Pauld

I apologize in advance for the lengthy introduction. This is my first post here, but I have looked at posts and other places on the net for my questions.
I am looking for one camera for traveling, with one lens. Hand held, no tripod. Walk around camera, which generally I will have with me at all times.

1. I do not take portraits, nor do I go birding.
2. I travel for, and take photos of:
a. Landscapes, scenery.
b. Cityscapes.
c. Street scenes.
d. People going about their daily lives (not portraits).
e. Local street markets.
f. Gardens and flowers (My wife generally takes the macro close-ups with her camera).
g. Interesting buildings, architecture, and historical sites.
h. Inside of buildings, museum artifacts, and historical sites, when of interest.
i. Festivals, folk shows, performances, and parades.
3. I would not base my choice of camera body or lens on these:
a. Some video (e.g. of performances or folk parades).
b. A few wildlife photos or videos.
c. Very few sports/action photos.
4. See http://vacations-pm.blogspot.com for examples. I would look at the China 2009 photos and then perhaps the Europe 2012 photos.

I had a Canon XTI (original version), with one wide angle zoom and one telephoto zoom, but then went with the Tamron 18-270 so I only had one lens. Those photos seemed not as sharp as I would like. I want to upgrade the body in any case, and I dropped the camera and lens, and they would need repair. So it is a perfect time to look for new body and new lens. I am not limited to one manufacturer.

I would like as good as image quality as I can get, given the limitations of using a large range zoom. I was thinking of cropped 18 – 200 or full frame 28 to 300.

In reading about full frame and its better image quality, articles say full frame is good for landscape. But from the above list, we take pictures of a lot more than landscape. And other articles I read indicated cropped was better for landscape because of the depth of field.

I will probably have more questions, but for now my question is:

1. Do you think cropped or full frame would be better for me?

Andy-j Loc: Stoke-on-Trent UK

I would say FF if money is no object.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

Full frame is always going to be a better choice if money is not an issue and you are going to buy a new DSLR anyway. But....remember that the person behind the camera is the factor most responsible for good photographs. If you do not shoot in manual or aperture priority modes most of the time, get the cropped sensor. If you do not fully understand aperture, shutter speed, depth of field and ISO and how they relate to each other, get the cheaper cropped sensor. I did not look at your photographs, but if they are not interesting, well composed and exposed correctly (for the most part) a full frame is not going to improve on that. Good Luck.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Full frame will be, generally speaking, more expensive for both camera and (good) lenses, and heavier.

If cost and/or weight do not deter you, I would think the full frame stands a better chance of keeping you happy longer. Which is not to say there are no great crop sensor cameras to consider.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Neither...
for what you describe (a camera that you want to carry around with you at all times), you should look into one of the new high end mirrorless cameras. I'm a fan of the Olympus EM1, others will say Sony nex7 (or its replacement a6000) or Fuji XT1.

Small, lightweight, and all take awesome images.

Pauld

Thanks for the comments. I understand the composure, exposure, and other photographer aspects would remain the same, but presumably the image quality would be better with FF vs crop. Or are you saying that the image quality difference would not be significant if you are not a good photographer to start with?

Pauld

Thanks. I had only done a cursory look at mirrorless. I will look at them more closely.

Pauld

Thanks for the comments. Yes, heavier may be an issue, since i will be carrying the camera all the time. Hopefully a shoulder strap instead of neck strap will help (I saw lots of posts about those). So another question that comes up is if i get a good FF body, but not the best lens (so not a Canon L series or Nikon or other equivalent), am I wasting the FF body?

Pauld

Thanks for the comments. With DXOMark and oither sites indicating the relative poor IQ with wide range zooms vs primes or short range zooms, it would seem that every advantage I could get would be helpful. Thus the consideration of FF.

Pauld

Thanks for the comment. And money is one consideration out of many.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

Well assuming that you would agree that the photographer is 90% of all that goes into producing a great picture, then a full frame will give you an edge in maximizing that final 10%. While the full frame sensor gives you an edge in landscape and real estate photography and quality lens availability, where it really shines is in ISO performance. All that said, I could very easily live with a cropped camera...heck, for that matter, I could live with full-manual Pentax I bought in the early 70's. I loved that camera!

And, yes....a poor photographer with a full frame camera will produce the same crummy photos he did with the cropped camera.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Good advice.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

You're number 2d and e. Street shooting...full frame need not apply people will see that giant body and lenses from a mile away and avoid you. Human nature. Em5 or em1 with a 12, 17, 20, 25, 45, or 75 prime would be perfect.

amehta Loc: Boston

To comment on the component importance, I believe the photographer, camera, and lens need to be of comparable quality to get the most efficient results, and if any one is significantly weaker it needs to be upgraded to match the other two. Then add the subject and light to complete the picture. I don't think any single factor dominates.

amehta Loc: Boston

If you get a good body, whether DX or FX, but subpar lenses, you're wasting the cost of the good body.