Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
ikolbyi Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Please help me to choose a FF camera system (landscape, wildlife)

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

techie takes pics wrote:

You've probably read that full frame is the 'best' so you must absolutely have full frame.

You want it so much that you're willing to compromise on lenses.

If you are the owner of a pizza shop, will you spend a lot of time deciding between a Ferrari or a Lamborghini for your delivery? Surely it matters, as the 'best' car delivers the best pizza's, right?

I always recommend that a camera is best equipped with lenses about 2-3 times the price of the body - as a rule of thumb.

If you spend your budget on the body and have to equip it with the cheapest kit lens, consider selling frozen pizzas, but hey, at least they are delivery by a Ferrari.

The lens defines the picture; the composition, sharpness, image quality. The camera merely records what it receives.
When you skew the balance too much towards the exiting black box with all the buttons and the high review scores, you run into the law of diminishing returns. A system delivers better pictures for your dollar or euro, if you apply some balance; the 1 : 2-3 ratio I suggested. Not: 1 : 0.1 .

For 2500, I would recommend either:

  • a 2500 body and expect to invest another 5000 in lenses, to unlock its potential; or:
  • 2500 as total budget, 600-800 on a body and the rest in fantastic lenses.

Lenses are important. - bold added

But so is the body - I used to agree with your bolded statement without reservation until someone pointed out that the "better" body improves all the lens you have.

Image MTF is result of the sensor MTF and the lens MTF and those values are multiplicative. So the lower MTF of body will lower the lens MTF more than the higher MTF body.

With the maturing digital camera, I would rather invest in the best body I can afford now and add "better" lens over time.

And FF sensor camera does have the "more" technical image quality over the crop sensors (of course, MF sensor camera has even "more" technical image quality over the FF camera) . That is simply the mathematical fact. Whether one can appreciate and make most of it, does, of course, depends on the photographer,

I am a MF & m4/3 photographer and I use to use APSC & FF sensor cameras.  The sensor is not everything: 40% of it is the lens, 20% is the camera body and 40% is the person behind the camera.  I have m4/3 prints hanging on my wall in print size 24x20, and people thought I used my MF camera to take them.

I use each camera (and lens) for different reasons as both systems have their strenghts and weaknesses.  Yes, MF has weaknesses that m4/3 are better at.

In order to fully answer the OP question, we need to understand their reasoning behind only FF cameras.

FF may or may not be the "best" for them.

 ikolbyi's gear list:ikolbyi's gear list
Olympus E-M5 III Olympus E-M1 III Voigtlander 75mm F1.8 Heliar Classic Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow