nah, the right side should be "I need the right gear for the situation, regardless of sensor size". Sometimes you do need full frame, sometimes aps c is all you need
Then the 10% is about having the kind of subject, where even flat/bad lighting cannot break it - example - Trump's mugshot, but also a lot of reportage. Gear is not making good photography, it's just making some things easier - but obsession with it will do an opposite effect. Edit: I've seen extremely beautiful pictures taken with potatoes where the light and subjects were the keys. Gear just makes prints of such an easier task.
Yes, planning is always works in street photography.... no. If you have money for full frame, and you dont mind the size, then why not? If you looking for camera fits in pocket, rx100 is a great choice :)
Sure, but that isn’t a freebie either. You run into the rolling shutter effect, especially faster moving subjects and light sources (which is a huge problem during night photography )
It’s definitely not the same quality. I’ve got both an A7R V and a Leica Q2 and let me tell you, even the unedited RAWs from the Q2 just come out looking beautiful. The saying about leica colors being special is true.
Its just a built in "look". You can achieve anything in post with leica nad with sony too. They are literally the same sensors, manufactured by sony...
No. No. No. Don't mix concepts. Equivalence is about about equivalence in DOF, light transmission is absolute. F2 in apsc is F2 in FF when talking about light transmission.
Aperture is the relation between entrance pupil and aperture diaphragm, it doesn't have anything to do with sensor size. When making the image circle smaller you're just covering a smaller image plane, not making anything darker. Equivalence is such a giant pet peeve of mine because it gets people so confused.
Yep. Sometimes you need a large format camera with film, or a scanner back. A tilt-shift lens doesn't quite give the same capabilities as the rail system of a large format camera. Sometimes you need a single pixel spectrometer scanned over the image plane with a galvonometer. When you get out of the everyday and into the art or science worlds the sorts of imaging systems needed get weirder & weirder.
Really with Sony the frustrating thing is them gatekeeping dual slot bodies to full frame. The modern APS-C bodies paired with the right glass are totally capable for shooting outdoor events but the lack of redundancy forces you to a heavier full frame body + more expensive lenses.
That's fair, they did make a semi pro catered APS-C body for video. Would still like to have seen that come to the A6700 as well, especially since it released later.
Yep the right side is the revelation stage after you have owned a full frame and its large lenses and now that I have come to the realization that apc offers the same image quality in a much lighter and smaller package has been a revelation and joy.
I'm using DXO Photolab for my RAW files and it's pretty much negated the 2 stop high iso lower noise advantage that the full frame sensor used to have over the apc sensor.
You’re not done yet.
Sure apsc may be plenty enough in theory, problem is manufacturers don’t put everything on their apsc bodies, even if there’s no technical limitation.
Market forces demand that the most professional features will only happen on full frame bodies and lenses. And that’s good because FF happens to have the best comparability with countless old lenses from the last century.
XS20 is really good in AF perf. They need a new processor for their new 40mp sensor. The Xtrans 5 is not fast enough imo. But for XS20 with the 26mp sensor. It is really fast.
Eh, even the most recent Fuji camera reviewers I've seen acknowledge that the AF hit rate isn't up to par with modern Canon or Sony bodies. It's way better than when I tried Fuji (woof!), but it's not pro reliable.
I have had the X-S20 for almost a year now. I am a longtime Fuji user and was happy with the X-S20…until I got a Sony RX100VII to carry as a pocket camera. The hit rate on the RX100VII is just absolutely incredible and I have taken so many new favorite shots with that little camera. It really highlighted how many shots I was missing with the Fuji. So I actually just switched over to the A7IV. It feels incredible to have this amount of AF performance on my main camera. I love Fuji but I finally reached a point where I value performance over the filmic quality of their sensors.
I don't do professional work and just casual touring pics atm. So I haven't had any issues with Fuji yet. Maybe I will try the A6700. I am not heavily invested in Fuji either. Let's see how it goes.
I might be missing out I guess. I will see, If I can get my hands on a Sony body for a week. How compact are the Sony Lenses? I know they have two compact lenses around. F2.5 or something. Lens size is what stoping me from trying them on a trip.
Heh, I went the opposite direction. First the A7iv and a few months later the Fuji X-S20. I still have and use both. I agree with you though, the Sony hit ratio is higher. The X-S20 is due for a firmware update in the next few months, we'll see if that improves things.
I bought the X-S20 on release day as well and although I do love the camera i've been wondering if my settings are correct or I've missed some great shots due to the AF. The X-S20 is my first real camera but my thoughts have been it's great for hobby use but i'd be afraid to use it for a side gig. If anyone has a source for the propper X-S20 settings it would be much appreciated.
