Full frame anybody?

Started Sep 16, 2012 | Discussions
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Full frame anybody?

Jean Dupont wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Jean Dupont wrote:

Questions?

What is or would be your standard FF walkaround kit (body plus lenses)? Please be specific about your body and lens choices so that we know exactly what we are talking about.

FF body + 50mm prime will give the most natural look and perspective. I like this baby

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/

OK. That weights about a kilo. At the same weight, I could pack, for example, an E-M5, a 9-18, an X 14-42, an X 45-175, and a 45/1.8.

Now in what specific ways would your combo be superior to mine? And would there be any areas where it might, in fact, be inferior? If so which? How about the shooting styles for which you said FF was superior, such as architecture, landscapes, and action shooting to begin with?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
MAubrey
MAubrey Senior Member • Posts: 1,600
Re: Not yet...

If you have a need for a lens like that, you're in the wrong forum.
--
--Mike

 MAubrey's gear list:MAubrey's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Sony a7 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 +2 more
Ulfric M Douglas Veteran Member • Posts: 4,825
Re: Full frame anybody?

Rjansenbr2 wrote:

But now with the new Nikon D600, I am having some doubts. Will the trade off between size x quality be also justifiable? Why build up an expensive lens system around a m43, if you can get full frame? I know its more expensive, but not that much anymore...

Blimey if I'd wanted a big blobby full-frame brick I'd have got a 5DII ages ago.
Surely you can't be serious, they're two totally different systems.
If you want compact size and full-frame the solution is FILM.

TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
What is the advantage?

Sensor tech has gotten to the point where the latest and greatest M43 sensor keeps me quite happy. Under most photographic situations, a FF sensor isn't going to get you much more in terms of dynamic range, and the resolution gain really isn't all that useful to a dedicated amateur. Might have been five years ago when comparing a 5D to an E1, but today, the FF sensor is better, but its better in ways you're very unlikely to use.

All that leaves is shallow DOF. If you do any sort of long tele, FF is at a serious disadvantage on AOV, and that shallow DOF works against you - it's too shallow unless you stop down. At short focal length ranges, the shallower DOF is an advantage, but is it worth the extra cost and bulk?

And the glass... yes, there are lots of cheap lenses, but a fine lens along the lines of the 75 1.8 or 12-35... very expensive, and very large. Compare the PL25 1.4 at $600 to the Nikkor 24 1.4 at... $2100. Granted, AOV differences mean that it's not a 1 to 1 comparison, but still... that's a huge leap.

So what if Nikon makes a cheap FF in the D600 or Canon makes a cheap FF with the 6D? Sensor performance, under normal photo circumstances isn't much better than the OM-D, the system is still large, really good glass is very expensive and very large.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,038
Re: What is the advantage?

TrapperJohn wrote:

Sensor tech has gotten to the point where the latest and greatest M43 sensor keeps me quite happy. Under most photographic situations, a FF sensor isn't going to get you much more in terms of dynamic range, and the resolution gain really isn't all that useful to a dedicated amateur. Might have been five years ago when comparing a 5D to an E1, but today, the FF sensor is better, but its better in ways you're very unlikely to use.

It may be that the "latest and greatest M43 sensor keeps you quite happy", and it may be that the latest and greatest compact cames keeps others quite happy. Indeed, many are happy as a clam with their phone cams.

All that leaves is shallow DOF.

And less noise. Some people like to use higher shutter speeds in lower light.

If you do any sort of long tele, FF is at a serious disadvantage on AOV, and that shallow DOF works against you - it's too shallow unless you stop down.

Yeah -- you keep singing that tired song. There are plenty of FF shooters who shoot wide open with tele lenses. However, should they want more DOF, all they have to do is stop down. For equally efficient sensors, they will end up with the same noise for the same DOF and shutter speed.

I kinda like the look of 200mm f/2.8 on FF (100mm f/1.4 on mFT):

Canon 5D + 200 / 2.8L @ f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 50

Of course, that's not to say that some wouldn't prefer the shot at f/22 on mFT (f/45 FF equivalent).

At short focal length ranges, the shallower DOF is an advantage, but is it worth the extra cost and bulk?

That's a subjective opinion. In my case, yes, yes it is:

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/1.4, 1/1000, ISO 100

For others, no, no it is not. Again, they'd rather take the shot at f/22 (f/45 FF equivalent).

