Full frame

[allstar7610]

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

 

[J A C S]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

That all depends on what you are attempting to photograph and the look we are tring to achieve. For example: bird in flight or skier/snowboarder performing a jump. In those 2 examples 30 frames may be necessary in order to 'get the shot'.

Canon R & RP are late to the game compared to Sony, Olympus/OMD and Fuji. Their is no excuse by Canon why they couldn't get the EVF correct right out of the gate.

So you need to tone down your original statement to those two cameras not good for certain type of sports or wildlife shots but then we all knew that.

 

[ikolbyi]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

That all depends on what you are attempting to photograph and the look we are tring to achieve. For example: bird in flight or skier/snowboarder performing a jump. In those 2 examples 30 frames may be necessary in order to 'get the shot'.

Canon R & RP are late to the game compared to Sony, Olympus/OMD and Fuji. Their is no excuse by Canon why they couldn't get the EVF correct right out of the gate.

So you need to tone down your original statement to those two cameras not good for certain type of sports or wildlife shots but then we all knew that.

Why should any consumer pay for any inferior product when the competition (Sony/Olympus/Fuji/etc...) do not have those limitations at the same price or even cheaper? Worse yet, the customer finds out about it after the purchase and subsequent investment in lenses. I was lucky enough at the time to have borrowed an R and learned of those flaws first hand. Then when I asked about it on forums, apparently it was common knowledge. The R camera overall performance was so poor for sports I stopped using it and went back to my 5D.m4 at the time. My Fuji GFX 100s that replaced my 5D.m4 outperforms the R, and the GFX has no business being used as a sports camera. Yet I can use the GFX for sports (limited to 5 fps) because I dont have EVF refresh rate issues that the R suffers from, and the buffer is large/fast enough to send 100mb files to dual SD card slots.

The R (and RP) is a fine camera for stills photography and very short bursts (not more than 5 frames). If the photographer falls into that category, great, the R camera will work for them. If they are looking for an 'all-arounder' as most new buyers are, that is not the camera for them and buyers need to be aware of its flaw that other brands don't have.

I am told (no 1st hand experience) the R5 does have slight EVF hesitation, but never looses sight picture so apparently Canon got this right starting with the R5.

 

[J A C S]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

That all depends on what you are attempting to photograph and the look we are tring to achieve. For example: bird in flight or skier/snowboarder performing a jump. In those 2 examples 30 frames may be necessary in order to 'get the shot'.

Canon R & RP are late to the game compared to Sony, Olympus/OMD and Fuji. Their is no excuse by Canon why they couldn't get the EVF correct right out of the gate.

So you need to tone down your original statement to those two cameras not good for certain type of sports or wildlife shots but then we all knew that.

Why should any consumer pay for any inferior product when the competition (Sony/Olympus/Fuji/etc...) do not have those limitations at the same price or even cheaper?

So you have no comment about your original statement.

Directly about your question: You get 4x the sensor with the R compared to the Oly for about the same price. You do not get the horrible Sony colors together with all the Sony artifacts at that time - confetti noise suppressed to cause start eating, color shifts, strong sensor reflections, baked in corrections creating orbs, and I might be missing something. You get to use your collection of lenses and you are offered a smooth transition to the new mount. You get a better EVF (yes!) at that time, and I did compare them side to side, not for sports. The Z was close second, BTW.

Worse yet, the customer finds out about it after the purchase and subsequent investment in lenses. I was lucky enough at the time to have borrowed an R and learned of those flaws first hand. Then when I asked about it on forums, apparently it was common knowledge. The R camera overall performance was so poor for sports I stopped using it and went back to my 5D.m4 at the time. My Fuji GFX 100s that replaced my 5D.m4 outperforms the R, and the GFX has no business being used as a sports camera. Yet I can use the GFX for sports (limited to 5 fps) because I dont have EVF refresh rate issues that the R suffers from, and the buffer is large/fast enough to send 100mb files to dual SD card slots.

So you bought a Corolla but expected a Ford truck...

The R (and RP) is a fine camera for stills photography and very short bursts (not more than 5 frames). If the photographer falls into that category, great, the R camera will work for them. If they are looking for an 'all-arounder' as most new buyers are, that is not the camera for them and buyers need to be aware of its flaw that other brands don't have.

