Full frame camera
Hey guys I'd to get a full frame camera. I've had M3/4 invested a fair amount and won't get rid of. I was already looking at getting either of their top w camera with the pro 12-40 lens. I'm jumping ship to a bigger body cos my large hands. What FF camera would you recommend and which landscape lens. My budget would be max £3000
Thanks
Thanks
Top 10 suggestions are here in the Reviews section.
Quote:Top 10 suggestions
That's all very well if you're going to restrict your choices to DSLRs.
While I have never seen one the Lumix GH5 ML with L mount lenses has a reputation for being at least as big as some pro DSLR's despite being ML - which might fit your hands well.
A problem is that with a couple of L mount lenses the price is likely to be well above your £3,000 budget and being g recently introduced there is unlikely yo be anything second hand.
Most other ML systems are designed with compact bodies in mind.
DSLR pro cameras like the Nikon D5 and equivalent Canon are also big - but £3,000 will not get you far with a body and 2 lenses unless you go for at least 2 generation old bodies.
A problem is that with a couple of L mount lenses the price is likely to be well above your £3,000 budget and being g recently introduced there is unlikely yo be anything second hand.
Most other ML systems are designed with compact bodies in mind.
DSLR pro cameras like the Nikon D5 and equivalent Canon are also big - but £3,000 will not get you far with a body and 2 lenses unless you go for at least 2 generation old bodies.
Did you see this too - maybe choose your lens first then you body - https://www.ephotozine.com/article/top-43-best-wide-angle-landscape-lenses-2020-28959
It must be the silly season!
I wonder if you have thought about a mirrorless Full frame? Or are you determined to have a big beast? My suggestion to think about a mirrorless full frame, in spite of your large hands, is that this is where I think a lot of the recent developments and innovation is being placed. I suspect as always folk feel that they can only suggest you look at them and try them out in your hand - see what it is like for you.
I wonder if you have thought about a mirrorless Full frame? Or are you determined to have a big beast? My suggestion to think about a mirrorless full frame, in spite of your large hands, is that this is where I think a lot of the recent developments and innovation is being placed. I suspect as always folk feel that they can only suggest you look at them and try them out in your hand - see what it is like for you.
The mirror-less camera appears to be the fason at present, however have you considered a FF conventional digital DSLR. The EOS 5DSr is FF and has many features that would suit most styles of photography. It produces big files that can be cropped to suit. You can choose formats to output flees in body. You can also choose file sizes in body.
Mirror-less is smaller and lighter than the standard DSLR, but it does not produce better pictures. It is the sensor that determines the quality of the pictures. I believe that the files out of the 5DSR is still ahead of most. I love the detail and quality of the wildlife files produced. At 5 fps it is not suited for fast action, eg sport. With ref to lens, any lens will work. If observed landscapes created with 600mm lens through to the traditional 1-24mm.
With the rush into mirror less, you may be able to pick a DSR at a reasonable price.
Enjoy four choice.
Mirror-less is smaller and lighter than the standard DSLR, but it does not produce better pictures. It is the sensor that determines the quality of the pictures. I believe that the files out of the 5DSR is still ahead of most. I love the detail and quality of the wildlife files produced. At 5 fps it is not suited for fast action, eg sport. With ref to lens, any lens will work. If observed landscapes created with 600mm lens through to the traditional 1-24mm.
With the rush into mirror less, you may be able to pick a DSR at a reasonable price.
Enjoy four choice.
Quote: It is the sensor that determines the quality of the pictures...... ...With ref to lens, any lens will work.
A good quality sensor will get the best from any lens, but if that lens isn't top quality then the results won't be either.... you can't put back something ( i.e. "quality" ) that wasn't there to begin with.
I would suggest that a quality lens / average sensor combination will give you a better technical result than average lens / quality sensor. In the second combination, the high quality sensor will only reveal the shortcomings / weaknesses of the lens.
Or to put it another way... "Rubbish in, rubbish out."
Full frame camera is best no doubt, but I agree with Alan, best lens should be the first choice, and then comes camera...
