Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
Mike_1972 New Member • Posts: 16
Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

In terms of image quality and performance, which is better for stills? I'm sure it depends on which cameras and lenses are chosen and what is meant by better, but can 1 say since the mirrorless would have a bigger sensor, image quality is likely better?

I'm thinking of cameras around a pound in weight and under $1000 used. Maybe the Canon EOS RP?

Thanks for any feedback.

baloo_buc Forum Pro • Posts: 10,150
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
1

You will be better with a full frame DSLR. Same price as mirrorless but better and cheaper lenses.

-- hide signature --

Victor
Bucuresti, Romania

 baloo_buc's gear list:baloo_buc's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II +16 more
OP Mike_1972 New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

baloo_buc wrote:

You will be better with a full frame DSLR. Same price as mirrorless but better and cheaper lenses.

Weight is a major concern, so my only full frame options are the EOS RP or A7ii.

AlbertTheLazy
AlbertTheLazy Veteran Member • Posts: 7,836
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
5

Mike_1972 wrote:

In terms of image quality and performance, which is better for stills? I'm sure it depends on which cameras and lenses are chosen and what is meant by better, but can 1 say since the mirrorless would have a bigger sensor, image quality is likely better?

Quite simply, the viewfinder technology has absolutely no bearing on pure image quality. So a full frame camera of any type will beat a crop frame camera of any type, assuming similar lens and sensor quality.

-- hide signature --

Albert the lazy photographer
Having fun with my cameras in Scotland

 AlbertTheLazy's gear list:AlbertTheLazy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Fujifilm X-T1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +4 more
baloo_buc Forum Pro • Posts: 10,150
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
2

I would be worried if a 241 g will make me collapse. Put a lens for each and you may see that the difference is laughable.

Let's put some real lenses on Sony A7II body and Nikon D750. A walkaround lens would be Sony FE 28-135 mm f/4 (1215 g) and, respectively, 24-120 mm f/4 (710 g).

So a real comparison would be Sony A7II (599+1215=1814 g) vs Nikon D750 (840+710=1550 g). If you consider weight the main criterion why would you buy Sony?!

-- hide signature --

Victor
Bucuresti, Romania

 baloo_buc's gear list:baloo_buc's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Nikon D7200 Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II +16 more
khunpapa
khunpapa Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

If weight is your primary concern, you better leave the FF. The body may be light, but the lenses are not.

As now, photo is hobby and memory capturing/sharing means for me, I stick with the m4/3 system. More than enough for everyday life.

[babbling : on]

In fact, I now consider the realFF 'system' : film photography. Because I no more have to rush to capture every 'decisive moments'. Hundreds or thousands such moment may be passing by. So what? Less and less people seeanypictures more than 3 seconds. Lesser have enough tolerance to see more than 30 pictures in one session.

-- hide signature --

Flashes of my Memory.

 khunpapa's gear list:khunpapa's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS Sigma DP1 +7 more
The Mad Kiwi Contributing Member • Posts: 889
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
2

The reality is that all modern cameras produce good enough images for 99% of photography.

That said I'd buy a mirrorless body, they're much nicer to use than dslrs, WYSIWYG viewfinders and much easier use than optical viewfinders, focus points all over the frame etc

If my budget was under $1000 and weight was a main consideration I'd be looking at M43 rather than FF.

 The Mad Kiwi's gear list:The Mad Kiwi's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +7 more
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,790
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
1

The Mad Kiwi wrote:

The reality is that all modern cameras produce good enough images for 99% of photography.

True.

That said I'd buy a mirrorless body, they're much nicer to use than dslrs, WYSIWYG viewfinders and much easier use than optical viewfinders,

But here's the problem with advising other people - I disagree strongly with what you say above. Every mirrorless camera I've tried feels clumsy in the hand compared with mu DSLRs that fit beautifully; the controls are either of a type I don't like or are poorly laid out (or both). And as I shoot raw the viewfinder is miles away from WYSIWIG so it's just a distraction. I can think of no viewfinder easier to use than one that shows me the scene rather than some programmer's idea of how it should look.

focus points all over the frame etc

A nice addition but I can't say I've ever run out of AF points using my DSLRs.

If my budget was under $1000 and weight was a main consideration I'd be looking at M43 rather than FF.