And the glass... yes, there are lots of cheap lenses, but a fine lens along the lines of the 75 1.8 or 12-35... very expensive, and very large. Compare the PL25 1.4 at $600 to the Nikkor 24 1.4 at... $2100. Granted, AOV differences mean that it's not a 1 to 1 comparison, but still... that's a huge leap.

What is the sense in comparing 25mm f/1.4 on mFT to 24mm f/1.4 on FF? 25mm f/1.4 on mFT will produce the same types of photos as 50mm f/2.8 on FF, and 24mm f/1.4 on FF will produce the same types of photos as 12mm f/0.7 on mFT.

So what if Nikon makes a cheap FF in the D600 or Canon makes a cheap FF with the 6D? Sensor performance, under normal photo circumstances isn't much better than the OM-D, the system is still large, really good glass is very expensive and very large.

So what if Olympus makes the OM-D? The system is still large, really good glass is very expensive and very large. Get an RX100 instead.

Isn't that what you're saying?

Aleo Veuliah
MOD Aleo Veuliah Forum Pro • Posts: 14,738
Re: Not here. (nt)

nt

-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +6 more
Chez Wimpy
Chez Wimpy Veteran Member • Posts: 8,997
Re: What is the advantage?

TrapperJohn wrote:

All that leaves is shallow DOF.

And that is why I still have my FF gear.

The price isn't one-sided however, you can get a 85/1.8 for $400... the upcoming Panasonic 85/2.5 (err, 42.5mm f1.2, right, sorry!) will almost certainly be priced over $1000 - and a stop slower if you are shooting shallow DOF. Two stops if you are (like me) a fan of the 85L. The 0.95 lenses are 4x as expensive as their FF counter-parts, and missing any AF ability at all. The 12/2 compares well with a FF 24mm lens performance... but not if light gathering matters, which is why the 24L looks quite reasonable at a little less than $2k (2x the price but 8x the photons). On m43 we are paying a premium for downsizing and portability.

When I am not working on fetishistic shallow DOF (1.2-1.4), or fetishistic deep DOF (TSE lenses), more often than not I am shooting m43.

-- hide signature --

-CW

 Chez Wimpy's gear list:Chez Wimpy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Canon EOS 550D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +29 more
Louis_Dobson
Louis_Dobson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,493
Re: Full frame anybody?

I went the other way - full frame is too damn bulky, and it's party trick (high ISO) does not interest me. Low ISO image quality is now more or less identical between FF and MFT, but FF is a pain to carry and MFT is not.

Anyone who was avoiding FF for price reasons should now go get it.

Rjansenbr2 wrote:

I have just got a new OM-D and I am really pleased with the images it can produce.

Also the camera is small (althought not pocketable) and very sturdy and nice to use.

I was pretty much convinced that the m43 clearly won the trade off in size x quality against apc-s Dslrs.

But now with the new Nikon D600, I am having some doubts. Will the trade off between size x quality be also justifiable? Why build up an expensive lens system around a m43, if you can get full frame? I know its more expensive, but not that much anymore...

BTW a really like the OM-D but are you also having second thoughts?

 Louis_Dobson's gear list:Louis_Dobson's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
unsandpiperpc New Member • Posts: 10
Re: What is the advantage?

Great Bustard wrote:

I kinda like the look of 200mm f/2.8 on FF (100mm f/1.4 on mFT):

So what if Olympus makes the OM-D? The system is still large, really good glass is very expensive and very large. Get an RX100 instead.

m43 lenses are very small and light, even if they are expensive.

I have a lens pouch designed to hold the 200mm 2.8. Instead of carrying that lens I use the pouch to carry my entire m43 setup - OMD with 25mm 1.4 attached. Under that in two columns I have the 75mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8, 20mm 1.7, 12mm 2.0 and 8mm 3.5 fisheye.

SergeyGreen
SergeyGreen Contributing Member • Posts: 582
If I may ..

unsandpiperpc wrote:

m43 lenses are very small and light, even if they are expensive.

They are quite limited for their price.

I have a lens pouch designed to hold the 200mm 2.8. Instead of carrying that lens I use the pouch to carry my entire m43 setup - OMD with 25mm 1.4 attached. Under that in two columns I have the 75mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8, 20mm 1.7, 12mm 2.0 and 8mm 3.5 fisheye.

It is all fine, but why would you need to carry all these lenses with you. Do you have favourites?

