leftj Loc: Texas

Wow! Problems getting good film? That's just not true.

srt101fan

Simple to search but NOT necessarily simple to find.

Longshadow is right; you can't find a relevant post if the poster didn't include the right words in the title.

BebuLamar

For most people you have to buy online.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

With an APS-C sensor your field of view is less than the FF sensor. This is not magnification nor extended focal length.

As for the image quality, both sensors size can produce great images.

As technology increases, so do sensors. The real question about any sensor is how it is made and functions. For example, in my Sony A7Rii the sensor is back lit allowing better low light images, for one thing.

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

With an APS-C sensor your field of view is less than the FF sensor. This is not magnification nor extended focal length.

As for the image quality, both sensors size can produce great images.

As technology increases, so do sensors. The real question about any sensor is how it is made and functions. For example, in my Sony A7Rii the sensor is back lit allowing better low light images, more dynamic range, and low noise, for a few things.

leftj Loc: Texas

What's wrong with that? You probably buy your cameras and lenses online.

whwiden

B&H photo in NYC is a good source for film.

BebuLamar

In fact no. I bought my last camera from a local store. In fact I went to that same store 6 months earlier asking to buy some films and the guys laughed at me. Although I thought it wasn't very nice I came back and bought my digital camera from them.
The reason that I wouldn't buy a camera without seeing it first in person and if I asked a local store to show me the camera it's only fair that I buy from them when I decide to buy.

leftj Loc: Texas

Must be a pretty small store. In Houston "The Houston Camera Exchange" is a large store and they have a significant area dedicated to film. Looks like they have just about every film there is.

Idaho

Start out with the DX camera. There are numerous advantages especially as a first camera. Eventually you may want to add a full frame if you decide it is worthwhile . Or, if like me, you just decide you want one.

BebuLamar

It's not that small a store. It's about the largest store in Dallas area. It's Competitive Camera.

therwol Loc: USA

Interesting, but when I compare the "Read Noise" between the D810, D500 and D5 cameras, there is a big difference above ISO 400. The D500 and especially the D5 have much less than the D810 at high ISO, but there is disclaimer on the bottom saying you can't use this to compare cameras. (Which brings up the question, why measure it then?)

gwilliams6

You are correct that generally FF camera sensors have more dynamic range (except Canon). But you are incorrect that changing exposure will increase your dynamic range. Granted dynamic range is best at lower ISOs, but only the abilities of the sensor determine your dynamic range (all other exposure factors being the same). Lowering your ISO with longer exposures utilizing stabilization does have a benefit for lower noise, but if your sensor can't produce 15 stops of dynamic range you just won't get all 15 stops of dynamic range by changing any settings.

Stops of dynamic range and stops of image stabilization are two completely different things and not related. You sensor quality (not simply size) determines dynamic range.Some top latest APS-C size sensors from Fuji have nearly 15 stops of dynamic range. Right now only Nikon D850 (FF DSLR) and Sony A7RIII and A7III (FF Mirrorless) have 15 stops of dynamic range in FF cameras.

leftj Loc: Texas

Very surprised they don't carry film. There's a growing community of film users out there.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

FYI... The reason there are not L-series crop only lenses is only because of how Canon defines an L-series lenses. To qualify as an L-series, a lens must....

1. Use leading edge tech and materials to give maximum performance.

2. Utilize exotic glass elements such as ED, UD, Apo, Fluorite, etc. to achieve superb image quality.

3. Be compatible with and usable on every EOS camera made.... past, present and future.

A number of Canon's EF-S (crop) lenses easily meet the first two criteria. But none of them achieve #3. All EF-S are by design prevented from being used on any full frame, APS-H or film EOS camera. For that reason alone, there will never be an EF-S lens with a red stripe and the L designation... regardless how good lens it might be. In fact, there are EF-S lenses that rival the image quality and performance of L-series... though they are generally not built with premium quality materials to keep the costs reasonable and more in line with the cameras they're designed to be used upon. In many ways the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM holds it's own quite well against the $400 more expensive EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM or the considerably bigger, heavier and $1400 more expensive 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM. Offering better image quality, a stop larger max aperture, and image stabilization the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM out-performs the similarly priced EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. It even comes darned close to equaling the image quality, speed and performance of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM... at $800 lower price. And the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro holds it's own quite well against the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro that costs almost double. Even more "entry level" lenses such as the EF-S 10-20mm IS STM and EF-S 55-250mm IS STM are quite good performers... at much lower prices than full frame counterparts.



