Full frame

allsta7610 said:

Is it seriously worth purchasing a 6d or a 5d mk2 or mk3 if you want full frame on a budget. I have a 77d and a g85

Click to expand...

That's between you and your local loan shark.

If you're going to get one, get the 5d mk3; it has much better AF. Forget about the 5d mk2; it is too old to bother with.

allsta7610 said:

Is it seriously worth purchasing a 6d or a 5d mk2 or mk3 if you want full frame on a budget.

Click to expand...

The 5D2 & 3 both suffered from low dynamic range and banding when lifting shadows. I would recommend the 5D4 if you shoot landscape and if you can find one in your price range.

allstar7610 said:

I have a 77d and a g85

Click to expand...

I have no idea what these are so I cannot comment.

I'm more than likely getting a 5d classic or mk2 or a 6d

Member said:

Although, biggest sensor isn't necessarily the best in practice as one can see on example of Fujifilm GFX system, which has a larger sensor than FF but doesn't have particularly fast lenses in equivalent terms.

Click to expand...

Medium format (MF) has a 1.25 factor against full-frame. Meaning if your MF lens is 50mm F4, it will be equivalent to 40mm F/2.8 compared to FF.

Gear list updated

allsta7610 said:

Gear list updated

Click to expand...

I didn't read every comment to your original post but read enough to get a "kick" out of the arguments/disagreements about everything from sensor sizes to dynamic rage and about anything else that could be compared to different cameras.

I really believe the people who've told you in order to be taken seriously, you have to use a full frame camera are wrong and that the differences between full frame and smaller sensors really aren't that great in most situations.

That's not to say full frame isn't "better" in some ways, but provided a person buys good lenses, most of the differences aren't noticeable to us mere mortals.
Yes, there might be a slight difference in dynamic range (maybe) and if you have to shoot at extremely high ISO a full frame camera with a 1.4 lens will have less noise than a camera with an APS size sensor and a 1.4 lens but, seriously, how many people, even professionals, shoot in complete darkness?
I have a full frame camera that I love, but my "love" for that camera has very little to do with its sensor size and much more to do with the lens and overall joy of using the camera (it's hard to explain).
When I compare images taken with that camera and pictures that have been taken with a smaller sensor, I see very little difference when it comes to dynamic range, background blur or even noise. (I will admit that I don't shoot in the dark)

Anyway, I'm a person who believes lenses are more important than sensor size, but I also think that if someone is craving a camera with a full frame sensor, they should get one and satisfy their itch. Just be sure to get a good lens.
Good luck.

I 'upgraded' from an old Sony Alpha APC 5000 with a kit lens and a Panasonic FZ1000 bridge camera to the Nikon Z5 with 24-200 and the new 40MM F2. The IQ is better but on small screens is it that much better? The shallow DOF is nice but often too shallow compared to the bridge camera. The separate flash is something else to lug around.

The High ISO is fantastic, however! The dynamic range is wonderful. The colors are great. The learning curve wasn't bad as the Nikon menu system is excellent. The 1080P video is very good. Would I do it again? I would probably just buy an RX10V as I really miss the long reach. The 24-200 is wonderful but not long. I miss the macro as well.
TJC

Full Frame? It's a fad. "It too will pass" And then FF will be in the same category as Medium Format. Only pros and really well financed amateur hobbyists will be able to afford them. And unless manufacturers come up with some low dollar ($500 or so) entry level ILC's, phones are all there will be left for the average joe once the used market is depleted, to take pictures with.

Bob A L said:

Full Frame? It's a fad. "It too will pass" And then FF will be in the same category as Medium Format. Only pros and really well financed amateur hobbyists will be able to afford them. And unless manufacturers come up with some low dollar ($500 or so) entry level ILC's, phones are all there will be left for the average joe once the used market is depleted, to take pictures with.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree about full frame being a fad, but I think you make a good point about the price of cameras and the average person.

One of the reasons the "average" person uses a cell phone could be because of the prices manufacturers charge for even a compact camera with only a one-inch sensor.

A lot of these people see no reason to spend close to a thousand-dollars (or more) for a point & shoot camera when they already have a phone that takes pictures.

And, when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras, the percentage of people interested in spending enough money to buy a good camera and a decent lens is very low, especially among younger people.