Actually, it is exactly an all-arounder, and this is how I am using it. I have hundreds of sports shots taken with it, BTW, and I did own the 5D4 before.

I am told (no 1st hand experience) the R5 does have slight EVF hesitation, but never looses sight picture so apparently Canon got this right starting with the R5.

 

[Monty71]

I'll give context regarding the whole situation. I originally started shooting mft, mainly because it was a lower barrier of entry. For seven years, whenever I had a chance, I would go out and shoot. I knew I would eventually want to start shooting without the handicap of low light. So, I ended getting the 77d and build a kit(18-55ef-s, 75-300mm ef, 50mm ef, 85mm ef). Anytime I researched about cameras, every reviewer was like you need full frame if you want to be taken seriously, and that was a gut punch. And don't get me started on brands. No lie, this is daunting.

Never trust the opinion of anybody that tells you that you will not be taken seriously unless you use a full frame camera. I get it. Camera dorks like to have the best. They like to feel a part of a group of some sort and above the poor souls using lesser regarded gear. They look at that National Geographic article and off they go into the world thinking they are on assignment vacationing with their family or taking photos of birds at the zoo. The truth is that there are plenty of people out there creating amazing work with all types of cameras. Somewhere out there a 12 year old student is studying the history of photography and is out using a camera phone—has better artistic vision than somebody who may have spent their whole life aspiring to achieve that skill. If you are happy with your gear then be honest with yourself. Don’t allow other peoples opinions change that. Now, if you really want to get a full frame then go for it. You don’t need a nobody’s opinion to make that decision.

 

[J A C S]

[...] Anytime I researched about cameras, every reviewer was like you need full frame if you want to be taken seriously, and that was a gut punch. And don't get me started on brands. No lie, this is daunting.

Never trust the opinion of anybody that tells you that you will not be taken seriously unless you use a full frame camera. [...]

Would anyone of you link to one (forget about "every") reviewer who said that you needed FF to be taken seriously? Thank you in advance.

 

[ikolbyi]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

That all depends on what you are attempting to photograph and the look we are tring to achieve. For example: bird in flight or skier/snowboarder performing a jump. In those 2 examples 30 frames may be necessary in order to 'get the shot'.

Canon R & RP are late to the game compared to Sony, Olympus/OMD and Fuji. Their is no excuse by Canon why they couldn't get the EVF correct right out of the gate.

So you need to tone down your original statement to those two cameras not good for certain type of sports or wildlife shots but then we all knew that.

Why should any consumer pay for any inferior product when the competition (Sony/Olympus/Fuji/etc...) do not have those limitations at the same price or even cheaper?

So you have no comment about your original statement.

Directly about your question: You get 4x the sensor with the R compared to the Oly for about the same price. You do not get the horrible Sony colors together with all the Sony artifacts at that time - confetti noise suppressed to cause start eating, color shifts, strong sensor reflections, baked in corrections creating orbs, and I might be missing something. You get to use your collection of lenses and you are offered a smooth transition to the new mount. You get a better EVF (yes!) at that time, and I did compare them side to side, not for sports. The Z was close second, BTW.

Worse yet, the customer finds out about it after the purchase and subsequent investment in lenses. I was lucky enough at the time to have borrowed an R and learned of those flaws first hand. Then when I asked about it on forums, apparently it was common knowledge. The R camera overall performance was so poor for sports I stopped using it and went back to my 5D.m4 at the time. My Fuji GFX 100s that replaced my 5D.m4 outperforms the R, and the GFX has no business being used as a sports camera. Yet I can use the GFX for sports (limited to 5 fps) because I dont have EVF refresh rate issues that the R suffers from, and the buffer is large/fast enough to send 100mb files to dual SD card slots.

So you bought a Corolla but expected a Ford truck...

The R (and RP) is a fine camera for stills photography and very short bursts (not more than 5 frames). If the photographer falls into that category, great, the R camera will work for them. If they are looking for an 'all-arounder' as most new buyers are, that is not the camera for them and buyers need to be aware of its flaw that other brands don't have.