And mine would be the cheaper Pentax DSLRs such as K-70 - 688g and Pentax has a range of very light-weight lenses.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

beagle1 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,822
___ ___ _________ small size and weight

Mike_1972 wrote:

In terms of image quality and performance, which is better for stills? I'm sure it depends on which cameras and lenses are chosen and what is meant by better, but can 1 say since the mirrorless would have a bigger sensor, image quality is likely better?

I'm thinking of cameras around a pound in weight and under $1000 used. Maybe the Canon EOS RP?

Thanks for any feedback.

If weight is a major concern look at mirrorless - Canon R or RP

I use the older Canon M5 and "pancake" lens for travel

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

PieterB
PieterB Senior Member • Posts: 1,433
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
1

AlbertTheLazy wrote:

Mike_1972 wrote:

In terms of image quality and performance, which is better for stills? I'm sure it depends on which cameras and lenses are chosen and what is meant by better, but can 1 say since the mirrorless would have a bigger sensor, image quality is likely better?

Quite simply, the viewfinder technology has absolutely no bearing on pure image quality. So a full frame camera of any type will beat a crop frame camera of any type, assuming similar lens and sensor quality.

That isn't true. The Canon RP gets beaten by almost every new aps-c camera iq wise and in low-light. Not to mention video because nearly every camera is better than the Canon RP. The same with the Canon 6d which isn't good at all in low-light and really sucks at video, as do most Canon cameras (not all).

If you choose full frame you will only get the maximum benefit if you buy really decent lenses. And we all know they are very expensive and the zooms are also very heavy and bulky.

Not to mention the fact that the advantage of the better FF cameras is mainly in low-light. With good light, there is hardly any benefit at all.

If weight is an issue, the OP will make a better choice going for aps-c.

-- hide signature --

No life without a camera.

 PieterB's gear list:PieterB's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A900 Sony RX100 VA Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6300 Sony a6400 +10 more
PieterB
PieterB Senior Member • Posts: 1,433
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR
1

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

The Mad Kiwi wrote:

The reality is that all modern cameras produce good enough images for 99% of photography.

True.

That said I'd buy a mirrorless body, they're much nicer to use than dslrs, WYSIWYG viewfinders and much easier use than optical viewfinders,

But here's the problem with advising other people - I disagree strongly with what you say above. Every mirrorless camera I've tried feels clumsy in the hand compared with mu DSLRs that fit beautifully; the controls are either of a type I don't like or are poorly laid out (or both). And as I shoot raw the viewfinder is miles away from WYSIWIG so it's just a distraction. I can think of no viewfinder easier to use than one that shows me the scene rather than some programmer's idea of how it should look.

focus points all over the frame etc

A nice addition but I can't say I've ever run out of AF points using my DSLRs.

If my budget was under $1000 and weight was a main consideration I'd be looking at M43 rather than FF.

And mine would be the cheaper Pentax DSLRs such as K-70 - 688g and Pentax has a range of very light-weight lenses.

Most of what you say is personal preference. I prefer an EVF over an OVF for very personal reasons. An EVF fits my style of shooting much better than an OVF.

Talking about AF points, if you are used to a modern mirrorless with face tracking and eye-af, it is very hard to go back.

-- hide signature --

No life without a camera.

 PieterB's gear list:PieterB's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A900 Sony RX100 VA Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6300 Sony a6400 +10 more
PieterB
PieterB Senior Member • Posts: 1,433
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

The Mad Kiwi wrote:

The reality is that all modern cameras produce good enough images for 99% of photography.

That said I'd buy a mirrorless body, they're much nicer to use than dslrs, WYSIWYG viewfinders and much easier use than optical viewfinders, focus points all over the frame etc

If my budget was under $1000 and weight was a main consideration I'd be looking at M43 rather than FF.

I agree. It is very hard to buy a decent body and lens for a 1000 dollars.

-- hide signature --

No life without a camera.

 PieterB's gear list:PieterB's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A900 Sony RX100 VA Sony SLT-A77 Sony a6300 Sony a6400 +10 more
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,790
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

PieterB wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

The Mad Kiwi wrote:

The reality is that all modern cameras produce good enough images for 99% of photography.

True.

