|
Post by GeneW on Sept 4, 2013 21:39:45 GMT -5
I don't yet know if I'm serious or just daydreaming, but I find myself attracted to the idea of getting a full-frame digital camera, maybe a Nikon or Canon (though I hear the Sony is quite good too).
Does anyone here shoot with one?
Part of me thinks it would be fun to get a FF body and a single 50mm f/1.4 lens and rather start over with photography, exploring the possibilities of a normal lens.
I'm currently shooting with m4/3 gear, which I like, but I miss the aesthetics of a true 35mm equivalent image capture where a 50 is a 50, not an 80mm equivalent.
I'm not brand loyal. I like Nikon ergonomics and I really like Canon lenses and sensors. It's a toss-up.
Gene
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 5, 2013 4:39:51 GMT -5
It's the money, they are very expensive, but all full frame reflexes give better image quality, I stick with Micro 4/3 mainly on cost, not just the full frame bodies, but the newer lenses. Old lens stuff works, but slows things down, and the budget would have to stretch to new glass to get the best from it.
Don't forget the "micro" quality of detail in the image is still poor compared to film, the quality comes from the processing smoothing the pixels. To get really good fine detail to rival Kodachrome or Pan f you would need about a 50meg image, and despite the larger full frame sensors the pixel count on full frame is nowhere near this, they rely on the software.
For most users the full frame looks fantastic in quality, better gradation, more detail in shade, better tones, but if micro sharpness is needed there are still those pesky square pixels at the micro level, which limit the detail on cropping the shot.
Area for area, the Micro 4/3 sensors have about the same micro detail level as full frame, a point often overlooked, the Micro 4/3 finally suffers due to the 2x magnification to get to the image size in comparison.
But a non cropped micro 4/3 shot may have more detail than a cropped full frame!
The truth is that larger and finer sensors are needed, or a change to larger formats.
My choice for full frame must be with Nikon, the system flexibility, and experience of a really professional maker, but the budget is going to be very high.
Stephen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 16:07:34 GMT -5
The technology has advanced to the point where I don't think "full frame" means too much. My Nikon D600 which is now several generations old has a 2/3 sensor (a 50mm 35mm lens is a 75 mm on this camera) and a 16x20 print from this camera shows less grain "or whatever you want to call it) than a 16x20 print from a 35mm film camera using fine grain film. A 120 film camera might beat a modern full fram DSLR but that's simply because there's a larger analog image to begin with. IMO for all practical purposes the Film-Digital debate is over. Film is only better if you prefer the look of a film image But look has nothing to do with detail.
W.
|
|
casualcollector
Lifetime Member
In Search of "R" Serial Soligors
Posts: 619
|
Post by casualcollector on Sept 5, 2013 18:50:18 GMT -5
Gene,
I agonized over this decision for years. I've used 35mm SLRs since 1971 and am fond of wide angle views. I considered the early Canon DSLRs but that would require new lenses. I considered the Nikon D-100 but it would not accept the legacy "pronghorn" lenses I had. I was taken with the Epson RD-1 but the expense kept me away. All had me thinking of the "crop factor".
I did come into some Canon EOS film equipment in 2008. The price tag on the then recently introduced EOS 5D was a bit much for my blood and I still didn't want to compromise with an APS-C format body. The 2009 5D mkII tempted me but the $3000 price tag kept me away. Introduction of the 5D mkIII in 2012 with its $3600 price tag sealed the deal and I bought a mkII before stocks ran out.
My wallet still hurts but I'm happy and made the right decision. The full frame viewfinder is far better than the "tunnel vision" finders of the APS-C DSLRs. If I had waited a few more months I'd have chosen the new Canon 6D over the 5D mkII, but I'm still happy. My 24mm lens is a true wide angle and not a normal! With a 50, it's almost like the old days, just more decisions to make in regard to camera settings.
I would say "Go for it"! The Canon 6D or its Nikon and Sony equivalents are the way to go if you're still attached to your old habits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 13:50:38 GMT -5
Actually I don't even use my DSLR that much now. We're going to Russia soon and we're taking two Fuji F600 EXR point and shoots and nothing else. I took mine on a trip to Europe in 2011 and was totally satisfied with the results. It is advertised as 16 megapixels but you can blow images from my old Nikon D50 up larger without getting a lot of noise. Still, the Fuji makes images that can be blown up to 16x20 without hurting the image much. I went that route because the Fuji was the first P&S I've seen with no shutter lag and its wide angle end it the equivalent of 24mm in 35 film And it is so great to be able to carry camera, enough memory for 6,000 pictures and three rechargeable batteries in a bag that fits in my pocket. I will admit sometimes missing a rear viewfinder as it can be hard to compose on a bright sunny day using the screen, but one eventually get used to it.. If I was shooting for commercial use I would take a DSLR along but I'm not, so I won't.
W.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 7, 2013 6:38:56 GMT -5
Gene
Long time no see. All I can say is I bought a Nikon D700 the first day they were available here and don't regret it a bit. It allowed me to use all my old manual focus lenses, not the non ai variety though, at the angle of view I had bought them for. I then got some of the newer zoom VR glass with motor in lens and really got a jolt as to how good they were. If I print I don't go larger than 11x17 and am satisfied by the results. I have no urge to up grade to the newer more mp model at all.
Of course if I did not have all that legacy Nikon glass I am sure a Canon/Sony FF would have done the job just as well. The only downside is the systems bulk and weight.
I am also pretty sure that if I just began digital photography today sensor size would not be much of an issue. If all you want to do is display shots on the web or on a big screen TV the smaller sensors are more than adequate.
Lots of things to think about so best of luck in coming to a decision on a FF camera.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Sept 7, 2013 20:50:18 GMT -5
I got a Sony Alpha, and I find myself using my Kodak instead.
|
|
Dave
Lifetime Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Dave on Sept 9, 2013 21:28:54 GMT -5
For me, if I am flying, I use digital -- Sony full frame. If I am not flying, film. It is simply too burdensome to carry film on a plane, especially on a trip with will last several weeks. A few cards and I am equipped for several thousand exposures. Dave
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Sept 10, 2013 9:20:22 GMT -5
In the "world of film", full frame was something very normal and affordable for everyone, in the digital world it's kept ( artificially, as I believe ) as something very exclusive for what you need to pay a ridiculous ( as I also believe ) price. All other electronic products became cheaper over the years ( TVs for example ) ... and TV screens became even larger, but we still need to pay a few thousand dollar for a few millimeter sensor. I will never support that, even if I would have the money, which is just a personal attitude of course.
So, for the quick shot out of the pocket, I use a digital P&S or my cellphone, which are always with me like a Suisse pocket knife and if it needs to be full frame, a good old film camera does still serve me well.
|
|
|
Post by vintageslrs on Sept 10, 2013 13:55:18 GMT -5
Bravo Berndt! I applaud your candor and your sound logic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2013 16:47:24 GMT -5
Berndt is correct. The DSLR manufacturers play a game of planned obsolesce. In the "old days" if you bought a top of the line SLR soon after it was introduced, you could pretty much plan on it continuing to be top of the line for at least five years -- maybe even a decade. Today the major camera manufacturers roll out new models every year.
In the beginning, when digital wasn't as good as film, that might have been justified. Now it's just an excuse to try to convince people they need the latest, greatest model. It's comparable to computers. for a long time a new computer was obsolete as soon as it left the store. Some People were dumping their old ones for the newest, faster model every year or less. But finally the majority of users discovered that they had reach the point where faster processors or graphics no longer made a noticeable difference because you could only move a certain amount of data through the pipe in a certain amount of time no matter how fast the machine.
Eventually DSLR makers may run into this. Or the quality of images produced by phones and point and shoots will reach the point where the more cumbersome DSLR is no longer relevant. People just won't want to lug around a big camera that just takes pictures (and/or video) when they can have a pocket-sized instrument that transmits voice, text and can also use a multitude of apps that can do everything from help you find the best price when shopping to translate various languages when you travel.
Even if the photo images these multifunction tools produce isn't as good as a DSLR, I suspect it will be "good enough" for the generations who have grown up in the computer age. So the DSLR makers are making hay while the sun is still shining.
W.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 10, 2013 18:12:51 GMT -5
Yea, that is why I waited to get a DSLR till the D700 came out, it was a mature enough product for me and I saved a bundle not getting in on the ground floor with a D100 and continually trading up. Is it over kill for most needs, you bet it is but then so is the 35mm film camera. Especially so as most people don't print these days and if the do not very large at all. FF digital or 35mm film is not for the majority of users and when volumes are low as compared to cell phones and P&S you gonna pay more no matter what.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 10, 2013 21:20:38 GMT -5
Berndt,
I am in complete agreement with you on full frame. However my point and shoot and telephone just don't give me the thrill that my Pentax K5 does. Indeed, I dislike using them and still drag a camera bag (formerly called a gadget bag) with me wherever (almost wherever) I go.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 12, 2013 12:36:17 GMT -5
My apologies from being absent from the conversation. My wife has had a hip-replacement op and I'm chief caregiver, cook, driver, etc.
I thought about full-frame quite a bit, but the show stopper for me is that I don't have many manual lenses left in my collection. I thinned out most of my gear over the past few years.
What I do have are some excellent m4/3 lenses. So, in a fit of sheer indulgence, I'm upgrading my OM-D E-M5 to the new E-M1. I've also preordered that 12-40mm f/2.8 pro lens. Although the image quality of FF appeals to me, I get very pleasing pix from my m4/3 gear and I like the small bodies and light weight.
I'm looking forward to using the new gear when it comes into stock and think I'll continue to be happy with the world of m4/3.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 13, 2013 8:01:49 GMT -5
Gene
Wishing your wife a full and complete recovery from the replacement surgery. I think you made an eminently practical and logical decision on your digital dilemma. Enjoy your new gear.
Bob
|
|