-frame format, so the current M4/3 vs FF discussion has a history going back more than 50 years.

Click to expand...

I once owned a Pen F slr. The format was 18x24 mm, closer to APS than 4/3. A very nice camera with many fine lenses, and I regret that I sold it but I needed the money for a FF slr and was a poor student at the time.

No doubt that the smaller format led to worse IQ although camera and lenses were excellent. If you shot 400 ASA film the grain was very present already with modest sized prints..

Today's sensors are much better, so now I happily shoot E-M5 with no regrets I dont have FF.

quezra you are right. I confused the RX1 aperture with Ricoh GR which I also have looked at (aldough it is APS-C and has a 28 mm equivalent lens).

Here in Sweden I bought my G5 with 14-42 and the 45-150 lens for 5000 SEK (our currency). The RX1 is five times more and the RX1R even more than that.

I also use my 14/2,5 with Wide adapter (=22 mm in 35 eq) on the G5 at times if I shot in bad light or the RX100 at the 28 mm / 1,8 setting. They are about the same when sensor difference and aperture differences are considere. But there is no stabilization on the G5 with that lens so most often I use the RX100 for low light. It is also smaller and lighter to bring out in social events so it is the best camera for that purpose that I have. The G5 has 600 ISO and RX100 400 ISO at DXOmark so they are half a step between them sensor wise.

My LX5 is just over 100 ISO in DXOmark scores for low light. But the LX5 has very good stabilization and with the 18 mm Wide adapter at f2 I can shot at very slow shutter speeds without blur with still a reasonable DOF due to the small sensor. As long as the subjects are still that is.

I bought my LX5 used for 2500 SEK with the EVF, adapter, filters etc in mint condition with six months warranty left. That is 1/10 of the RX1 with accessories on the used market.

RX1 scores at 2500 ISO at DXOmark so the sensor is about 4,5 steps better in low light than my LX5 (and 2,5 times better than my RX100). If we take out stabilization impacts then the old rule say that you with a steady hand can hold the focal length in mm in parts of a second. So 1/30 with RX1 and 1/15 with the 18 mm on my LX5. There one step is back.

To get the same DOF from a 35 mm lens on a full frame sensor as I get with the 18 mm on the small LX5 sensor you need to step it down from the f2 on the RX1. I often shot interior with my LX5 so I actually want as much DOF as possible with sharpness from front to back. Also I want the angle to be wide to take in the whole scene so the wider lens is a plus for me. Yes the tilting can be problematic if not careful.

And that is my main concern with both the Ricoh GR, Nikon A and RX1. If they had bolted on a 24 mm and also produced a wide adapter I would probably have been very tempted to buy one.

I also love ultra wides for another reason and that is because they render the clouds so nicely in landscape photos. The higher dynamic range of FF would make a scene like the one below easier to capture.


Panasonic G5 with 14/2,5 and Wide adapter at 04:49 on a totally windstill morning yesterday.

What is right for one person might not be right to some one else, these are tools and one should use what works for oneself, but this is how I have setup my current toolbox and how I came to the conclusion of it.

It is always under considaration with what comes out on the market, how used prices are at the moment, how I shot in that period, how much I think is okey to carry around etc. Nothing in life is static and one shouldn't worry to much about the gear. Use them and learn them. I even have some rather nice pictures taken with my Samsung Galaxy Note II mobile.

Best regards from Sweden!
/Anders

PS. I often note that my text gets compressed height wise without the space I put between paragraphs. I use Firefox, is it a formatting problem with it or do I do something wrong? DS.

Frugaltraveler said:

Frugaltraveler wrote:

Most of you know I recently switched back to a micro four thirds camera. I am more convinced than ever that these cameras perform as well as ANY camera in 95% of the situations where it counts.

While I used to be an advocate for full frame cameras, I changed my mind when I saw the advantages of going small. So to counter all the posts that are out there advocating why you need a full frame camera, here’s why I think you do not.

Click to expand...

Nice of you to state where you come from. Those who has recently converted are usually the most diligent advocates of their new faith.

Frugaltraveler said:

1. The Low Light Argument

One of the arguments for full-frame cameras is that they offer better low-light performance. They do. But while the “religion of low-light” has caught many of you in its net, the majority of the last 100 years, photographers haven’t been concerned about it. They brought their own light, made light, borrowed light, reflected light, etc.