Actually, it is exactly an all-arounder, and this is how I am using it. I have hundreds of sports shots taken with it, BTW, and I did own the 5D4 before.

I am told (no 1st hand experience) the R5 does have slight EVF hesitation, but never looses sight picture so apparently Canon got this right starting with the R5.

Colors are corrected in post processing.

When I transitioned from film to digital (late 90's) I used Sony for my first 8 years into digital before migrating to Canon for the next 15+. A little more than a year ago I sold off all of my Canon (and Sigma EF glass) for Olympus/OMD & Fuji and never looked back. Why? I didn't like Canon's direction with R-series including RF glass and was looking for a replacement to my very quickly aging 5D (high shutter count). The EOL of EF mount gave us legacy owners the opportunity to consider other solutions. If Canon didn't kill off the EF mount, I would most likely be using an R5 today. Having the opportunity to explorer other systems was an eye opening experience.

Sensor size is only relative depending on the conditions and style the photographer is trying to achieve. I have many 24x20 prints from my Olympus MFT (m4/3) hanging on my walls that many people thought I used my Fuji medium format or former Full-Frame Canon 5D to take.

Today's smaller sensors (MFT & APSC) perform significantly better than prior versions negating the 'history of FF is better'. This was true decades ago when these smaller sensors didn't perform well under high ISO. Today, these smaller sensors perform well in low-light, but their are a few extreme conditions where FF or MF is the better tool for the job (example: concerts/plays). For the average consumer who just wants to photograph their family and vacations, the argument of which sensor size is better - who cares - they will all work for those use cases equally well. In fact, if the camera will be used for family events and travel, I would argue a FF camera is the wrong camera for that use case. Size (portability) is more important (body + lens)

Regarding the R (& RP), these were rushed products and it clearly shows. Sony has the same behavior with their cameras, but Canon traditionally does not behave like this. Canon were a conservative release company till those products.

I never make any comments regarding Nikon because I have no experience with those products.

 

[J A C S]

Since I use autofocus I wouldn't buy an old camera. Later the cameras released best AF algorithm it will incorporate. I get many unusable because of autocues problem. I always prefer modern APS-C over Old Full frame. Even IQ wise old Full frame is similar to new APS-C.

If i buy old full frame then i'll be collecting full frame lenses and i'm stucked with full frame for ever. Even future i have to spend lot of money when upgrading. That's not the case with APS-C
So if you want full frame spend money and get new full frame. Other wise choose APS-C
All new full frames aren't expensive. Sony A7C and Canon RP are bit affordable and small. but RP has very low dynamic range if that is an issue for you. Still no guarantee there will be future affordable full frame cameras for you when you need an upgrade.

The only reason i'd consider old Full frame is that if i planning to use a vintage lens. Again i wouldn't choose DSLR for that. I'll go for something like Sony a7 ii

It is thoroughly documented that Canon R & RP EVF refresh rate is far to slow to use those cameras for sports & wildlife. I have personally experienced the issue with the R.

Why didn't you tell us that earlier? I have been shooting sports with my R for two years without knowing it!

The EVF locks up/freezes/hesitates around the 8th consecutive photograph in a burst creating a situation you loose sight of moving subject. Again, well documented in these forums.

You can't shoot sports and wildlife with bursts of 7 frames or less?

That all depends on what you are attempting to photograph and the look we are tring to achieve. For example: bird in flight or skier/snowboarder performing a jump. In those 2 examples 30 frames may be necessary in order to 'get the shot'.

Canon R & RP are late to the game compared to Sony, Olympus/OMD and Fuji. Their is no excuse by Canon why they couldn't get the EVF correct right out of the gate.

So you need to tone down your original statement to those two cameras not good for certain type of sports or wildlife shots but then we all knew that.

Why should any consumer pay for any inferior product when the competition (Sony/Olympus/Fuji/etc...) do not have those limitations at the same price or even cheaper?

So you have no comment about your original statement.

Directly about your question: You get 4x the sensor with the R compared to the Oly for about the same price. You do not get the horrible Sony colors together with all the Sony artifacts at that time - confetti noise suppressed to cause start eating, color shifts, strong sensor reflections, baked in corrections creating orbs, and I might be missing something. You get to use your collection of lenses and you are offered a smooth transition to the new mount. You get a better EVF (yes!) at that time, and I did compare them side to side, not for sports. The Z was close second, BTW.