Let's face it, a phone does everything they need, from talking and texting to taking pictures and surfing the Internet.

Ed B said:

Anyway, I'm a person who believes lenses are more important than sensor size

Click to expand...

Ed - I agree with you 1000%.

I would rather see someone using 15+ year old camera with excellent glass than a modern camera body (regardless of sensor size) with 'kit' (inexpensive) class.

The lens makes the image more-so than the camera body.

allsta7610 said:

Gear list updated

Click to expand...

Thank you for updating your gear list, it was helpful. After seeing what you are using today, I understand your frustration having owned and/or used almost all of your lenses. Based on my personal experience, I didn't care for my photography results until I replaced my/those lenses.

If you are happy with your Canon 77D camera body, I would recommend replacing your lenses especially now since EF-mount lenses are heavily discounted.

ikolbyi said:

MCLV said:

Although, biggest sensor isn't necessarily the best in practice as one can see on example of Fujifilm GFX system, which has a larger sensor than FF but doesn't have particularly fast lenses in equivalent terms.

Click to expand...

Medium format (MF) has a 1.25 factor against full-frame. Meaning if your MF lens is 50mm F4, it will be equivalent to 40mm F/2.8 compared to FF.

Click to expand...

f/4 on Fujifilm GFX is equivalent to f/3.2 on FF. Their two fastest lenses which I was able to find are 80 mm f/1.7 and 110 mm f/2. That is equivalent to 64 mm f/1.36 and 88 mm f/1.6 on FF. Which means that FF systems have lenses that provide thinner DOF despite the fact that FF has smaller sensor than Fujifilm GFX.

J A C S said:

But then you can just get the 400/2.8 on FF; crop when needed and not when it is not needed. You’d have a zoom, effectively. Also, with a crop body, you are using the transition zone too much. When I was shooting crop wit the 135L, I could not understand what that fuss was all about. The bokeh was not great even though it was strong. Now, I know what makes the 135L great. Same with the 70-200/4. Harsh bokeh, not that you cannot blur the BG enough but it did not look great. On FF, no problems. Not to mention the better resolution.

Click to expand...

Discussion of performance of lenses adapted to a different format is irrelevant to a question if equivalent lenses can provide the same IQ or not.

By the way, doesn't the fact that you had to adapt FF lenses to APS-C support my point that the format is somewhat neglected by manufacturers?

J A C S said:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60622406 There are some differences in the distance to the subject, the model position, but in general, you can see that in the center, the Fuji is just slightly behind in blur; but away from it, it is even more. There must be a price to pay for squeezing the same image onto a smaller area.

Click to expand...

That comparison is far from well controlled enough to allow making general conclusions about FF vs APS-C performance.

Shots in the interior from Canon seem focused more to the front and that would produce more blur in the background. But that is impossible to tell with certainty since we don't see any blurred foreground.

Shots at the brick wall were clearly taken at different distance from the wall which significantly influences resulting blur.

Good follow up. That's how I see it also. They are pricing themselves out of the market. And cell phone providers make it almost too easy to own a top of the line phone.

Bob A L said:

Good follow up. That's how I see it also. They are pricing themselves out of the market. And cell phone providers make it almost too easy to own a top of the line phone.

Click to expand...

The "Point-n-Shoot" cameras have been almost completely replaced by the mobile phone due to similar photo quality and desire to carry one device.

Fuji figured out what customers really want: creative opportunities that mobile phones can't capture in a smaller package. Olympus/OMD could dominat right now if their marketing department had a clue who their audience is.

allsta7610 said:

Gear list updated

Click to expand...

Nice.

You have EF 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 for the 77D. Those would transfer well to a FF body, like an old 5D. I bet you could get one of those for super cheap, and as long as you're not shooting sports, AF would be fine.

On the other hand, when you use those lenses on the 77D, do you find you're missing something when you shoot with those lenses? Do you want even thinner DoF? If not, just take a pass on FF.

It seems like you're missing a fast wide angle lens for it. I like a 35/2 for my FF body; I use it as my all-around fast prime. That would be about a 22 mm for your APS-C body. Do you ever use that focal length and miss the thinner depth of field that you can't get with your 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit zoom?

Now, you have APS-C and MFT systems.

You could keep MFT, sell the 77D body and zoom lenses, only keeping the fast primes, then add a nice used FF body to use them.