My flashes, reflectors, hot lights, etc. will work anywhere, with or without power. Since photography is actually about light, I don’t understand the fascination for working without much of it.

Click to expand...

I've seen the words "Fine Grain Developer" in books about photography from the 1930'es. That is like 80 years ago, and low light/low noise/high ISO performance is still sought by many. Are you living in a parallel universe?

Frugaltraveler said:

2. The Shallower Depth of Field Argument

Right after the religion of low-light, comes the shallow depth-of-field argument. You may not know this, but not every photograph requires shallow depth-of-field. In fact, most do not. But when you want it, you can have it two ways on a mirror less system. Very fast glass, i.e., 75mm (EFL 150MM) f/1.8 is plenty shallow for most situations. And post-processing tools can make an f/22 shot look like it came from a tilt-shift lens.

Click to expand...

Out of focus blur is very difficult to make credibly in post. It is much easier to do it in camera.

Frugaltraveler said:

3. The Lens Flexibility Argument

Some full-frame shooters like using old film camera lenses on their full-frame cameras. They seem to think this is only possible on full-frame. In fact, Micro Four Thirds cameras can easily, quickly and affordably be set to work with almost ANY lens, including lenses that will NOT work on full-frame cameras.

Click to expand...

Agree. Not an argument pre or con anything.

Frugaltraveler said:

4. The Sharpness Argument

This is the silly one in my opinion. People actually think they can make sharper photos on full-frame lenses. The physics say differently. Sharpness is controlled by MANY factors, lens, pixel depth, pixel size, subject distance, and photographer skill. To think you’ll get sharper photos just because you switch to full-frame cameras is pure horse pucky.

Click to expand...

So this argument does not hold because you think it is horse pucky? I will say your argument does not hold because I say so.

Frugaltraveler said:

5. The Winder Angles Argument

While it’s true that ultra wide angles like 16mm etc are not available on some non-full-frame cameras, the trade off is that the very crop factor FF proponents rely on here works against them for those who need longer reach. If you’re a wildlife or sports shooter, trading ultra wide angle for longer telephoto reach is a no-brainer. And many of the smaller cameras are able to shoot 24mm un-distorted. We used to think of 35mm lenses as wide when I was a kid so 24 seems pretty wide to me.

Click to expand...

What has a bigger crop factor to do with wide angle? They make those UWA lenses because somebody will pay for them. They don't exactly give them away, do they?

Frugaltraveler said:

6. The Better Build Quality Argument

Sigh. This is plain stupid. Just because a camera is full-frame doesn’t mean it’s built any better than one that is not. Some full-frame cameras have no special waterproofing or dust blocking capability. My Olympus OM-D E-M5 on the other hand does – and it’s no full-frame camera.

Click to expand...

Not all FF DSLRs are sturdy. But the sturdiest DSLRs are FF.

Frugaltraveler said:

7. The Full-Frame Cameras Look Cooler Argument

If your photography is so bad that you put more importance on how your camera looks than your images, there is no hope for you. Start learning to garden, fish or whittle – photography isn’t for you.

Click to expand...

Some like it big, some like it small. It's a myth both ways, cherished by followers of each camp.

I don't think I need an FF camera. I've got an APS-C DSLR and it suits me fine. I am sure a skilled photographer can take better pictures than I do with almost any camera, and it doesn't bother me, because this is my hobby.

What are you trying to prove - that your logic is not nearly as sharp as you pictures?

nzmacro said:

nzmacro wrote:

nzmacro said:

Frugaltraveler wrote:

Most of you know I recently switched back to a micro four thirds camera. I am more convinced than ever that these cameras perform as well as ANY camera in 95% of the situations where it counts.

While I used to be an advocate for full frame cameras, I changed my mind when I saw the advantages of going small. So to counter all the posts that are out there advocating why you need a full frame camera, here’s why I think you do not.

Click to expand...

I looked at your gallery and you are right........ YOU don't need a DSLR, let alone FF.

nzmacro said:

1. The Low Light Argument

One of the arguments for full-frame cameras is that they offer better low-light performance. They do. But while the “religion of low-light” has caught many of you in its net, the majority of the last 100 years, photographers haven’t been concerned about it. They brought their own light, made light, borrowed light, reflected light, etc.

