Coyote9269 Loc: USA

Keep in mind the larger the print the further the viewing distance has to be. 18mp and more will print a photo that size. But as the photo grows so does the distance one has to view it from so it is not pixalated .

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Full frame cameras have an advantage in ISO. Otherwise they tend to be bigger, heavrier, and more expensive than APS-C or 4/3rds.

mellis5132

Thanks for info

Toment Loc: FL, IL

You actually can shoot in crop mode on most. The EVF is wonderful but has a drawback of dark frame but the a9 doesn't suffer from that.
Have fun !

Camera buyer Loc: Las Vegas

I have been in digital photography since my first Agfa 1.5 Megapixels, to my current Canon 5DMKII and 6D and my Sony a6000. I've owned al the Canon APC cameras from the 30D to the 60D. I switched to full frame out of necessity, NOISE in high ISO situations. There are more pixels on a full frame sensor. and when I shoot performers on stage, it's obvious. I also shoot interiors for a designer, and there's MORE INFORMATION on a full frame. I bought the Sony NEX-7 and a6000 for FUN shooting. If need be, I have an adapter that allows me to use my Canon lenses on the Sonys. I rarely do since they are heavier. Depending on your requirements, make your choice. I use what the assignment requires. Good Luck!

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Please "quote reply" so we know at whom this is aimed
Thanks

mellis5132

mellis5132

Thank u

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Cameras weigh considerably differently. Just sayin...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Pro: In some situations and for some purposes, a full frame camera can produce higher quality images.

Con: A full frame camera costs more. The lenses it requires are bigger, heavier and generally more expensive, too.

Most photographers don't really need full frame cameras, just think they do because of all the hype.

I'd also wager that many who use FF don't actually get any real benefit from them.

In fact, yesterday I was shooting a sporting event where another photographer was using a FF camera that quite possibly was one the worst possible choices for the situation.

I know from personal experience that her setup is a poor choice for the purpose. We were shooting an amateur equestrian event and she was using a FF Canon 5D Mark II (21MP) fitted with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and a Canon 2X II teleconverter. I was using Canon APS-C 7D Mark II cameras (20MP) with EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM on one and an EF 100-400mm L IS USM II on the other.

The 5DII (which I also have owned for many years and use for other purposes such as portraits and macro) cost her at least 50% more than what one of my cameras cost me, has a far more primitive, slower, poorer tracking AF system (15 points with three "cross type" versus 65 points, all "cross type" in my camera), shoots at 5 frames per second max (versus 10 fps w/my camera), and has a loud shutter that I've seen cause high-strung, inexperienced horses to "go vertical" and dump their riders.

I also have copies of the exact same lens and teleconverter she was using... A combo that I've tested and make a point of never using together due unacceptable deterioration of image quality. Her effective 140-400mm f/5.6 combination (70-200mm + 2X) is also about the same size, weight and cost as the far sharper, faster focusing 100-400mm I was using. For that matter, on an APS-C camera with it's "free 1.6X teleconverter effect" she wouldn't need the image-quality-robbing 2X on that 70-200mm. The lens alone might give more than adequate reach on APS-C. Or, if needed, could be used with a weaker 1.4X teleconverter which does much less "harm" to image quality. Or, on an APS-C cameras a less expensive 70-300mm might serve instead, giving better image quality, higher performance and greater effective reach. The f/4 version of the 70-200mm I was using is about 2/3 the size and weight of the f/2.8 version she was using, too. f/2.8 certainly isn't needed outdoors and can even be a problem, with too shallow depth of field. Besides, by the time a 2X is added to the lens, it's an effective f/5.6. Guess what aperture I'm using with both my lenses!

So.... she spent more to carry around bigger, heavier gear that's slower focusing, lower performance and certain to give poorer results... and might even cause accidents if she isn't careful. She has essentially taken three excellent products that are the wrong things for the purpose in the first place and is now using them together in a manner that's certain to make for lower quality results. Oh well!

"Full frame" certainly has it's uses... But it isn't the be-all, end-all that some people claim it to be. The vast majority of DSLR buyers don't need FF... And I'd bet that a lot of FF users don't really get any benefit from the larger format.

In a nutshell, if you can't articulate in detail WHY you need full frame... You really don't need full frame.

Or, another way of looking at it... If your images are falling short of your expectations with an APS-C camera, switching to full frame won't solve anything. In fact, it probably will just make for even bigger failures!

Dutzie Loc: I'd like to know

The IQ will be better...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I've been shooting digital since the 1990s, when I used a 1.2MP Olympus. I've been using Canon DLSRs since 2004, primarily: 10D, 30D, 50D, 7D, 7D Mark II APS-C cameras and 5D Mark II full frame camera. Also have occasionally used a few other models ranging from Rebel to 1D series.

Like you, one of the key reasons I got my 5DII was for high ISO, low light shooting. Where I limited my 10D to ISO 800, 30D to ISO 1600 and didn't use 50D any higher than ISO 3200... 5DII does pretty darned well at ISO 6400:



However... APS-C has come a long way in the years since. 7D Mark II at ISO 16000 (sixteen thousand, not a typo):

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

.... while it's being viewed by you during post-processing, at 100% on your computer monitor (which is equivalent to making a 40x60" print).

But once that's done and you've resized the image for it's final use, such as display online at Internet resolutions or to make an 11x14 or 13x19 print or whatever.... Will anyone else ever see the difference? Unless you make really huge prints, very probably not!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

aka, disposable FF sensor.