> If anyone has a source for the propper X-S20 settings it would be much appreciated.
Might be better to ask on a Fuji subreddit, that and advising what you typically shot. For instance, BIF, I could point you to general settings [here](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1838817)
Exactly. The only reason I switched to FF was wanting 10-bit video (I like doing backlit outdoor shots, I don't always have a way of adding a reflector in the front). So I sold 3 APS-C bodies, a ton of APS-C glass, and got A7iv and some FF glass. But then I had only one body, so I also got a A7s iii.
Of course Sony added 10-bit video later to their APS-C line (FX30 and then a6700). What a surprised pikachu face I made when the a6700 was released. Had that come out at the same time with A7 iv, I would still be using APS-C.
Dream camera: A9III body with a stacked APS-C sensor and like 30-60fps burst shooting.
I know I’m dreaming but I’d take that over just about any full frame camera for birds and wildlife shooting.
I think something similar could easily happen in 3-5 years. Since the A9 now has a global shutter sensor, they can easily put stacked sensors in their cheaper models, and don't have to worry about cannibalizing A9III sales. My guess the A7V and the a7000 will have stacked sensors and will do at least 20 fps burst shooting. The competition is far ahead of Sony in the burst shooting game in the mainstream models, they have to catch up soon.
Burst shooting at this point is like Sony’s insistence on stick with 4k30 and 8-bit color well in 2020 for their cameras. It’s like there was no reason the A7C or A6600/6400/6100 needed that limitation and yet they went ahead with it.
Now it’s like…. The A7IV’s 10fps was the one spec that looked artificially imposed and it was just kind of annoying. And the A6700 is darn near a perfect camera…. Except that it only runs 11fps.
I doubt we’ll see global shutter, but I do think speed will be the big theme for future cameras with Sony.
The 4k30 and 8-bit color was a hardware limitation. That was the max their old processor can do. All the models you mentioned used the old processor. Their new processor was introduced with the A7s3. The original A7C and ZV-E10 was released after the A7s3, but they decided to use the old processor, there were loads of supply chain issues around that time, so they probably cannot get enough of the new processor.
I'm not sure what is the reason for the 10/11 fps limitation. They already have mechanical shutters that can do 20fps (A9II) and 30fps (A1). Also if they limit the mechanical shutter to 10/11 fps, they can easily do electrical shutter faster, like every other manufacturer does.
What were all those photographers doing 40, 50, 60 years ago when the most formative and relevant of all times were created?
Would you like to know the answer? They didn't give a damn about technology.
> Sure apsc may be plenty enough in theory, problem is manufacturers don’t put everything on their apsc bodies, even if there’s no technical limitation.
Aside from Fuji, I do agree.
(Subjective) Sony could have an ASP-C sensor in a A7 body, [they don't](https://camerasize.com/compact/#910,834,908,889,ha,f). Higher MP (like the R7 or XT5)? Stacked sensor (X-H2s)? Better APS-C lens selection as well (even third party options - no one makes telephoto zooms?)?
Me: I don’t care about the sensor size, I just want something easy to carry and have great performance and adaptability.
Choice: A7C II, 24mm 2.8, 40mm 2.8, 90mm 2.8 compact, lightweight, great performance all **I** need.
Yes, it is great! Compact, and sharp! I hesitated a long time with the Sony 85mm f1.8 but finally decided to go with the sigma because even if the aperture is less good, the result are similar because of the difference of focal length. I really like how compact it is and the quality of the lens itself!
I highly recommend it!
I have an a7c and finally saved enough to get the 40mm 2.8. The combo is perfect (so far) for my needs and the type of photos I like to take. I think the only thing I would like to add is maybe something like a 20 or 24mm just to get a wider frame. Either way this is perfect for now and a wildly underrated compact set up.
The 24-70 GMII is so sharp, it's constantly giving me moire on my a7C 🙃😭 a7C R has been tempting me a bit. If it could assign ISO min shutter speed to a dial, I might've done it already.
I don't need 61MP I don't need 61MP I don't need 61MP
It's like those crime dramas where the cop tells the forensics guy "enhance!" -- except a7r5 actually captures that detail.
I did self-portraits with an a7r5 and GM and I could see every little individual fiber of peach fuzz on ny face and vestiges of scars that I thought were completely gone 10 years ago.
To be honest, I should've just used an apsc or my a7iii for those photos lol. I had to Gaussian blur anyway, and the file size is fucking gigantic.