My flashes, reflectors, hot lights, etc. will work anywhere, with or without power. Since photography is actually about light, I don’t understand the fascination for working without much of it.

Click to expand...

Lets see and I'm real basic at this stuff. Larger sensor = less noise. Again this is sounding like its all about YOU. What about a lot of other folks out there and its more than 5% !!

Click to expand...

... and it is not only about light but about natural light!

nzmacro said:

nzmacro said:

2. The Shallower Depth of Field Argument

Right after the religion of low-light, comes the shallow depth-of-field argument. You may not know this, but not every photograph requires shallow depth-of-field. In fact, most do not. But when you want it, you can have it two ways on a mirror less system. Very fast glass, i.e., 75mm (EFL 150MM) f/1.8 is plenty shallow for most situations. And post-processing tools can make an f/22 shot look like it came from a tilt-shift lens.

Click to expand...

You are right, not ever body does need or want it, but a lot do.

Click to expand...

I decided 1979 I could do without shallow DOF and got a macro lens for my standard lens. This year I saw the light and the shallow DOF through a 1,4/50mm lens on my G1. And I miss it whenever I am too lazy not to carry this lens with me.

nzmacro said:

nzmacro said:

3. The Lens Flexibility Argument

Some full-frame shooters like using old film camera lenses on their full-frame cameras. They seem to think this is only possible on full-frame. In fact, Micro Four Thirds cameras can easily, quickly and affordably be set to work with almost ANY lens, including lenses that will NOT work on full-frame cameras.

Click to expand...

Naaa, they shoot for the format size and optics. I only shoot legacy lenses on the NEX, the lenses were formulated for 35mm, you do realise that huh. Actually you probably don't.

Exactly how many have you met using MF legacy lenses on a FF DSLR ??

Click to expand...

Yes, agee, I am still thinkomg about getting a NEX for my legacy lenses.

nzmacro said:

nzmacro said:

4. The Sharpness Argument

This is the silly one in my opinion. People actually think they can make sharper photos on full-frame lenses. The physics say differently. Sharpness is controlled by MANY factors, lens, pixel depth, pixel size, subject distance, and photographer skill. To think you’ll get sharper photos just because you switch to full-frame cameras is pure horse pucky.

Click to expand...

You need a different physics class.

Click to expand...

I didn't get this NEX because I am afraid I will find bigger is better and want an FF...

Peter

...and I can do it just fine with my OM-D and ultra-fast Voigtlander lenses. The great thing about m43 and f/0.95 is you get super high speed and enough DOF for quick reaction night photos.

The term full frame is silly. To me "full frame" is the 4x5 Wista view camera I used in my late 20s & early 30s. And even 4x5 is just cropped 8x10. ;-) m43 is a domestic US postage stamp and 35mm is an overseas airmail stamp. Both tiny.

-Dave-

jackkurtz said:

jackkurtz wrote:

I agree with everyone of your points except 2. There is no replacement for shallow depth of field of Canon's 50mm f1.2 or 85mm f1.2 used wide open. How often one does that depends on one's style. I use M4:3 more and more but when I need that shallow depth of field I bust out the 5D Mark III and 50mm f1.2.

Everything else is spot on.

Click to expand...

Agree. Things change ab bit with the new metabones speed boosters, but until there is a 0.5 version, FF will have an advantage.

While I'm pretty up and up with software technology, I've yet to see software do a good enough job to replace as shot shallow DoF except for very very basic subjects/scenes. Feel free to prove me wrong with examples (ideally that you've done).

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com

full frame , medium format are superior cameras , get over it , i use an omd em5 but harbour no illusions or the classic mft inferior complex either , i prefer the size advantage

in Outdoor Photographer do tend to be taken with larger sensor, or are multiple frame composits, imho.

Always amuses me to see another myth buster post. Legends in your own mind maybe, but what does M43rd do better that's photographically related?

Actually, your post is kind of funny. You want M43rd because it's small (just guessing.) But you willing to carry flashes, reflectors, and other tools to get the light. What is the smaller system w/all the accessories you mention.

Adapters, shake reducers, braces, lighting. What have you saved? Just buy FF and be done with it. One lens and one camera will take your around the world, shooting under any set of conditions.

I don't know why people have to justify their choices so much. Just use what you like, be happy, and don't call other people's intelligent choice myth. Ah well. Hope you feel less threatened now.

Spot on assessment of the OP. I thought the same thing about carrying all that lighting equipment. I have both the OMD and Canon 6D and there are situations when I prefer one to the other. Generally, when I read a post like this it smacks of someone trying to convince themselves. So much of what is posted in these forums is a clamouring for approval and justification. RM

Frugaltraveler said:

Frugaltraveler wrote:

Most of you know I recently switched back to a micro four thirds camera. I am more convinced than ever that these cameras perform as well as ANY camera in 95% of the situations where it counts.

While I used to be an advocate for full frame cameras, I changed my mind when I saw the advantages of going small. So to counter all the posts that are out there advocating why you need a full frame camera, here’s why I think you do not.

1. The Low Light Argument

One of the arguments for full-frame cameras is that they offer better low-light performance. They do. But while the “religion of low-light” has caught many of you in its net, the majority of the last 100 years, photographers haven’t been concerned about it. They brought their own light, made light, borrowed light, reflected light, etc.

Click to expand...

That's because over the past 100 years they had to bring their own light. ASA400 film was considered "fast" and not high quality either.

Frugaltraveler said:

My flashes, reflectors, hot lights, etc. will work anywhere, with or without power. Since photography is actually about light, I don’t understand the fascination for working without much of it.

2. The Shallower Depth of Field Argument

Right after the religion of low-light, comes the shallow depth-of-field argument. You may not know this, but not every photograph requires shallow depth-of-field. In fact, most do not. But when you want it, you can have it two ways on a mirror less system. Very fast glass, i.e., 75mm (EFL 150MM) f/1.8 is plenty shallow for most situations. And post-processing tools can make an f/22 shot look like it came from a tilt-shift lens.

3. The Lens Flexibility Argument

Some full-frame shooters like using old film camera lenses on their full-frame cameras. They seem to think this is only possible on full-frame. In fact, Micro Four Thirds cameras can easily, quickly and affordably be set to work with almost ANY lens, including lenses that will NOT work on full-frame cameras.

4. The Sharpness Argument

This is the silly one in my opinion. People actually think they can make sharper photos on full-frame lenses. The physics say differently. Sharpness is controlled by MANY factors, lens, pixel depth, pixel size, subject distance, and photographer skill. To think you’ll get sharper photos just because you switch to full-frame cameras is pure horse pucky.

Click to expand...

A fallacy. It is clear that the larger the image recording size, the clearer details are. Easily seen going from 1/3.6" phone sensors to 1/1.7" high end P&S sensors to aps-c image sensors to 35mm and medium format image sensors/film.

Frugaltraveler said:

5. The Winder Angles Argument

While it’s true that ultra wide angles like 16mm etc are not available on some non-full-frame cameras, the trade off is that the very crop factor FF proponents rely on here works against them for those who need longer reach. If you’re a wildlife or sports shooter, trading ultra wide angle for longer telephoto reach is a no-brainer. And many of the smaller cameras are able to shoot 24mm un-distorted. We used to think of 35mm lenses as wide when I was a kid so 24 seems pretty wide to me.

Click to expand...

Good for you that 24mm FOV is wide enough for you. There's no prime lens for aps-c or 2x 4/3 that gives a 14mm FOV like the Canon 14mm f/2.8.

Frugaltraveler said:

6. The Better Build Quality Argument

Sigh. This is plain stupid. Just because a camera is full-frame doesn’t mean it’s built any better than one that is not. Some full-frame cameras have no special waterproofing or dust blocking capability. My Olympus OM-D E-M5 on the other hand does – and it’s no full-frame camera.

7. The Full-Frame Cameras Look Cooler Argument

If your photography is so bad that you put more importance on how your camera looks than your images, there is no hope for you. Start learning to garden, fish or whittle – photography isn’t for you.

Click to expand...

Never heard that one before, maybe you made it up? From seeing someone hold a camera, hard to tell if it is aps-c/ 2x 43 or 35mm without seeing the model name since the size difference in the cameras is actually rather small aside from SLRs trying to be small like the SL1, T5i, d3200.

nzmacro said:

nzmacro wrote:

nzmacro said:

Frugaltraveler wrote:

Most of you know I recently switched back to a micro four thirds camera. I am more convinced than ever that these cameras perform as well as ANY camera in 95% of the situations where it counts.