Then, you'd have the nice FF body & lenses for when you want thin DoF and the awesome portability of MFT when you don't need the thin DoF.

That's what I do. I also have to admit that lately, I shoot film when I shoot FF and MFT gets the call most of the rest of the time...

Smaug01 said:

allsta7610 said:

Gear list updated

Click to expand...

Nice.

You have EF 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 for the 77D. Those would transfer well to a FF body, like an old 5D. I bet you could get one of those for super cheap, and as long as you're not shooting sports, AF would be fine.

On the other hand, when you use those lenses on the 77D, do you find you're missing something when you shoot with those lenses? Do you want even thinner DoF? If not, just take a pass on FF.

It seems like you're missing a fast wide angle lens for it. I like a 35/2 for my FF body; I use it as my all-around fast prime. That would be about a 22 mm for your APS-C body. Do you ever use that focal length and miss the thinner depth of field that you can't get with your 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit zoom?

Click to expand...

EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM. Real peach of a lens, shar as sharp even wide open. £130 aprx new. No brainer. Had it when I shot APSC Canon. Now use an XF 23mm F2. Both as good as each other except for F2 of course. The 24mm F2.8 is really that good.

Smaug01 said:

allsta7610 said:

Gear list updated

Click to expand...

Nice.

You have EF 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 for the 77D. Those would transfer well to a FF body, like an old 5D. I bet you could get one of those for super cheap, and as long as you're not shooting sports, AF would be fine.

Click to expand...

The 5D is very good for sports providing you use the center focus point only which is cross type. I never had any issues shooting thousands of images in show jumping and modern dance performances

Smaug01 said:

On the other hand, when you use those lenses on the 77D, do you find you're missing something when you shoot with those lenses? Do you want even thinner DoF? If not, just take a pass on FF.

It seems like you're missing a fast wide angle lens for it. I like a 35/2 for my FF body; I use it as my all-around fast prime. That would be about a 22 mm for your APS-C body. Do you ever use that focal length and miss the thinner depth of field that you can't get with your 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit zoom?

Click to expand...

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

MCLV said:

J A C S said:

But then you can just get the 400/2.8 on FF; crop when needed and not when it is not needed. You’d have a zoom, effectively. Also, with a crop body, you are using the transition zone too much. When I was shooting crop wit the 135L, I could not understand what that fuss was all about. The bokeh was not great even though it was strong. Now, I know what makes the 135L great. Same with the 70-200/4. Harsh bokeh, not that you cannot blur the BG enough but it did not look great. On FF, no problems. Not to mention the better resolution.

Click to expand...

Discussion of performance of lenses adapted to a different format is irrelevant to a question if equivalent lenses can provide the same IQ or not.

Click to expand...

It is relevant. Actually, you were the one who brought it in, in the now removed quotes.

Member said:

By the way, doesn't the fact that you had to adapt FF lenses to APS-C support my point that the format is somewhat neglected by manufacturers?

Click to expand...

Did you ever wonder why? BTW, I agreed that it is neglected by Canon (and Nikon) but not by Fuji, obviously.

Member said:

Member said:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60622406 There are some differences in the distance to the subject, the model position, but in general, you can see that in the center, the Fuji is just slightly behind in blur; but away from it, it is even more. There must be a price to pay for squeezing the same image onto a smaller area.

Click to expand...

That comparison is far from well controlled enough to allow making general conclusions about FF vs APS-C performance.

Click to expand...

It does not need to be. They have small differences, as I mentioned but there are several of them, enough for a trend to emmerge.

Member said:

Shots in the interior from Canon seem focused more to the front

Click to expand...

Not for all of them if any.

Member said:

and that would produce more blur in the background. But that is impossible to tell with certainty since we don't see any blurred foreground.

Click to expand...

We do not? It is very clear that the Fuji 23mm is too sharp on the left of the picture, and more or less similar to the Canon in the center. This cannot be explained by diferent positions. There is a much simpler explanation - the Fuji vignettes a lot wide open (so does the Canon) but the Canon is stopped down.

Member said:

Shots at the brick wall were clearly taken at different distance from the wall which significantly influences resulting blur.

Click to expand...

The lenses my not be exactly FL equivalent, etc. Still three lenses, several shots - and Fuji always loses, and in this case - it loses by a mile?