Well I think that may be a very good idea for a professional or close to professional photographer but as a complete amateur choosing the lens first would be a complete disaster for me. I think if I was Mark1b I would be very sadly disappointed with the suggestions and help from seasoned 'travellers' on ePz. Really, if folk on here, who have even a sniff at professionalism, consider this is good advice to someone who has asked for help to decide what DSLR would be best for him who has big hands (and if you took the trouble to look) lives in Cornwall and has the best scenery to get stunning landscapes and is also pretty good at offering many opportunities for every type of photography, I think you're letting the side down with such a paucity of suggestions and discussion. 
Quote:
Quote: It is the sensor that determines the quality of the pictures...... ...With ref to lens, any lens will work.
Maybe up to 95% wrong!
The skill of the photographer is by far the most important aspect of what determines the quality of the pictures
Quote:
A good quality sensor will get the best from any lens, but if that lens isn't top quality then the results won't be either.... you can't put back something ( i.e. "quality" ) that wasn't there to begin with.
I would suggest that a quality lens / average sensor combination will give you a better technical result than average lens / quality sensor. In the second combination, the high quality sensor will only reveal the shortcomings / weaknesses of the lens.
This is some way from being reasonably right - ignoring the important detail that the skill of the photographer comes first.
There are mathematical formulas that show sensor resolution tested in isolation and lens resolution tested in isolation each contribute to image resolution - and image resolution never equals that of the sensor or lens tested in isolation.
Doubling sensor resolution increases image resolution - to within a bit of plus or minus - by around 15-20% - with every lens used.
A lot of the "equipment debate" can be spurious as lenses do not perform very well in low contrast light - and sensors do not perform very well at high ISO's.
@Tianshi_angie:
My comment was regarding the questionable wisdom ( as implied by ARI's comment, and if I've misunderstood him I apologize ) of prioritising the camera body too much over the lens. The trend towards ever larger pixel counts, particularly for FF cameras, means smaller pixels, requiring higher performance lenses to resolve them.
The potential performance of any camera system is inevitably going to be determined by the lens... if the performance of a lens is lacking in certain important areas, such as centre and edge sharpness at different focal lengths if it's a zoom, and at different apertures, chromatic aberration, susceptibility to flare, spatial distortion ( "barrel" and "pin cushion" ), degree of vignetting, but especially its resolving power, then a high performance / high pixel count sensor will ruthlessly expose that.
Splashing out on a high end body with lots of pixels and economising on glass, on the basis that "any lens will work" is therefore, in my opinion, a recipe for disappointment. As with most things, there needs to be balance.
And I notice that although you express dismay at the "paucity of suggestions," you offer none yourself.
My comment was regarding the questionable wisdom ( as implied by ARI's comment, and if I've misunderstood him I apologize ) of prioritising the camera body too much over the lens. The trend towards ever larger pixel counts, particularly for FF cameras, means smaller pixels, requiring higher performance lenses to resolve them.
The potential performance of any camera system is inevitably going to be determined by the lens... if the performance of a lens is lacking in certain important areas, such as centre and edge sharpness at different focal lengths if it's a zoom, and at different apertures, chromatic aberration, susceptibility to flare, spatial distortion ( "barrel" and "pin cushion" ), degree of vignetting, but especially its resolving power, then a high performance / high pixel count sensor will ruthlessly expose that.
Splashing out on a high end body with lots of pixels and economising on glass, on the basis that "any lens will work" is therefore, in my opinion, a recipe for disappointment. As with most things, there needs to be balance.
And I notice that although you express dismay at the "paucity of suggestions," you offer none yourself.
Quote:The skill of the photographer is by far the most important aspect of what determines the quality of the pictures... ....This is some way from being reasonably right - ignoring the important detail that the skill of the photographer comes first.
Obviously. The 12inches behind the viewfinder, but that's a whole other discussion, and outside of what the OP was asking about.
Quote:There are mathematical formulas that show sensor resolution tested in isolation and lens resolution tested in isolation each contribute to image resolution
As I said in my second comment, there needs to be balance.