So, is the glass half empty? Or is it half full? Whether a crop sensor offers "magnification" or "crops" depends upon the user and what they need the camera to do.

[quote=bowserb]As to prints, no matter what you hear, the fact is, more pixels will make a sharper print in larger sizes.[quote]

But many people never make very large prints. 8x10, 11x14 or perhaps 13x19 may be the biggest they every do.... in which case they'll be hard pressed to see any difference between the images from a 24MP APS-C camera versus a higher resolution full frame camera.

[quote=bowserb]It is less obvious in very large prints, but that is because you don't look at a large print as closely as you do a 4x6.[quote]

Huh? While viewing distances change, you ain't gonna be able to tell the difference between a crop sensor image and a full frame sensor image with a 4x6.... It only starts to become "obvious" with larger prints, though you are correct that it's offset to some extent because those will typically be viewed from a greater distance.

[quote=bowserb]My wife uses a 50.6 megapixel Canon 5DSR. Photos from her camera with a high quality lens, taken at ISO 100 in good light, produce sharper 16x24 prints than I would have thought possible with digital. And yes, modern quality lenses do resolve detail as great as a 50 megapixel sensor can record.[quote]

Yes, BUT... many people will never make a 16x24" print. 8x10" or 8x12" are far more common. With relatively affordable 13" wide printers, some of the more serious shooters may make 12x18 or 13x19" prints. But many today only share digital files, in which case even a crop sensor DSLR's images will usually be greatly reduced both in size and resolution.

You also fail to mention that the 50MP 5DS-R has a limited ISO range... 100 to 6400, expandable to 50 and 12800. That's probably more than adequate for most uses of a 50MP DSLR... but also far short of what some other, lower resolution FF or even some APS-C cameras offer.

[quote=bowserb]...generally speaking, a full frame sensor with the same pixel count as a crop sensor, will likely produce a better image, especially in low light. Why? The individual pixels are larger and therefore can record more light without amplification and therefore with less noise. That assumes other things are equal and of more or less the same generation. Technology keeps improving, so comparing a full frame from 2008 with a crop from 2018 might seem to dispute the idea that bigger is always better.

Lenses made for crop sensor cameras are smaller and lighter because they only have to produce an image circle big enough for a crop sensor. For that reason, there are some extraordinary zoom lenses for crop sensor cameras--that would be unreasonably large, heavy and expensive if made comparable for a full frame camera. I use a Tamron 16-300mm lens for everyday or travel. Its zoom range encompasses angles of view equal to 25.6 to 480 on a full frame camera. Lenses for crop sensor cameras are also less expensive, partly because they're smaller and partly because they're often also more cheaply made. Want to compare some lenses? Look here: http://www.opticallimits.com/[quote]

Largely, I agree. Except that I think it's also important to note the differences in depth of field effects and diffraction, as it relates to the different sensor formats (see my previous response).



"Stodgy old Canon"? You mean the company that invented multi-point autofocus, employed fluorite in more lenses and decades earlier than anyone else, makes their own sensors and was fully committed to CMOS five or six years before anyone else, implemented image stabilization a decade before anyone else, etc., etc.?

I think Canon and Nikon were timid about developing MILC because their management was concerned about eroding their own DSLR sales and they under-estimated how quickly MILC would become popular. Nikon also screwed up by utilizing a much smaller 1" sensor in their MILC (while Canon has built theirs around the same APS-C sensors they use in many of their DSLRs). While the Nikon 1 were able to be quite compact, their 1" sensor (2.7X "lens factor", even smaller than the 2X micro four/thirds Oly and Panasonic use) was just too small. That was a dead end, much like the Pentax 110 DSLR of the late 1970s and early 1980s... seemed like a neat idea, but was just too small and image quality was too limited.

Speaking of which, Pentax has also been very timid about developing a MILC... they actually offered one, though it was short-lived. The K-01 was neat, though, in that it could use any K-bayonet mount lenses from their SLR/DSLR systems, including legacy lenses dating back to 1975 and even earlier screwmount with a simple adapter. Their problems may be more related to the brand's several changes of ownership. It remains to be seen what will happen to Pentax under the Ricoh umbrella.

The problem with all MILC is a lack of lenses. The Fuji and Sony MILC systems might be the most well developed, yet they only comprise roughly 1/3 the selection offered by Nikon and Canon for their DSLRs.

