Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Christmas Prize Draw 2017

Why he Moved from Full Frame


StrayCat Plus
13 18.9k 3 Canada
6 Dec 2017 7:33PM
Here's a youtube video I just watched, mainly because I just came close to moving to full frame:






Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

StrayCat Plus
13 18.9k 3 Canada
6 Dec 2017 7:53PM
Here's one that I think pretty well shoots down a few arguments:




SlowSong Plus
9 7.1k 30 England
6 Dec 2017 9:39PM
Just step away, Denny.
sitan1 Plus
9 1.1k United Kingdom
6 Dec 2017 9:58PM
Itís taken me sooooo long to get to full frame, blood,sweat and tears but now Iím a full frame owner I have the urge to downgrade ,to be honest I love full frame and the benefits it gives me but have to say as Iím getting older and my limbs are creaking the weight of my gear is becoming an issue Anderson that issue is the thing swaying me.
Liked the video by the way, thanks for sharing
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
6 Dec 2017 10:02PM
You don't need full frame. Half plate is fine.
But keep the brass nice and shiny Smile

13388_1512597653.jpg

StrayCat Plus
13 18.9k 3 Canada
6 Dec 2017 10:45PM
I watched a few more today, one related to this about the size of the newest mirrorless cameras and their lenses. I have about the lightest kit I've ever had in the Canon 77D and 3 STM lenses. The 300mm f4 is heavy, but not overly so, and the benefits compared to the zooms is very evident, as most of you know. Keith, do you still have that 200mm f2.8L?
keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2017 1:00AM
I still have the 5D and the 200/2.8L. I don't use them much, but the lens is so good I have to keep them.
I normally use a GH1 and a couple of plastic zooms, because they're so easy to take anywhere.
On the occasions I go out specifically for photography, with DSLR or Large Format, the GH1 goes too, since it barely counts as extra weight, as compared with the rest.

This "getting older and my limbs are creaking the weight" is part of the reason I don't do DSLR as much now. Plus Micro 4/3 can be pretty good anyway.
StrayCat Plus
13 18.9k 3 Canada
7 Dec 2017 7:51AM
I wanted that lens 5 or 6 years ago, but ended up getting the 70-200mm f4 instead. I only kept it a short while, and then gave up on Canon till recently. Now I'm thinking of getting another 70-200mm f4, but I'd like the IS version, mainly for ice hockey, the 300mm f4L is a bit too long. We have close to 70 indoor rinks in the city, and most of them don't have much seating, so I can't get far enough from the action with the 300mm. Maybe after Christmas. I have the latest Canon 55-250mm IS STM which may do the job for me, it's a great little lens, sharp as a tack with excellent close focus.
bluesandtwos 8 286 1 England
7 Dec 2017 8:25AM

Quote:Here's one that I think pretty well shoots down a few arguments:







I really, really enjoyed that, thank you!Smile

Dave
Chris_L Plus
3 4.2k United Kingdom
7 Dec 2017 8:44AM
if you need to save weight then sticking with an APS-C body instead of buying full frame will save you a tiny bit but any advantage is lost when you are talking about buying 70-200 IS full frame lenses
franken Plus
15 4.5k 4 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2017 8:51AM
I went from Dslr's to micro 4/3rds about four years ago now and have never looked back. I appear to be rushing towards seventy and suffer from arthritis and that was the reason.
Carrying a backpack with a dslr and a few lenses was turning into a real problem for me.

Some Dslr's are many times heavier than the film versions they replaced. I've heard the argument that the reason why they're so heavy is that they develop the digital equivalent of film in camera.
Strange that as my micro 4/3rds do the same at a fraction of the weight.Hang on, so does my phone.Smile
There's nothing wrong with it but Dslr's continue to use technology that was first used in the early sixties and that's the instant return mirror and mechanism.

Sensor technology continues to improve at a rapid pace and will continue to do so. I often read of comments like the APS cropped sensor. What was it a crop of as 35mm size or as it's now known as, full frame wasn't available at the time these came into general use.

You could argue that full frame is a crop of medium format digital, it's nonsense really.
Paul Morgan 16 18.9k 6 England
7 Dec 2017 12:18PM

Quote:You could argue that full frame is a crop of medium format digital, it's nonsense really


Yeh its all quite silly, makes you wonder how many of these people that crack on about full frame v crop have ever used anything larger than 35mm, the latest generation grew up on digital web cams and mobile phones, film formats are as alien as cassette`s and vhs to them Smile
Chris_L Plus
3 4.2k United Kingdom
7 Dec 2017 12:40PM
Exactly, you can get full frame in lightweight mirrorless bodies.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#488,707

Lush big sensor without the weight Grin

250184_1512650296.jpg



Quote:Dslr's continue to use technology that was first used in the early sixties and that's the instant return mirror and mechanism.
Yeah you need to go with new tech if you want a lighter body.
7 Dec 2017 2:09PM
Some time back, there was a useful piece on the zeiss.de website about the relative performance of medium format and 35mm lenses where they gave examples and figures. I was surprised that 35mm SLR lenses were so much better than medium format but lenses to fit the Leica M were better still and by quite a margin. Zeiss explained that they had to make optical compromises to make room for the reflex mirror.

Now that pixel density and hi-ISO performance are so much better than in the early days of digital, there shouldn't be much of a quality difference between full-frame and APS-C or indeed M4/3.

How many pixels do we actually need? I'll accept that 50 or even 100Megapixel is often needed in the commercial world, but for an enthusiast?
Chris_L Plus
3 4.2k United Kingdom
7 Dec 2017 3:54PM
There's not a massive quality difference between APS-C and FF, or between MFT and APS-C, but you certainly notice it going from MFT to FF

I knew a woman who, instead of improving her technique and her processing, went from Pentax to Canon to Olympus to Nikon etc, a jack-of-all-trades who rattled through lenses and bodies only ever producing very average looking snaps. It happens.

I think the OP might have wanted a wider field of view with his full frame lens and had considered upgrading to FF.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.