Worse yet, the customer finds out about it after the purchase and subsequent investment in lenses. I was lucky enough at the time to have borrowed an R and learned of those flaws first hand. Then when I asked about it on forums, apparently it was common knowledge. The R camera overall performance was so poor for sports I stopped using it and went back to my 5D.m4 at the time. My Fuji GFX 100s that replaced my 5D.m4 outperforms the R, and the GFX has no business being used as a sports camera. Yet I can use the GFX for sports (limited to 5 fps) because I dont have EVF refresh rate issues that the R suffers from, and the buffer is large/fast enough to send 100mb files to dual SD card slots.

So you bought a Corolla but expected a Ford truck...

The R (and RP) is a fine camera for stills photography and very short bursts (not more than 5 frames). If the photographer falls into that category, great, the R camera will work for them. If they are looking for an 'all-arounder' as most new buyers are, that is not the camera for them and buyers need to be aware of its flaw that other brands don't have.

Actually, it is exactly an all-arounder, and this is how I am using it. I have hundreds of sports shots taken with it, BTW, and I did own the 5D4 before.

I am told (no 1st hand experience) the R5 does have slight EVF hesitation, but never looses sight picture so apparently Canon got this right starting with the R5.

Colors are corrected in post processing.

Music reproduction can be corrected, too, but a poor system with an equalizer would still sound poor.

When I transitioned from film to digital (late 90's) I used Sony for my first 8 years into digital before migrating to Canon for the next 15+. A little more than a year ago I sold off all of my Canon (and Sigma EF glass) for Olympus/OMD & Fuji and never looked back. Why? I didn't like Canon's direction with R-series including RF glass and was looking for a replacement to my very quickly aging 5D (high shutter count).

This is exactly why I sold my 5D4 to replace it with my R - while the 5D4 is a higher class, the R opens the door for the RF glass. Just the RF 24-105 is worth the price of admission, not to mention the RF 50L, etc. My "old" L lenses "still" work, etc.

The EOL of EF mount gave us legacy owners the opportunity to consider other solutions. If Canon didn't kill off the EF mount, I would most likely be using an R5 today. Having the opportunity to explorer other systems was an eye opening experience.

Sensor size is only relative depending on the conditions and style the photographer is trying to achieve. I have many 24x20 prints from my Olympus MFT (m4/3) hanging on my walls that many people thought I used my Fuji medium format or former Full-Frame Canon 5D to take.

And I have even larger prints from film. Does this make film superior?

Today's smaller sensors (MFT & APSC) perform significantly better than prior versions negating the 'history of FF is better'.

FF sensors perform better than before, as well.

This was true decades ago when these smaller sensors didn't perform well under high ISO. Today, these smaller sensors perform well in low-light, but their are a few extreme conditions where FF or MF is the better tool for the job (example: concerts/plays). For the average consumer who just wants to photograph their family and vacations, the argument of which sensor size is better - who cares - they will all work for those use cases equally well.

Didn't you just say that they do not? What does this even mean? I am not after low noise only, and even if I were, I have it. I get a look that you cannot get with your m43. This makes me happy. If something else rocks you boat, good but do not declare it to be universal.

In fact, if the camera will be used for family events and travel, I would argue a FF camera is the wrong camera for that use case. Size (portability) is more important (body + lens)

Sure, this is why billions use phones instead of m43.

Regarding the R (& RP), these were rushed products and it clearly shows. Sony has the same behavior with their cameras, but Canon traditionally does not behave like this. Canon were a conservative release company till those products.

My camera is just an accessory to my nine lenses, all L except the fisheye 15 (which I will not replace by the 8-15L anyway).

I never make any comments regarding Nikon because I have no experience with those products.

 

[allstar7610]

An update before I close the thread in a day. Thank you everyone for the input. I ended up going with the rp and an rf adapter. I'm still just starting out. If I were to transition to more hybrid/professional shooting, I'll get a higher-end body or switch systems. Once again, thanks for the insight