-- hide signature --

-sergey

wolfie
wolfie Veteran Member • Posts: 3,821
RX1 - the one trick pony from Sony

Mike Fewster wrote:

It's early days but that shot is impressive and demonstrates the "why" of ff. Not a system camera like mft of course, but I can see a lot of serious photographers wanting one of these or similar in their shirt pocket.
--

Frankly I don't find the shot impressive and the whole idea of a FF fixed lens compact is a waste of the sensor shackled to one lens - and the price says it all when you see how its lines up against the versatility of the new lower priced Nikon and Canon "budget" FF DSLRs. If Sony had the b*lls to put it into a NEX ILC -sized body it would have made sense. The Sigma Merill DP's probably will turn in just as good resolution at half the price ...or get two so you have a wide and standard for less than the one-trick pony from Sony!

-- hide signature --

Shoot the Light fantastic

 wolfie's gear list:wolfie's gear list
Canon G7 X II Nikon 1 AW1 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +1 more
Franka T.L. Veteran Member • Posts: 8,148
Not the camera, bu the total setup

Well , the OM-D is of course much more compact , but that's not the whole of the story. If I want really compact and just might be one lens for it there are load of options. Building a setup and a system its something else. Quality image can only be made with quality capture, and that entitle using the better body and lens. After all that then, its calling a setup with a camera bag.

I can only speak for myself, but my kind of setup ( FOR OUTDOOR , not urban ) would usually be 2 bodies with 5 lens , the super wide, wide, standard, long focal , tele / Macro ) FOA, there is no tele macro in M4/3 , nit until Panasonic deliver that 150 they've announced. But let say we have that. After all the setup/ there is really little to be gained whether I am with a FF, APS-C or M4/3 in term of bulk.

What the like of mirrorless excel would be in relatively constrained setup, more like the single lens or the old fashion wide-standard-long focal. the OM-D with the 12mm/14mm , 20mm/25mm and the 45 would made a ddecent setup where the same for a FF would be bulkier and weight more. However, its also given a FF would likely offer more flexibility due to the sensor and the multitude of lens avai.

So it goes as to the usage and setup, not just the body.

-- hide signature --

  • Franka -

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 58,572
Re: What is the advantage?

unsandpiperpc wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

I kinda like the look of 200mm f/2.8 on FF (100mm f/1.4 on mFT):

So what if Olympus makes the OM-D? The system is still large, really good glass is very expensive and very large. Get an RX100 instead.

m43 lenses are very small and light

It's all relative. mFT lenses might be 'small and light' compared to FF lenses (and even then, it can be marginal) but the certainly are not 'small and light' compared with the lens on a RX100. By the same token, 135 FF lenses are 'small and light' compared with MF lenses.
--
Bob

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: Full frame anybody?

FF isn't all roses. The D600 is an amazing camera. Actually all the FF bodies are immensely capable as are all recent DSLRs and mirrorless. My personal bias is that I think it comes down to your style and knowing well what you like in a camera and what your shooting situation is. If you shoot regularly for money, DSLRs are probably better as a system, though m43 is basically there now with the EM5 and GH3.

Hybrid stills and video: GH3 is a winner. EM5 is also a winner with the IBIS and fast primes.

DOF control: This is still the domain of FF. Even with fast glass on M43, I prefer the separation I can get with say 135/2 on FF. But that's a very specific thing, and I could in reality live without it.

The tradeoff often boils down to the fact that m43 is smaller and lighter at the expense of IQ. You essentially trade IQ for having the camera with you more often. So it's not marketed this way, but in practice many of us find that m43 provides more opportunities because we are more likely to go out the door with the camera. If you will take you camera with you regardless of the size of the kit, then FF wins of course. But it's never that easy is it?

-- hide signature --

SLOtographer

"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell

Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: Full frame anybody?

I use all kinds of hammers in my profession....not just one.
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital IV Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II +40 more
Sean Nelson
Sean Nelson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,985
Re: Full frame anybody?

Boris wrote:

I use all kinds of hammers in my profession....not just one.

Yeah, but if I wanted to have hammering capability with me everywhere I go you can be sure I'd pick only one, and it would be the one that I'd expect would do the best job for most of my needs.

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Not the camera, bu the total setup

Franka T.L. wrote:

Well , the OM-D is of course much more compact , but that's not the whole of the story. If I want really compact and just might be one lens for it there are load of options. Building a setup and a system its something else. Quality image can only be made with quality capture, and that entitle using the better body and lens. After all that then, its calling a setup with a camera bag.

I can only speak for myself, but my kind of setup ( FOR OUTDOOR , not urban ) would usually be 2 bodies with 5 lens , the super wide, wide, standard, long focal , tele / Macro ) FOA, there is no tele macro in M4/3 , nit until Panasonic deliver that 150 they've announced. But let say we have that. After all the setup/ there is really little to be gained whether I am with a FF, APS-C or M4/3 in term of bulk.

What are you talking about here? The difference is huge and a major reason why I am shooting MFT rather than FF. A setup like the one you are describing is far bulkier and heavier with FF than with MFT. Two MFT bodies (say 400 g each) with 9-18/4-5.6 (150 g), 12/2 (150 g), 20/1.7 (100 g), 45/1.8 (100 g) and X 45-175/4-5.6 (200 g) yields a total of 1500 g and that's about as much as I am ready to carry for a day out (although my choice of exactly what to carry is slightly different from yours and so wouldn't look quite like the example I just provided).

What FF bodies and lenses would you put in your bag for the same coverage of FLs and the same weight?

What the like of mirrorless excel would be in relatively constrained setup, more like the single lens or the old fashion wide-standard-long focal. the OM-D with the 12mm/14mm , 20mm/25mm and the 45 would made a ddecent setup where the same for a FF would be bulkier and weight more. However, its also given a FF would likely offer more flexibility due to the sensor and the multitude of lens avai.

So it goes as to the usage and setup, not just the body.

-- hide signature --

  • Franka -

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Not the camera, bu the total setup

Anders W wrote:

Franka T.L. wrote:

Well , the OM-D is of course much more compact , but that's not the whole of the story. If I want really compact and just might be one lens for it there are load of options. Building a setup and a system its something else. Quality image can only be made with quality capture, and that entitle using the better body and lens. After all that then, its calling a setup with a camera bag.

I can only speak for myself, but my kind of setup ( FOR OUTDOOR , not urban ) would usually be 2 bodies with 5 lens , the super wide, wide, standard, long focal , tele / Macro ) FOA, there is no tele macro in M4/3 , nit until Panasonic deliver that 150 they've announced. But let say we have that. After all the setup/ there is really little to be gained whether I am with a FF, APS-C or M4/3 in term of bulk.

What are you talking about here? The difference is huge and a major reason why I am shooting MFT rather than FF. A setup like the one you are describing is far bulkier and heavier with FF than with MFT. Two MFT bodies (say 400 g each) with 9-18/4-5.6 (150 g), 12/2 (150 g), 20/1.7 (100 g), 45/1.8 (100 g) and X 45-175/4-5.6 (200 g) yields a total of 1500 g and that's about as much as I am ready to carry for a day out (although my choice of exactly what to carry is slightly different from yours and so wouldn't look quite like the example I just provided).

What FF bodies and lenses would you put in your bag for the same coverage of FLs and the same weight?

Correction: I meant to say FoVs, not FLs, in the sentence just above.

What the like of mirrorless excel would be in relatively constrained setup, more like the single lens or the old fashion wide-standard-long focal. the OM-D with the 12mm/14mm , 20mm/25mm and the 45 would made a ddecent setup where the same for a FF would be bulkier and weight more. However, its also given a FF would likely offer more flexibility due to the sensor and the multitude of lens avai.

So it goes as to the usage and setup, not just the body.

-- hide signature --

  • Franka -

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
CharlesB58 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,942
Re: Full frame anybody?

My goal is to have both a FF system and m4/3. Different tools for different situations. I shoot powwows as well as musicians in concert, often with the musicians being in smaller venues such as clubs and restaurants. While a large, FF kit won't be very obtrusive at a powwow, in a place where I am among patrons, 10 to 15 feet from the performer, I'd prefer a smaller, less obtrusive kit.

I've been at such events where someone has had a nice big CaNikon rig. The other patrons were not amused by having said photographer stalking around with a big camera that was louder than the performer.

Also, I want to have a camera with me all the time. My Android phone does a decent job of it, but I'd still rather have something like an EPL5 or even an EPM2 with me when I see something I want to capture.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: What is the advantage?

bobn2 wrote:

unsandpiperpc wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

I kinda like the look of 200mm f/2.8 on FF (100mm f/1.4 on mFT):

So what if Olympus makes the OM-D? The system is still large, really good glass is very expensive and very large. Get an RX100 instead.

m43 lenses are very small and light

It's all relative.

Except the borders of acceptability.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads