Full-frame cameras... are they worth the extra weight?

Everyone seems to go on about how amazing full-frame is. And yeah I get it, for low-light etc, it's great. But for me, the size added to the camera system once you add the lens(es) just isn't worth it... I'd love a compact full-frame camera and one lens carry around camera, that fits in your pocket, but that just doesn't seem possible due to the camera/lens size. Or is there a camera / lens combo that would fit in a jacket pocket? (Like an Olympus PEN and a 20mm lens)

Everyone seems to go on about how amazing full-frame is. And yeah I get it, for low-light etc, it's great. But for me, the size added to the camera system once you add the lens(es) just isn't worth it...

I'd love a compact full-frame camera and one lens carry around camera, that fits in your pocket, but that just doesn't seem possible due to the camera/lens size. Or is there a camera / lens combo that would fit in a jacket pocket? (Like an Olympus PEN and a 20mm lens)

Depends how big your pocket is! ;) But the mirrorless cameras are lighter, smaller and much more portable and can be full frame.

Depends how big your pocket is!

But the mirrorless cameras are lighter, smaller and much more portable and can be full frame.

[quote]Depends how big your pocket is! ;) But the mirrorless cameras are lighter, smaller and much more portable and can be full frame.[/quote] Not at all, got one I can fit in a tight jeans pocket, lens included.

Quote:Depends how big your pocket is!

But the mirrorless cameras are lighter, smaller and much more portable and can be full frame.


Not at all, got one I can fit in a tight jeans pocket, lens included.

All depends on your requirement. I produce A3 sized prints for competitions so I do need excellent Image Quality. For this my FF DSLR is excellent and particularly for low light. I also have a small Lumix Bridge Camera which is small and light. On occasions when I want to carry a camera but not expecting to take photos, I will take the Lumix but it is only of any use if there good light. In poor light (and higher ISO) it is very noisy. To be fair the FF sensor is 30 times the area of the Lumix so the performance difference is expected. I am aware that I do need to lighten the weight I carry and will eventually buy a suitable mirrorless system. At first I plan to continue to use the DSLR in most situations but use the ML more and more eventually giving up on the DSLR except for a Studio situation. It is a compromise and the difference in performance between FF DSLR and ML has narrowed. In fact there is a FF ML which just out performs my DSLR but it is actually heavier. I want the best possible performance at about half the weight. Dave

All depends on your requirement. I produce A3 sized prints for competitions so I do need excellent Image Quality. For this my FF DSLR is excellent and particularly for low light. I also have a small Lumix Bridge Camera which is small and light. On occasions when I want to carry a camera but not expecting to take photos, I will take the Lumix but it is only of any use if there good light. In poor light (and higher ISO) it is very noisy. To be fair the FF sensor is 30 times the area of the Lumix so the performance difference is expected.

I am aware that I do need to lighten the weight I carry and will eventually buy a suitable mirrorless system. At first I plan to continue to use the DSLR in most situations but use the ML more and more eventually giving up on the DSLR except for a Studio situation. It is a compromise and the difference in performance between FF DSLR and ML has narrowed. In fact there is a FF ML which just out performs my DSLR but it is actually heavier. I want the best possible performance at about half the weight.

Dave

I have two Sony cameras - both full frame - and the mirrorless one outperforms the DSLR and is so much easier to move about with. I have lost nothing and gained a great deal.

I have two Sony cameras - both full frame - and the mirrorless one outperforms the DSLR and is so much easier to move about with. I have lost nothing and gained a great deal.

[quote]I'd love a compact full-frame camera and one lens carry around camera, that fits in your pocket,[/quote] If you have 'deep pockets' and deep pockets, a Leica would probably fit the requirements...

Quote:I'd love a compact full-frame camera and one lens carry around camera, that fits in your pocket,


If you have 'deep pockets' and deep pockets, a Leica would probably fit the requirements...

There's an interesting take on the matter [link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGn3yPl59ZM]here[/link]. But bear in mind that the people doing the test are professionals so won't have the exacting standards that some enthusiasts require. Obviously when viewing on digital media it is hard to tell the difference between a smartphone image and FF, let alone Bridge or Micro Four Thirds. A couple of thousand pixels width allows for the [i]impression[/i] of high image quality because a tablet can have such good contrast and colour rendering but it is only an impression. After all, with a 47Mp sensor, you have binned 44Mp of them.

There's an interesting take on the matter here. But bear in mind that the people doing the test are professionals so won't have the exacting standards that some enthusiasts require.

Obviously when viewing on digital media it is hard to tell the difference between a smartphone image and FF, let alone Bridge or Micro Four Thirds. A couple of thousand pixels width allows for the impression of high image quality because a tablet can have such good contrast and colour rendering but it is only an impression. After all, with a 47Mp sensor, you have binned 44Mp of them.

Lemmy this test was not very helpful. He makes several errors if he was trying to do a useful comparison. The Canon has almost a stop dynamic range more than the Olympus. You would have to adjust in the Raw editor to use this extra DR which he did not. The ISO performance of the Canon is significantly better but you would only really benefit if using low light situations and having to increase the ISO. As he did not take the same scene with each camera, it is almost impossible to compare anyway. To be fair the Olympus would well out perform my Old 20D and my old 5D2 but not the 5D4. I am sure the Olympus would be more than good enough for many folks but it is not for me. I was able to see significant differences between the 5D2 and my 5D4. I used to always capture multiple exposures for landscapes (not always necessary but more often than not). With the 5D4 I do not need multiple exposures for landscapes except at sunrise/sunset. For low light, I could get away with ISO 1600 with the 5D2 whereas I can use 3200 or even 6400 now. I will still await further developments before deciding on a lighter camera. Dave

Lemmy this test was not very helpful. He makes several errors if he was trying to do a useful comparison. The Canon has almost a stop dynamic range more than the Olympus. You would have to adjust in the Raw editor to use this extra DR which he did not. The ISO performance of the Canon is significantly better but you would only really benefit if using low light situations and having to increase the ISO. As he did not take the same scene with each camera, it is almost impossible to compare anyway.

To be fair the Olympus would well out perform my Old 20D and my old 5D2 but not the 5D4. I am sure the Olympus would be more than good enough for many folks but it is not for me. I was able to see significant differences between the 5D2 and my 5D4. I used to always capture multiple exposures for landscapes (not always necessary but more often than not). With the 5D4 I do not need multiple exposures for landscapes except at sunrise/sunset. For low light, I could get away with ISO 1600 with the 5D2 whereas I can use 3200 or even 6400 now. I will still await further developments before deciding on a lighter camera.

Dave

Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone? It was on the list yesterday but now seems to have disappeared. It was interesting.

Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone? It was on the list yesterday but now seems to have disappeared. It was interesting.

[quote]Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone? [/quote]Its still on youtube:

Quote:Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone?


Its still on youtube:

[quote][quote]Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone? [/quote]Its still on youtube: Ah, yes. I'm even subscribed to that. :D:D:D Going doolally. :$

[quote][quote][quote]Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone? [/quote]Its still on youtube: Ah, yes. I'm even subscribed to that. :D:D:D Going doolally. :$[/quote] No need to go anywhere outside ePz, [link=https://www.ephotozine.com/article/my-year-with-the-micro-four-thirds-camera-system--by-david-thorpe-34590]it's still here[/link] where it has been since the first day of publication. Items on the home page are only displayed there temporarily, while they are fresh, before being replaced by something newer. When clicking on the article on the home page, you only end up at its permanent place.

[quote] The Canon has almost a stop dynamic range more than the Olympus. You would have to adjust in the Raw editor to use this extra DR which he did not[/quote]You can't increase the dynamic range of a print by increasing the dynamic range of a camera. A print has a fraction of the range of a sensor so any increase in the camera can have no effect in the print. You are simply trying to pour the contents of a 5 litre can into a 1 litre can. A wider dynamic range in a sensor will enable you to shift the white/ black points in your print with reference to the image file, that's all. Of course, most will shoot JPG files, in which case the dynamic range of the image is severely curtailed anyway. In the print test, you are dealing with a professional printer who will make the best of both images supplied. Anyone who has printed both colour and black and white themselves will know the skill of those people. I do wonder, though, how many people make big, greater than 36" prints these days. Even if they do, how many view from foot or two away so that any extra sharpness would be visible. If they do, why? Otherwise, even a 4K monitor - still relatively rare - is only equivalent to a 12" print, far below the point at which format differences can be seen. I'm not arguing against FF cameras, none of my business what anyone uses but the argument for [i]needing[/i] one is similar to the need for a 4wd SUV in my area of London. I have a FF camera but it gets no use because in spite of my lifetime taking and looking at pictures, I can't see the difference in any medium that I use. Were I still shooting pictures for a poster company or big publicity campaigns I might use it more but those days, thank goodness, are way in my past.

Quote: The Canon has almost a stop dynamic range more than the Olympus. You would have to adjust in the Raw editor to use this extra DR which he did not
You can't increase the dynamic range of a print by increasing the dynamic range of a camera. A print has a fraction of the range of a sensor so any increase in the camera can have no effect in the print. You are simply trying to pour the contents of a 5 litre can into a 1 litre can. A wider dynamic range in a sensor will enable you to shift the white/ black points in your print with reference to the image file, that's all. Of course, most will shoot JPG files, in which case the dynamic range of the image is severely curtailed anyway.

In the print test, you are dealing with a professional printer who will make the best of both images supplied. Anyone who has printed both colour and black and white themselves will know the skill of those people. I do wonder, though, how many people make big, greater than 36" prints these days. Even if they do, how many view from foot or two away so that any extra sharpness would be visible. If they do, why?

Otherwise, even a 4K monitor - still relatively rare - is only equivalent to a 12" print, far below the point at which format differences can be seen. I'm not arguing against FF cameras, none of my business what anyone uses but the argument for needing one is similar to the need for a 4wd SUV in my area of London. I have a FF camera but it gets no use because in spite of my lifetime taking and looking at pictures, I can't see the difference in any medium that I use. Were I still shooting pictures for a poster company or big publicity campaigns I might use it more but those days, thank goodness, are way in my past.

[quote][quote][quote][quote]Where's Lemmy's review of the MFT system gone? [/quote]Its still on youtube: Ah, yes. I'm even subscribed to that. :D:D:D Going doolally. :$[/quote] No need to go anywhere outside ePz, [link=https://www.ephotozine.com/article/my-year-with-the-micro-four-thirds-camera-system--by-david-thorpe-34590]it's still here[/link] where it has been since the first day of publication. Items on the home page are only displayed there temporarily, while they are fresh, before being replaced by something newer. When clicking on the article on the home page, you only end up at its permanent place.[/quote] There's usually a button at the bottom of the home page to take you to pages 2,3,4 etc. but I don't have one. Couldn't find it anywhere else.

If you capture say 14 stops dynamic range in a scene as opposed to say 12. Using the sliders in the Raw editor you can adjust shadow and highlight detail to suit. Having 14 stops will be no great advantage if the scene DR is much lower than 14 stops or if JPEG has been used. It is not in all captures that the additional DR will be of value. Similarly, in many situations, little benefit will be gained from an improved ISO performance. In my case I have explained that I do value these differences. As I am competing in competitions, I do not want to put myself at a disadvantage even if relatively small. I do not produce prints greater than A3 normally and sadly some judges do pixel peep. When I first bought the 5D4, one of the first shoots was a motocross event. The layout was not set for photographers so I was having to take a number of shots towards the sun in bright sunlight. I was staggered by just how well the sky could be held and shadow detail recovered which would not have been possible with my 5D2. When I bought my first DSLR a 20D, I was aware that it IQ was lacking. I would say that the 5D4 has just the IQ I need so would not be seeking more. As I indicated sometime in the future I would like to have the same IQ with a much lighter system. Dave

If you capture say 14 stops dynamic range in a scene as opposed to say 12. Using the sliders in the Raw editor you can adjust shadow and highlight detail to suit. Having 14 stops will be no great advantage if the scene DR is much lower than 14 stops or if JPEG has been used. It is not in all captures that the additional DR will be of value. Similarly, in many situations, little benefit will be gained from an improved ISO performance. In my case I have explained that I do value these differences. As I am competing in competitions, I do not want to put myself at a disadvantage even if relatively small. I do not produce prints greater than A3 normally and sadly some judges do pixel peep.

When I first bought the 5D4, one of the first shoots was a motocross event. The layout was not set for photographers so I was having to take a number of shots towards the sun in bright sunlight. I was staggered by just how well the sky could be held and shadow detail recovered which would not have been possible with my 5D2. When I bought my first DSLR a 20D, I was aware that it IQ was lacking. I would say that the 5D4 has just the IQ I need so would not be seeking more. As I indicated sometime in the future I would like to have the same IQ with a much lighter system.

Dave