If you have to ask...you don't need one.
Here's what I learned the hard way 10,000 Ft up in the White Mountains in California trying to photograph a Brisclecone pine using the full moon.
In order to get the same tree framed as the rest of the group with a Nikon D7100, I had to back off about 20' and off to the right. Which put me farther down the hill and with a different angle of the sky, so I did not get the constellation I wanted extending out of the top of the group of trees. Which is when I decided to take the plunge and get a D810.
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
le boecere wrote:
If I were the OP, I'd be asking you "Why?"
He and we can go to at least 2 current UHH threads and read other expert contributors who tell us stuff like; "...the (Canon) SX60.....the Sony RX10 lll 24-600mm Zeiss lens....the Sony HX400V also a 50x Zeiss lens. All three of these cameras are smaller and lighter than your (Sony full frame) a850 with equal or better image quality."
If the above is irrefutable fact, why would one need or want a camera with a sensor larger than the 1/2.3"?
Why full-frame?
If I were the OP, I'd be asking you "Why?&quo... (
show quote)
Superior low noise performance at high ISOs (low available light) for one.
Full-frame cameras are big and heavy and look more professional.
in certain applications full frame has the advantage over smaller sensors. you will have to do some reading to decide if full frame is best for you.
mellis5132 wrote:
I would like some input on full frame cameras. Thanks
There are a lot of full frame cameras out there. Currently I use this one. I got it for $9.00.
rpavich wrote:
There are a lot of full frame cameras out there. Currently I use this one. I got it for $9.00.
Of course, they need film.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
mellis5132 wrote:
I would like some input on full frame cameras. Thanks
I use mine for landscapes because wide angle lenses work very well on them. I use a crop sensor for wildlife and nature shots. For me, Full frame means wide angle.
jerryc41 wrote:
I've accumulated a lot of links. If sensors hadn't been so expensive, and they started with full-size sensors, I wonder if they would have introduced the smaller sizes.
Actually, 35mm IS a smaller size.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY
sb
Loc: Florida's East Coast
Last year I purchased a refurbished Canon 6D from Canon (about $1100 when they have them). It is not a camera for everyone - it doesn't shoot as many frames per second as some people would like for example - but some say it is the "second-best camera ever made". I have been fantastically pleased with this camera. Its low-light capability allows me to get acceptable images with an ISO as high as 25,000. I can do pretty amazing cropping. The dynamic range of the images seems much better than with the APS-C sensor cameras.
I have the D800 fantastic, so the 810 can only be better, you will not be sorry, a camera to last a lifetime.
NoSocks
Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island
Big difference when I went full frame. I wouldn't go back with the possible exception of a D500 as a second camera.
Full frame is nice. Medium format is even cooler. But if you are just starting out and don't know what questions to ask about FF, I'd recommend you get a Sony RX100iii. It's not a full frame camera. It has a teeny tiny little 1" sensor. But that way you can figure out if you like photography with a competent, (relatively) inexpensive little camera that does most of the stuff FF does before you spend a lot of money on something that doesn't convfefe or has too much splunge.
After you shoot with that camera for a while, you can decide if you want to get into this enough to form some clearer questions.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.