That said I'd buy a mirrorless body, they're much nicer to use than dslrs, WYSIWYG viewfinders and much easier use than optical viewfinders,

But here's the problem with advising other people - I disagree strongly with what you say above. Every mirrorless camera I've tried feels clumsy in the hand compared with mu DSLRs that fit beautifully; the controls are either of a type I don't like or are poorly laid out (or both). And as I shoot raw the viewfinder is miles away from WYSIWIG so it's just a distraction. I can think of no viewfinder easier to use than one that shows me the scene rather than some programmer's idea of how it should look.

focus points all over the frame etc

A nice addition but I can't say I've ever run out of AF points using my DSLRs.

If my budget was under $1000 and weight was a main consideration I'd be looking at M43 rather than FF.

And mine would be the cheaper Pentax DSLRs such as K-70 - 688g and Pentax has a range of very light-weight lenses.

Most of what you say is personal preference. I prefer an EVF over an OVF for very personal reasons. An EVF fits my style of shooting much better than an OVF.

Of course it is - I made that point very clearly myself.

My whole purpose in posting this was to make clear that anyone coming here for advice will be hard pressed to get anything other than a set of personal opinions, which goes nowhere to giving a meaningful answer to the question posed.

Talking about AF points, if you are used to a modern mirrorless with face tracking and eye-af, it is very hard to go back.

Not if you have no interest in such things.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

OP Mike_1972 New Member • Posts: 16
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

baloo_buc wrote:

I would be worried if a 241 g will make me collapse. Put a lens for each and you may see that the difference is laughable.

Let's put some real lenses on Sony A7II body and Nikon D750. A walkaround lens would be Sony FE 28-135 mm f/4 (1215 g) and, respectively, 24-120 mm f/4 (710 g).

So a real comparison would be Sony A7II (599+1215=1814 g) vs Nikon D750 (840+710=1550 g). If you consider weight the main criterion why would you buy Sony?!

Yes, 1/2 lb can be make or break for me. Not funny or laughable.

Anyway, seems the D5600 and lenses should be the best, as lenses are light for those.

ToxicTabasco
ToxicTabasco Senior Member • Posts: 2,276
Re: It all depends

Mike_1972 wrote:

In terms of image quality and performance, which is better for stills? I'm sure it depends on which cameras and lenses are chosen and what is meant by better, but can 1 say since the mirrorless would have a bigger sensor, image quality is likely better?

I'm thinking of cameras around a pound in weight and under $1000 used. Maybe the Canon EOS RP?

Thanks for any feedback.

Depends on the shooting conditions, and what you need.  Any of the newest FF, DSLR, APSC, or MFT will go great photos.  And large prints.  It all depends on your skills and techniques.  Some need more others need less to get great results.

 ToxicTabasco's gear list:ToxicTabasco's gear list
Nikon D5500 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,790
Re: Full Frame Mirrorless vs APS-C DSLR

Mike_1972 wrote:

baloo_buc wrote:

I would be worried if a 241 g will make me collapse. Put a lens for each and you may see that the difference is laughable.

Let's put some real lenses on Sony A7II body and Nikon D750. A walkaround lens would be Sony FE 28-135 mm f/4 (1215 g) and, respectively, 24-120 mm f/4 (710 g).

So a real comparison would be Sony A7II (599+1215=1814 g) vs Nikon D750 (840+710=1550 g). If you consider weight the main criterion why would you buy Sony?!

Yes, 1/2 lb can be make or break for me. Not funny or laughable.

Anyway, seems the D5600 and lenses should be the best, as lenses are light for those.

Make sure you check that you are happy with the small (95%), dim pentamirror viewfinder before you buy. Both Canon and Nikon use these in their base-level cameras (which is partly why they are so cheap).

I said earlier in the thread that I don't like EVFs https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62705266 but I prefer them to these dim pentamirror OVFs.

The Pentax K-70 is the cheapest camera you'll find with a bright 100% pentaprism OVF. It weighs a couple of hindered grams more than the D5600 but Pentax lenses tend to be lighter than Nikkor so there's not much difference there. When it comes to buying more lenses in future Pentax cameras have IBIS so you aren't restricted in wondering about whether to pay a premium for lenses with VR - and there are still plenty of Nikkor lenses without a VR option.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads