Hi All,
I'm still pondering if I should make the move to full frame. I'm having a hard time focusing on the key issues involved in this decision. If I could get some opinions on the following questions it might help:
- What type of photographers use FF? What do they shoot mostly?
I currently use three a700s. I shoot most everything though little of people. My primary shooting is outdoors and wildlife, landscape and macro. I do macro at magnifications much greater than 1:1 as well, most scientific stuff.
I have no plans to go to FF. If I'm forced to I can adapt. For me it's more the feature set than the format, but my work suits APS.
- What are the primary pros and cons of FF?
- What are the primary pros and cons of using an APS-C camera?
Most people compare specific cameras and claim that the difference between FF and APS-C is whatever those differences. Many of those things are not inherant in FF or APS.
FF, less DOF, if you shoot to have nearly everything out of focus and a very thin DOF FF will give a little thinner DOF for any particular aperture. No advantage if you shoot for photos that are sharp throughout with as much DOF as you can get. You will get more DOF with APS. The difference is not as great as people think.
For FF Wide angle lenses will be wider thus considered better for those that like to shoot wide photos. "photographing the whole picture" Though with the availability of super wide lenses for APS the difference is not that great.
But tele will be shorter for FF (covering a wider field) and to catch up with APS on that will require a heavier, more expensive kit. Or shooting free field in the viewfinder and cropping will be necessary.
APS Somewhat lighter, though comparing a plastic camera to a metal bodied one is not the way to tell the difference. The tele reach using the full frame of the viewfinder will be greater. APS is good for shooters who prefer to photograph details.
APS uses the central portion of a lens field compared to FF. To get the same central quality in the outer part of FF requires higher quality lenses, or may not be available at all. This adds greatly to the price of a FF kit if you are after best quality.
My estimated shooting preferences follow:
- Family activities of all types (parties and kiddie activities like sports etc - flash frenquently used for indoor parties etc) - 20%
No problem with a700.
- Macro pics of small things - mostly flowers and the like - 25%
- Day trips by myself or with a photo buddy (mostly outdoors including wildlife) - 30%
For macro and tele APS does have advantages. Better DOF, and depending on the particular sensor, macro at the same magnification will record more detail. That's certainly true for the a700 which is 12MP vs a900 which the APS crop is 11MP, even more so with your a550 or what one can expect the a7xx to have in MP.
Note that the current a900 & a850 have a crippled A mode making some of my macro, T/S, photomicrography and so on a problem as you loose the ability of the camera to measure and set the exposure. Only sometimes is that easily possible to do manually. That alone is why I have three a700s, to preserve a big chunk of my shooting.
The claim that you can shoot and crop out of FF leaves out that you will be composing in a free field, not the frame of the viewfinder. If shooting rapidly moving subjects there is a big advantage composing in the full frame you see in the viewfinder.
- Vacations where travel is involved (I like to travel light but IQ is still important) - 20%
The a700 is just fine for that, if you can carry the bulk and weight. FF is even bigger to carry.
- Misc pics of opportunity mostly taken with my S90 (I keep the S90 with me at all times) - 5%
I have and use a Minolta Z6 for bike touring, where the weight and bulk of DSLRs is a big problem. It's a compromise in what I can shoot, but works well enough as I don't tend to be primarily doing photography when out touring.
I thought I would keep my A550, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, and 55-200 SAM for use when I want to go light.
The only argument against that is that you generally will get most familiar with your camera and thus give yourself a edge photographically by using just one camera model.
Not a bad idea to keep your current camera. If you find it's not necessary you can sell it later.
If I go FF, I'd probably also get the CZ24-70. Otherwise, I already have a nice selection of lenses that are suitable for FF. If I don't go FF, I'll probably get the A700 replacement when it comes out.
Note that the a900 is nearly as old as the a700, is the same generation of technology. And the a850 is just a cut down version of the a900, same technology. At this point if I needed FF I'd be waiting for the next generation unless I had to have it now.
The CZ24-70 is a fairly good quality lens for either APS or FF.
IQ is very important to me - I plan to start making larger prints for myself and family (my family is urging me to make larger prints).
Back when I shot with the RD-175, which was a 3ccd DSLR that shot raw files of 1.1meg in size, I gave some of my shots to Minolta. Later they showed me the results, poster size prints that were very good. The a700 is capable of pretty large prints for someone that knows what they are doing. The biggest problem with doing very many large prints is where you can display them. Does not take long to fill the walls. I hardly do prints anymore most everybody I know shares photos electronically. And that's likely to become more so in the future.
Walt
I've been thinking the same thing for months, and I really don't need another camera, as I hardly have time to shoot the ones I've got. But FF is on my radar,I'm just waiting to see what the A-700 replacement is going to have. Still intend on going FF though! 
