starrphotos

If newbies prefer to have conversation regarding previously discussed subjects, how is that accomplished by searches? All too often old hats berate us newbies for rehashing old subjects. I consider that very unfair and sours newbies on participation. Maybe the old hats can choose not to participate rather than criticize newbies for not attempting to search through old posts.

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

I think buying and using a camera is similar to selecting a car. Any car will get you there but there are comfort advantages to some and power (HP) with others and you need to select what fits the driver. It is like having someone brag about the high HP and how fast you can reach 60 mph knowing unless you are a racer all that HP only burns gas and speed limits prevents you from getting the real use of the power. Cameras need to fit the user and if you are in business the FF has advantages but if you only take photos to please yourself and you don't spend hours doing post processing to get everything perfect the FF may not be what you need. Having the funds is not the issue, it is what you personally like and will get the best out of.

danersmiff

A couple more, bang for the buck deals, (Canon) from Adorama. (399.00 for the kit)

https://www.adorama.com/icat6ka.html

an extra 50.00 gets you a 75-300 lens (449.00 for the kit)

https://www.adorama.com/icat6k2a.html

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

Disclaimer
I don’t have experience of a FF camera, and only limited experience of DX.

—-

That said, when I did my research to find the best camera for my needs I was somewhat disappointed when I understood how much more the FF cost, including future lenses.

From my limited point of view a FF is better, no doubt. But it’s only better up until it’s time to pay it. At that moment the FF disqualify it’s self faster than rabbits make new rabbits.

Yes, I agree with the OP, DX gives more bang for the buck.

For me, as the fairly advanced amateur, I doubt anyone can distinguish what camera I use from looking at my pictures. Nor can I from looking at others.

srt101fan

Good one Jerry! When you get tired of indexing all the sites of the internet you might want to take a stab at comedy writing!?

bowserb

The big boys (Nikon and Canon) have never taken APS-C seriously. Look at their lens lines for those cameras. In Canon, the highest quality lenses are designated "L". You will not find a single L lens in EF-S (Canon's crop sensor lenses), even though Canon has been selling crop cameras for over 15 years. Of course, Canon's full frame "EF" lenses also work on EF-S camera bodies, although for any given focal length, you are carrying more bulk and weight than the crop sensor body needs. And BTW, the crop sensor cameras don't have a "magnification". Those 1.5, 1.6, or 2 numbersare crop factors. That crop makes a 50mm lens have an angle of view comparable to 75, 80, or 100mm on a full frame camera.

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

What about the same number of pixels in a crop vs full frame sensor. Along those lines, 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/

Now, I think you can work out FF vs Crop. The much bigger consideration these days is DSLR vs MILC. My friend, mirrorless is the future. Even stodgy old Canon has begun to admit that. My first Nikon F was an SLR, made in 1967 using 1950's technology. My wife's Canon 5DSR, except for using a sensor instead of film and having autofocus instead of manual, uses essentially the same mechanical technology from the 1950's. That flipping mirror, and before very long, the shutter curtain, is in a race to the history books. Starting with no camera right now, you want to decide DSLR vs mirrorless, as well as full frame vs crop. As of today, I think your full frame mirrorless options are limited to Sony or Sony. In crop mirrorless, you have more choices. Canon has only recently begun to make "real" cameras in mirrorless ("real" to me means it has an integrated EVF.) Nikon is still talking about it. Sony is in with both feet and a bewildering array of bodies, lenses, and model designations that only a Sony devotee can decipher. Fuji is in mirrorless 100% as well with both APS-C and even a medium format camera. In micro four thirds, you have Olympus and Panasonic. Samsung was there but has dropped out. Generally speaking, I think you'll find a better selection of lenses in the crop format cameras from companies that make only those. Micro four thirds, as well as crop sensor APS-C mirrorless, lenses can be a bit smaller and lighter than lenses made for DSLRs, since they focus their images closer to the rear of the lens. Micro four thirds has also the advantage of being both a sensor and lens mount standard, so m43 lenses made for Panasonic work on Olympus and vice versa.

Or, you could just use your iPhone.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’d recommend taking a look at this site. Not only the DR chart after you choose your camera(s), but especially the chart below which lists high ISO, low light performance of the various bodies, then the high ISO low light performance will become evident (and you’re correct, the D5 is “killer” at high ISOs). Remember that the 1 to 1-1/2 stop advantage can be traded for lower noise, higher shutter speed to freeze motion (especially for indoor sports), or more DOF. One additional comment. While the crop “multiplier” does provide longer reach on the tele end, on the wide end, it actually hurts you, forcing you to use ultra wide lenses to obtain the same FOV, which typically introduce more barrel distortion and vignetting/fall-off in the corners.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Each format has pluses and minuses.

Full frame is ideal for some purposes.... such as making very big prints or other really large uses of images. FF also may be able to shoot at higher ISO and hence able to capture images in lower light conditions. FF also gives you a bit greater control over depth of field effects. DoF doesn't actually change, for all practical purposes, but when you use FF to frame an image the same way as you did with a crop camera, you either need to get closer to your subject or use a longer focal length lens, or a bit of both, which allow a large aperture to render a bit shallower DoF. At the other extreme, you also can use smaller apertures with a FF camera, for deeper DoF effects. That's because when you make any given size print from each, the image from the FF camera will require less enlargement, and so diffraction will be less apparent. An image from a 24MP crop camera, which requires about 13X enlargement to make an 8x12" print, begins to see some effects from show diffraction at f/6.3 or smaller aperture. In comparison, the same from a 24MP FF camera will not show effects of diffraction until about f/9 and smaller.

However, full frame cameras are generally more expensive than croppers. And, as you noted, the lenses for FF also are more expensive... as well as larger and heavier. This is true even when using full frame capable lenses on both formats. For example, I often shoot with an easily hand-held, approx. 3 lb. 300mm f/4 lens on one of my crop sensor cameras. In order to frame a subject the same way from the same distance with my full frame camera and still have the same "speed", I'd have to use my 8 lb. 500mm f/4 lens... and a tripod or at least a monopod to sit it upon.

Crop sensor cameras are a lot more common... there are more of them to choose among, than there are full frame. Smaller, lighter and less expensive.... they are more than adequate for most peoples' real world uses. They also give you more selection of lenses.... since they can use both "crop only" lenses and full frame design lenses equally well (full frame cameras are for all practical purposes limited to full frame capable lenses). In addition, crop sensor cameras may have performance advantages such as faster frame rates and higher flash sync speeds.

All this means is that while both formats can be used for a wide variety of purposes, one or the other may be more ideal for certain purposes. For example, shooting architecture or landscapes where I want great depth of field or may want to make a really large print, I'd rather use a full frame camera. On the other hand, when photographing wildlife or sports I'd rather use a crop sensor camera.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

It can be stated in a few words:
FF advantage is for cropping, low light, wide angle, very large prints.
Crop advantage is lower size and weight, tele reach, cost.
Otherwise pretty much equal.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You're assuming a lot...

...Specifically about lenses, that one wants long telephoto lenses for wildlife / sports photography. Many of us do landscape, macro, architectural, and portraiture. With wide angle, the price vs focal length for FF vs CF the situation is a bit reversed. Also, again about lens quality, you are going to be talking about Nikon lenses for the most part where they distinctly make their highest quality lenses FX or for full frame and a lot of their DX or APS-C lenses funkier. There is less difference between Canon products. And Pentax does not make lower end lenses by format. They like Nikon over the years have put out a few "cheap / budget line" lenses with plastic mounts but there have only ever been a few of those by either brand. Since Pentax got into the FF market so late with their K-1 and K-1 ii, most of the lenses they've ever manufactures can be use of both Film and FF Digital and CF Digital. Only the DA line are APS-C only, Pentax FA and D FA lenses are fully FF and CF and all intentionally of high quality. A plug for Pentax is that all vintage M42, K, M, A series lenses can be used on their digital DSLRs. But my main point here was that Nikon seems to make two distinct lines as to quality.

I agree that 24MP APS-C cameras are a good choice for a CF, but then what APS-C / CF / DX camera exists with any more than 24MP. For more than 24MP you are talking about a FF. These come with 36MP, 45MP, etc. But do remember, to get the same pixel density in a FF as a CF you would have to have 24MP x 1.5^2 = 54MP!

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

For the past 5 years I have been shooting APS-C, both Canon and Nikon and Olympus M43 (EM1 and EM1 mark II). Three days ago I traded all my Nikon and Olympus gear in and bought a Sony A7III full frame + Sony 100 - 400mm f4.5/5.6 G Master and Sony 90mm f2.8 macro. I am stunned at the difference in quality. I doubted I would see much improvement over my D500 or EM1.2 but (and I did not think I would ever say this - even last week) the images I am seeing from my A7III + 100 - 400mm blow the other two out of the water. I owned a Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR, a Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 and a Sigma 180mm f2.8 OS macro. I also owned an Olympus 300mm f4 and Olympus 12 - 100mm f4. Brilliant though my D500 and EM1.2 were, this A7III is simply stunning. I can only quess what the Sony A9 would have been like, but I could not quite afford one aswell as the two Sony lenses.

Mike Holmes Loc: The Villages Fl

Thanks for all the useful feedback. My primary use is landscape, wildlife and travel. For my use, crop sensor seems to be the ticket.

gwilliams6

I agree with TriX in that you wont see a huge difference in the prints you make (unless you pixel peep) between micro 4/3, APS-C and full frame. And I also agree the main advantage of FF is in low light performance and less noise in the image. As a pro that is important. But I own both APS-C sensor Sony A6500, as well as Fullframe A7RIII and A7III. My A6500 is a great lightweight backup camera on any professional shoot I make with any of my FF cameras. The quality would be good enough for any client. Also I like the less size and weight of my APS-C camera if I can only take one camera for travel. When I want ultimate image resolution I always choose my FF gear, but yes that is more weight in camera and lenses to carry.

No you are probably thoroughly confused. Try them out and see what suits you. There are some great micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras systems available. Cheers

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

Well it's my opinion that the 35mm full sensor naysayers are just pixel peepers and are always striving for the perfect picture. Meaning that you aren't a real photographer unless you shoot full frame. I am a true semi-pro and I shoot with a crop sensor. The D-500 has brought the quality of full frame to the crop frame photographers. In a lot of ways it's better because if you compare a D5 to a D500 in full frame the D500 is sharper all the way from corner to corner of the frame. The full sensor propaganda is that it's sensor is almost as big as the 35 SLR film frame. But the funny thing is that it's still inferior to the film process. The DSLR world is just about to be there though. The new D850 is a great example to that. It beats the D5 ($3000.00 higher) all to hell as far as megapixels, focus tracking and speed/buffer. Now if you really want to be of equal quality to 35mm film than you are going to have to spend over $10,000 for cameras and over $5000 for lenses to match. Not very many people can afford that equipment. I shoot all kinds of photography and my D500 does it all for around $2200.00 for a D500, battery grip and a 16-80mm f2.8 lens. If you get the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 200-500mm f5.6 then you will have a full range kit. Get a good flash also.

williejoha

One is not better than the other. What you want to accomplish in the end is the deciding factor. At least it should be.
WJH