I do agree that MILC are likely to continue to gain popularity and probably will eventually overtake and surpass or possibly even replace DSLRs. In 2011, all interchangeable lens camera sales were DSLRs. MILC had not even been introduced yet. But in 2017, only six short years later, MILC are making up 36% of the interchangeable lens market.

There are some neat things that MILC can do, that DSLRs can't. Size and weight are the most frequently discussed difference... and it's true that APS-C MILC and lenses designed specifically for them can be smaller and lighter than comparable APS-C DSLRs. Less so with full frame MILC. In fact, because FF MILC and the lenses they require are so close to the size and weight of a FF DSLR and its lenses, I am seriously hoping that Nikon and Canon... both of whom have stated they will be introducing FF MILC sometime soon... will make their cameras compatible with their existing DSLR lenses and NOT each try to introduce another line of lenses especially for their respective FF MILC. Sony made that mistake.... which is part of the reason for all the confusion you've noted in their parallel systems of APS-C and FF DSLRs, and APS-C and FF MILC... without any significant savings of size and weight when you compare their FF MILC to their FF DSLRs.

I'd like to see Canon continue to develop their APS-C MILC... Even so, they need to consider a more up-scale, "pro" oriented model. The M5 is a big improvement, but there's still room for further improvement. For example, even though the M5 uses the same 24MP sensor and Digic processor as the APS-C DSLR line, downstream from that it's hardware and firmware is more akin to what's used in the Powershot point n shoot cameras. To me this suggests that Canon is still thinking of their MILC as a step up from P&S cameras, but a step down from DSLRs... instead of parallel to DSLRs or even potentially superior to them in some ways. They've also been very slow developing lenses for use on the M-series... and what few there are appear to be more amateur than pro-oriented. All utilize slower STM focus drive, too. Yes, MILC can use DLSR lenses via adapters... but that sort of negates the size/weight advantage of the MILC. Third parties are offering some interesting lenses for Canon (and other) APS-C MILC... though the majority of those at present are manual focus and manual aperture only. MILC also can use vintage lenses via adapters.... both SLR and rangefinder lenses, in fact. (The majority of RF lenses are not usable on DSLRs, due to the camera's larger lens register).

There are other possible advantages of MILC, though. For example, silent or near silent operation should be possible. That can be very desirable for wedding photographers, on movie sets or in courtrooms, among other things. Thanks to their electronic shutter, it may be possible to achieve higher speeds than are practical with DSLRs, too. Where most of the latter top out at 1/8000 or 1/4000.... MILC have the potential to shoot at 1/16000 or even 1/32000. There are some limitations and difficulties "reading" a sensor that fast, though.

Like you, I also feel that a viewfinder is essential. There are just too many situations where an LCD screen on the rear of the camera is difficult or impossible to use and there are subjects that are better seen and tracked through a viewfinder. EVF are finally reaching a point in their development where they're competitive with optical viewfinders used by DSLRs. Now that they're virtually as responsive and fast as a direct optical view, EVF can even offer some advantages... such as focus peaking assist for manual focus, a brightened image for very low light shooting situations and by eliminating viewfinder blackout during exposure.

But, in addition to limited lens selections, MILC also present some challenges for wide angle lens design, due to their exceptionally short lens register and the more acute angle at which the light from such lenses is projected onto the sensor. And, due to their popularity MILC tend to be rather pricey in comparison to similarly capabilities DSLRs. Prices of MILC have been increasing at the same time that the prices of DSLRs have been decreasing.



Whether you consider it good or bad, that's the way most photography is done today! Camera phones haven't had very much effect on "more serious" photography with interchangeable lens digital cameras (i.e., DSLRs and MILC)... But they have almost killed off the non-interchangeable lens point-n-shoot camera market. The latter peaked in 2008 or 2010, when approx. 110 million were shipped and sold. By 2016 that had dropped to a bit over 10 million. Around a 90% loss of their marketplace! In the same time period the sale of phones with built-in cameras have increased six fold, from about 250 million units to around 1.5 billion! Now, not everyone uses the camera built into their cell phone... But I'd challenge you to try to find a phone today that doesn't have a camera built in! In 2016, digital cameras in phones made up over 98% of all cameras sold. Compact point-n-shoots were 0.8% of the market.... while interchangeable lens DSLRs garnered 0.5% and mirrorless "grew" to 0.2%!