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)
1

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

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. - bold added

For me, I find the above to be least convincing reason to use one format over another.

Someone may think a phone cam photo taken with 4/3rd camera - but you wouldn't think to use phone cam instead of 4/3rd.

Again, for me, it's what I see. not what other "may" see in the photo. If I present a photo, what I used to take the photo should be irrelevant.

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.

Most reasonable photographers (including myself) would agree with the above without any reservation.

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

I disagree somewhat as this assumption can be paternalistic. OP did not ask what format would be best - the question was about a few FF brands.

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

This is simply a truism - any camera may or may not be the "best" for anyone.

What I don't understand is this implicit discouragement of FF camera being "too much" of a camera.

If everything else was equal, why wouldn't we use the camera with the largest sensor?

The larger sensor image can always be equalized to a smaller sensor performance envelope but the reverse is not really practical.

But of course, not everything else is equal - thus we end up owning more than one camera/format

I would rather see a photographer (regardless of skill level) use better glass with a cheaper or older camera body/sensor.

Can inexpensive glass take nice photos? Yes under ideal conditions.  Better glass makes up for the short comings in the camera body and performs in poor photography conditions unlike cheaper glass.

Canon L and Sigma (Art/Sports/Contemporary line) make excellent glass.  I am not a big fan of Sony & Nikon glass.

If a buyer prefers Nikon or Sony bodies, I always steer them toward Sigma glass for that reason.  Canon non-L glass is hit-or-miss.  Sigma EX-line, stay away from as their may be incompatibility issues.  I have no experience with Tamron or Fiji X-series.  I dont like Panasonic glass, unless it was co-developed with Leica.

Regarding the OP, my recommendation is to select the glass and mount they prefer best, then purchase the camera body around that mount.  If they like the Sigma or Tamron glass the best, both companies make their lenses for diffrent mounts giving them options.  If they like Canon glass, then that narrows down the camera choice to Canon (for example).

In today's photography era (2021), in my humble opinion their really is not a 'bad choice'.  All modern cameras will do a professional job as long as you understand the system and how to apply that system to the act of photography.

The question is, what system works best your you? (This is a personal question)

.... Unless we are talking about sports/action, then stay far far away from Canon RP & R.  Horrible cameras for action as the EVF refresh rate is too slow to keep up (well documented issue that I have experienced)

 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