Purchasing a NEX 5R/T or 6 a bad idea now?

Started Oct 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 17,685
Re: Of course not.

NowHearThis wrote:

The biggest issue FF has is you will never have a $500-$600 body and lenses will still always cost more than the APS-C versions.

That depends on what you mean by "APS-C versions".  If you insist on having the same maximum *relative* aperture (like f/2.8 on either system, even though it gives you different DOF and you can bump the ISO up on FF to maintain the same shutter speed while you stop down to maintain the same DOF) then yes, it will typically be more expensive.  But it doesn't have to be that way.

The normal lens is a modest 50/1.8 instead of a 35/1.8.  Instead of a 16-85 you might opt for a 24-105 or 24-120 or even step down to a 24-85.  Depending on which you choose, it might be more or less expensive, but the lenses are typically faster in terms of f-stop, and then you get the benefit of the larger sensor on top of that.

When you get to tele zooms, you might compare the Sigma 50-150 to a 70-200.  But why not opt for the 70-200/4 instead ?  Same DOF, bump the ISO one stop to compensate and you're equal on noise.

Of course, it's fair to ask what's the point of moving to FF if you're NOT going to exploit the larger sensor by keeping the same fast f-stops.  But there are reasons (increase dynamic range, lower noise when you shoot at base ISO, higher res image files, because the sensor is less demanding of the lens).

So while it's probably true that the FF kit someone would choose is typically bigger, heavier and more expensive than the kit they'd choose for APS-C, it doesn't have to be that way.

(You also have the option of shooting only certain FF lenses, and shooting others in crop mode, particularly teles).

- Dennis

-- 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