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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
ikolbyi Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Why only full-frame?

Craig Gillette wrote:

I'd suggest being harshly realistic about your budget and secondarily weight and bulk if doing a lot of traveling. It's easy for us to blow your budget and none of us are carrying your kit around, on or off planes, etc.

FF, without some carefully selective choices is typically still going to be bigger and more expensive than smaller sensor systems. If you have $xxxx, that can go to lenses and bodies, if it too much goes to a body, then there's less left for lenses, tripods, etc. So while system performance is climbing and prices seem to be lowering, the cutting edge is still pricey and it may be sensible and wise to stay with a smaller sensor system. There are seriously good offerings in aps-c and M43.

We can't really make ff cameras too much smaller. Many users want comprehensive external control packages, dual card slots, respectable battery life, etc. For example, aside from the small, aps-c similar A7C, the Sony ff A7s, etc., have been creeping up some in size. But generally still smaller than most higher end dslrs. Price, size and weight are legitimate issues to consider.

There really aren't mirror-less aps-cs comparable to say the Canon 7D series or D500 Nikon. Aside from Sony and Fuji, most of the other players in mirror-less are later to the game to their systems are less comprehensive.

One thing that is worth a thought or two, the high res ffs can be cropped to useful aps-c levels of pixel density, like the A7Riv crops to 26 mp. A tad larger than the common 24 mp aps-c. So they have the high res if desired for large prints and can take advantage of the "crop factor," so to speak, for use with longer focal lengths. One can use the crop feature when using aps-c lenses (if available in that system) or simply crop in post, too.

At this point, Sony is the easiest to integrate aps-c and ff together if thinking of going aps-c with an eye to maybe add ff later.. The lens mount is the same, there's a pretty broad range of available bodies and lenses. fuji doesn't have an ff to go to. Canon seems to not have wroked out compatibility and forward integration of their aps-c offerings with the new mirror-less mount. Nikon is slowly building their system, not as much in aps-c as Sony but the same mount and no compatibility issues.

- Based on the feedback of the OP (travel, wildlife, etc..) and your summary you outlined, this is why I am recommending the OP seriously consider Olympus/OMD.  It is the best "bang-for-the-buck" and not because I am using the system today.

My only reservation with Panasonic are their camera bodies tend to be the same size as FF camera bodies.  I am not sure why?  Olympus has kept true to travel size and the EM5.m3 may be the perfect camera for them.  They can use the extra cash and buy pro-grade lenses rather than 'kit lenses'.

 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