Sorry for your loss my friend. I do agree with your concept. Cheap wine and cheap cameras both give you a headache.
John N
Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK
I'd like a new car - but I've got (what you Americans refer to as) pre-loved, or we call secondhand. But it's nearly new.
It's all about the moolah!
Cdouthitt wrote:
So how many members do you now have on your ignore list now?
I'm proud to say that I'm on it.
I do a lot of hand held bird photography and even with a 500mm lens, I need to crop most pictures. The larger size, weight, and cost of a full frame rule it out for me. It is my understanding that because of the larger file size of a full frame image, the writing to the memory card takes longer, which becomes an issue when shooting at rapid burst rates.
If you can afford Full Frame, it's a great option. If you don't have the funds you can still enjoy photography at a high quality for less money when you buy a cropped camera.
I have both (and I call myself an "enthusiastic amateur").
I guess,it depends what you want to do with the images: as long as you post them on the web or print 4x6 or 8x12 you don't need full frame ...
Am I wrong with this assertion ?
What has FF got to do with mega pixels. My 1DXii has about 20 mps compared with my 7Dmkii which had 24mps. I got rid of the 7Dii because compared with the 1Dii there was no comparison in IQ and bought a 5Div. The only advantage of a crop factor according to many is the 1.6 magnification, in the case of Canon. The debate then becomes the IQ quality of the cropped in FF picture compared with the same image size APC picture and that’s a can of worms.
I have a Nikon D5600. I am not good enough at photography to buy a full frame at $3000, I would not be able to use it to its full advantage. I can, however, learn to use the 5600, then when I get the money I can advance to a full frame. There is no point to buying expensive technology if you cannot use it.
MikeMck
Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay
I have had both. I traded in a Canon 5D Mark III in favor of a Sony RX10 IV because of the weight and the fact I don't need to carry around a bunch of lenses. I still have a 7D Mark II and an 80D and lenses that I use when the RX10 IV isn't appropriate. For myself, and I am just a amateur, I really couldn't tell much of a difference. The images I get with the 7D Mark II are as good as the images I had with the 5D Mark III, but that is just me. I'm sure others will argue differently.
jfdnp
Loc: Coastal Connecticut
Feiertag wrote:
Just curious!
Undoubtedly, the cost. But a "non enthusiast" amateur will probably find that an non full frame camera will meet all of their needs and then some
Easy answer is because Olympus currently does not offer full frame.
Mick 53 wrote:
Sorry for your loss my friend. I do agree with your concept. Cheap wine and cheap cameras both give you a headache.
Thank you Mick, for your kind comment. Cheers!
Money, weight or size is not an issue, I just don't need any additional MPs. I have considered getting one for general purpose and when I think about it just could not convince myself that I would enjoy it any more! My photos are normally just to give away or for self enjoyment but some day I could change my mind!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.