While I used to be an advocate for full frame cameras, I changed my mind when I saw the advantages of going small. So to counter all the posts that are out there advocating why you need a full frame camera, here’s why I think you do not.

Click to expand...

I looked at your gallery and you are right........ YOU don't need a DSLR, let alone FF.

Click to expand...

Gallery? Try checking out his website, it has expired. He apparently he doesn't need a website either!

nzmacro said:

nzmacro said:

1. The Low Light Argument

One of the arguments for full-frame cameras is that they offer better low-light performance. They do. But while the “religion of low-light” has caught many of you in its net, the majority of the last 100 years, photographers haven’t been concerned about it. They brought their own light, made light, borrowed light, reflected light, etc.

My flashes, reflectors, hot lights, etc. will work anywhere, with or without power. Since photography is actually about light, I don’t understand the fascination for working without much of it.

Click to expand...

Lets see and I'm real basic at this stuff. Larger sensor = less noise. Again this is sounding like its all about YOU. What about a lot of other folks out there and its more than 5% !!

nzmacro said:

2. The Shallower Depth of Field Argument

Right after the religion of low-light, comes the shallow depth-of-field argument. You may not know this, but not every photograph requires shallow depth-of-field. In fact, most do not. But when you want it, you can have it two ways on a mirror less system. Very fast glass, i.e., 75mm (EFL 150MM) f/1.8 is plenty shallow for most situations. And post-processing tools can make an f/22 shot look like it came from a tilt-shift lens.

Click to expand...

You are right, not ever body does need or want it, but a lot do.

nzmacro said:

3. The Lens Flexibility Argument

Some full-frame shooters like using old film camera lenses on their full-frame cameras. They seem to think this is only possible on full-frame. In fact, Micro Four Thirds cameras can easily, quickly and affordably be set to work with almost ANY lens, including lenses that will NOT work on full-frame cameras.

Click to expand...

Naaa, they shoot for the format size and optics. I only shoot legacy lenses on the NEX, the lenses were formulated for 35mm, you do realise that huh. Actually you probably don't.

Exactly how many have you met using MF legacy lenses on a FF DSLR ??

nzmacro said:

4. The Sharpness Argument

This is the silly one in my opinion. People actually think they can make sharper photos on full-frame lenses. The physics say differently. Sharpness is controlled by MANY factors, lens, pixel depth, pixel size, subject distance, and photographer skill. To think you’ll get sharper photos just because you switch to full-frame cameras is pure horse pucky.

Click to expand...

You need a different physics class.

nzmacro said:

5. The Winder Angles Argument

While it’s true that ultra wide angles like 16mm etc are not available on some non-full-frame cameras, the trade off is that the very crop factor FF proponents rely on here works against them for those who need longer reach. If you’re a wildlife or sports shooter, trading ultra wide angle for longer telephoto reach is a no-brainer. And many of the smaller cameras are able to shoot 24mm un-distorted. We used to think of 35mm lenses as wide when I was a kid so 24 seems pretty wide to me.

Click to expand...

Doesn't do much for me, I only use 300mm and above, so maybe its about ME this time

nzmacro said:

6. The Better Build Quality Argument

Sigh. This is plain stupid. Just because a camera is full-frame doesn’t mean it’s built any better than one that is not. Some full-frame cameras have no special waterproofing or dust blocking capability. My Olympus OM-D E-M5 on the other hand does – and it’s no full-frame camera.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you said "some FF cameras don't". Your Oly OMD might as well be a brick in my hands. Better off using the GH3 for me. Ever seen a FF Canon 1DX bounce off the back of a ute at 50kph with only a scratch in the bottom plate, I have. I'm glad it wasn't mine.

nzmacro said:

7. The Full-Frame Cameras Look Cooler Argument

If your photography is so bad that you put more importance on how your camera looks than your images, there is no hope for you. Start learning to garden, fish or whittle – photography isn’t for you.

Click to expand...

Mate, have you seen in this forum how many go on about a sliver/black body and what colour lenses to get for it, why can't they make that lens in black !! Ya what. Sorry what were you saying.....

Why you need to compare full frame with a half frame camera I'm not sure. Maybe you just like small cameras and that's fair enough. I shoot with enough FF users to know that they do need FF

All the best and as long as you are happy, that's great and as long as FF users are happy, well that's great as well ;-)

Danny.

--
http://www.birdsinaction.com

Click to expand...