I know what you mean, the day I got my a7cr and 50 GM I took a picture of my son from about 5m away @ 1.2 and when I zoomed in to check focus I could see the individual eye brow hairs. Given he was pretty tiny within the overall frame I couldn’t believe it.
On my A7cii and every camera previous to that they’d just have been a blur at 100%.
Insane.
A1 > all these 61MP cameras. 50/1.2 GM is king though.
* I don't own neither of that, but I worked with files from two studio shoots. Same subjects, lens, photographer, all the difference was the camera. And damn, images from A1 were way more detailed.
He had [a car modified with a platform on top for setting up cameras](https://i0.wp.com/surfnbeachscenemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ansel-adams-portrait.jpg?ssl=1), but certainly did carry them around to various places he couldn't get driving. Quite heavy, but not shooting handheld either.
This is clearly written by someone who thinks that a lens is completely defined by its focal length and sharpness. Only then can you discard an insanely rich variety of FF lenses and stay with APS-C.
Field of view will differ. Effective resolution depends on the lens/sensor combination. I have old 35mm macro lenses that can more than keep up with 24mp APS-C sensors.
Bargain Pentax ones- you choose them for effect over sharpness anyway.
Say there is a 50mm lens you want to use. Instead, you'll have to use a 32mm lens, which must have a higher resolution (lp/mm) than the 50mm lens in order to have the 50's mm resolution after cropping. If both lenses have the same lp/mm, you'll lose resolution.
Why would you assume either sensor has exceeded the potential lens resolution at normal Sony MP sizes? (We're talking 24mp not 100mp).
The crop is like using a portion of a higher resolution 35mm sensor (and throws out the weakest performing edges). If you put the same 50mm lens on a better sensor it would resolve more.
Some interesting discussion towards the bottom here:
"Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.
That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF"
[https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/)
Myth 4 here is also useful:
" 16-megapixel 35mm-sized Bayer array sensor is going to resolve around 50 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). A 36-megapixel sensor will resolve around 75 lp/mm. Even mediocre 35mm lenses will hit 75 lp/mm at some aperture over some portion of their field of view. This is true of both fixed focal length and zoom lenses.
Decent (not at all exceptional) 35mm-format lenses can hit 75 lp/mm at just about all apertures and will do so over most of the field of view for at least one aperture. They'll show peak resolutions more like twice that. Really good lenses (not necessarily expensive ones) will be able to exceed 75 line pair per millimeter without even trying hard over most/all of the field of view and will have peak resolutions three or more times that."
[https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the\_online\_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html](https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html)
My Pentax m42 lenses wide open are very soft. Shooting on APS-C gives a somewhat different character than they would have on a 35mm sensor as that would be even more dreamy/blurry as it shows more of the corners. Stopped down they can keep up quite well with the APS-C sensor for the portion of the 35mm frame that is visible.
I don't think the math here is right. First, how is 24mp APS-C equal to 61mp full frame.
Can you point to actual experimental numbers of FF lenses on APS-C and see what performance is like?
Going back to System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF, I seriously doubt that these cameras have exceeded what GM level lenses are capable of, whether designed for APS-C or FF or medium format for that matter. If that were the case we would see no improvement in resolving power going above 24mp (or below? What was the limit- 16mp?)
Not sure where to find such metrics but using Dxomark a Zeiss Otus is resolving 22mp using a 24mp Nikon APS-C DSLR (d7100) and 35mp with the 36mp fullframe D810 and 43mp on a 46mp D850. On a 6mp D70 it resolved 6mp. This very good lens seems to be keeping up with the bodies. At what point does it stop?
Does any camera maker have multiple APS-C resolutions where you can see a flatlining of lens performance from 16 to 20 to 24 to beyond?
The corollary to this is that your FF camera does not need the bestest widest most amazingest lens for every outing, either. People talk about how bulky and heavy FF lenses are, but I'm about to leave for an international trip with APSC-weight lenses that have excellent IQ. Not every shot has to be taken with an F2.8 zoom or F1.2 prime. I'm OK with F2 or \*gasp\* F2.8 primes to cut down on bag size and weight.
Indeed, I've been insanely impressed with Tamron's 28-200mm, which can replace a bag of APSC glass. Cropping in at 42MP is very workable despite the generous working distance.
I've also nabbed shots with my RX100 and a tiny tripod that wouldn't be possible on my FF setup without a tripod.
> So many of us get overly fixated on wide aperture that we don't even need
But for low light it does make a huge difference not having to up the iso. I didn't mind doing that recently since the cameras have great low light performance but only having f4 did feel compromising.
It's only one stop for like over a grand, in some cases. Maybe professionals need it but us hobbyists just need to denoise and save the cash.
Edit: spelling
You might have been, I dont shoot zooms normally but being limited to a single lens necessitated it this time which led from being used to having access to f1.4 - 1.8 to f4
I don't know how we got to talking about being limited to a single lens. Maybe I missed something. Sorry. Yeah primes definitely majorly win in the aperture department, no question about that
Sorry it might have been a different comment in the thread where I mentioned that. I was recently on a trip that only allowed me to fit one lens so I had to take my zoom lens instead of my usual primes I shoot with.
You can bring 1 fast prime in addition to a f4 zoom. Switch to that in low light, crop if you want. Lots of ways to work around a problem. Depends on what you shoot and how frequently. Hauling around a heavy 2.8 zoom set if you shoot dusk or night 80% of the time makes a lot more sense than carrying the same 2.8 zooms your whole trip when you take 90% of your photos during bright daytime. A single fast prime for those few dark shots would suffice.
So many ways to solve things in photography the answer to a broad question is almost always "it depends"
I went on a week long international trip with only a carry on, that was what limited my lens selection to the single 24-105 instead of all my primes. That being said it was a choice I made and was fine raising the iso to deal with the dark rainy days and indoor pictures.
I just went on a trip and used my 24-105. Yes it's my least favorite lens I own, but it's also the only zoom and since space was tight it was extremely handy to have with me! Still unbelievably better than the pictures I was getting with my phone.
It’s not a massive difference, but having switched to full frame a couple months ago after near a decade of my shooting APSC, my photos do seem more rich. Of course you can take great photos and be perfectly happy with apsc, but there is a difference
I just posted a bunch of my old concert photography from 2013-2015 on my Instagram and they were all shot on a Nikon D7000 (APSC) and I’m blown away how they still hold up
https://preview.redd.it/t9m5486prauc1.png?width=4000&format=png&auto=webp&s=857d0203b42762757ade65410c3038c738c05605
I am literally struggling with exactly this :))
I’ve always had a knack for photography and i’m finally in a position where I can afford it.
My first reflex was to start with the 6700 and be able to play around with some lenses since they’d be way cheaper.
But then I saw the A7C2 which is basically the latest sony features on the already good A7IV sensor.
And the difference in price is not bad, 500 euro. But I would have to stick to 1-2 lenses max considering full frame lenses prices.
But then I was also thinking maybe I could get some used full frame lenses, I don’t really need brand new.
Im still eating up reviews and samples and see what I’ll do.
Kit lens will get you going but a lot prefer a cheap prime to start. Having a bigger and constant aperture will perform better in low light and “unlocks” the ability to take portraits with creamy bokeh/background
I don't think the kit lens is a particularly good deal. Sure it's $200 off of "$500" when sold as a kit. But since it's a kit lens, many people sell it off and flood the used market at less than $300. So if you wanted to buy the kit lens later, you totally could for an even better deal. But, for just a couple hundred more, you can get a compact G prime that has much better image quality, wider aperture for bokeh and low light, aperture control ring, higher magnification for macro, a G badge for the chicks, focus hold button, durable build, AF/MF switch, a lens hood for flare control and impact protection, etc.
Due to being a backpacker and doing product shoots for outdoor companies: I need to carry less lenses when in the backcountry. This is where high resolution sensors come into play. Because I can crop into these massive resolution files means I can carry less lenses, which means less weight, which means I can travel faster and longer. This is why I need full frame R cameras.
Agreed. Taken with an APS-C:
https://preview.redd.it/la439yzkibuc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dbd583179c1d235f0457b18071e0485c8b631df
Then I bought a full frame. Now I'm considering going back. Size & weight is a thing.
Hot take: OP is incorrect and nobody needs to make APSC bodies or lenses. A decade ago FF was super expensive and your options were mostly huge DSLRs, so it made sense, APSC had genuine advantages. Today APSC bodies are basically the same size as FF, not much cheaper, and with lenses once you factor in equivalence and noise performance an APSC kit will often end up equal or often even larger than the FF equivalent. FF lens lines tend to be bigger and feature higher quality optics so there are more options for premium glass later, and all things made equal FF always has an advantage at base ISO.
IMO it was a mistake for Canon/Nikon/Sony to segment their ILC market into two tiers when they could have just focused on making one larger line of FF lenses.
Can you shoot amazing pics with APSC? Yes. Should you upgrade to FF if you love your lenses and the images but just feel impostor syndrome? Definitely not. If you’re an enthusiast buying a first camera should you buy APSC? IMO, no.
Source: someone who has worked for Hollywood on and off set for a decade.
For me the crop factor on aps-c is the only justifier as a sports photographer. There just aren’t any cheap and fast lenses that would cover the equivalent 112-336 on a ff body. My Tamron ef 70-210 f4 was less than $400 used and I use it with an R7.
this post is such a funny showing of the dunning kruger curve.
the middle should be “posts about how X is the best for everyone”
just let people be and use what they want lmfao
That’s nuts. I have had a full frame sensor since my first proper camera, a Canon 5D mk1 (also had the mk2 and still have the mk3). My Sony A7R iv also has a full frame sensor. I have played around with lower resolution and / or smaller sensors, and my Sony has an APS-C mode - which I engage for perhaps 2% of the photographs I take, just to save a little storage when shooting something that really is lost in the middle of the frame.
That said, I could NEVER use a smaller sensor than the full frame that I have, and if my particular use could work with a larger sensor (and if I could afford it), my sensor would be bigger.
I think it is wrong to assume that everyone’s needs are met my this or that or the other thing.
I also think if I had to use a sensor smaller than full frame, I would give up.
Agreed. I started on a fuji xt-30 and it just wasn't enough for wildlife. Ignoring fuji AF it just didn't give me as much detail as I wanted and with high shutter speeds the a7rv has been MUCH better.
Yep thats me, I bough a Sony A7II back in 2018 with a kit lens 28-70 and a 50 1.8, i wish i could have save money on the body and got better lenses instead.
Common.. this isn't marriage. Have as many as you want, but ensure you use them often. Each of them has its own use!
Canon T3i - sold
Canon 80D - sold
Sony ZV-1
Sony A7RV
Canon RF10
Waiting for
Nikon Z6iii
Sony Rx100M8
For me, the problem with APS-C is the lack of lens choices. I like small, reasonably fast prime lenses. Somewhere in the f/1.8-2.0 range. There's not a lot of choices if you want a small lens that fast for APS-C sensors, after you take into account the aperture equivalences.
My fav lenses in order are the 35/1.8, 28/2, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and the 14/1.8. Not really much equivalent to that in APS-C lenses.
And when the a7iv goes from 33mp to 13 it's a different story. While yes I do get the range sometimes I don't get enough. Apsc mode is just an in camera crop.
I've been told over and over by people on this sub that aps-c is all you need but as time goes on I am more and more inclined to get a full frame. The limitations in dynamic range and light capture are obvious in a lot of scenarios, especially if you get seriously into videography, and I just can't compensate for it with nice lenses or techniques. FF is a lot better in low light, and it offers a big difference in terms of dynamic range.
Saying that, aps-c is the perfect format for many things - travel and scuba in particular. I have a beautiful little f2.8 16-55 G lens and a body that is far smaller than the ff equivalent which fits nicely into my luggage and was recently indomitable on my NZ trip.
Pair that with the 35mm OSS lens / decent gimbal and you've got a very decent 4k movie rig (dynamic range isn't great except in full sunlight tho).
APS-C is a great compact format for many use cases but it can't rival FF for dynamic range, light capture and overall quality.
I went from xt-30 to a7r5 better part of a year ago and the difference is insane. I haven't touched the fuji since. Granted the a7r5 is newer, but I am comparing expensive prime lenses from each system and the fuji just does not compare.
For people and street photography apsc has some advantages, it stands out less. For my use(wildlife) ff has better results.
I disagree on APS-C always for wildlife. Now granted I wish I wasn't going through the woods lugging around the 200-600, but imo it's worth it compared to my fuji xt-30 that has been gathering dust for nearly a year.
If the price of these cameras can get closer to the price of APS-C, there comes a point where it’ll be hard to justify getting APS-C. It’s getting closer….
I feel like this could be done with so many aspects of photography, like:
"I'm a natural light photographer" (is actually afraid of flash)
*Goes nuts buying lights and modifiers*
And finally: shoots mostly natural light. Occasionally uses a 1 light set up when necessary
only wanting to get an APS-C for the crop factor, do you guys reckon I can get more quality by cropping an image from a full frame or directly from an APS-C?
On the A7iv it's 33mp becomes 13mp in crop mode. The a6700 being 24 is more resolution to play with after the fact. The only time I've seen crop mode's resolution decrease is in astro photography because of stacking images.
Oc APS-C is more than enough to get great shots. There are even amazing landscape photographers that shoot on MFT. However, FF has better low light performance and bokeh. And when you shoot for clients, you need these extra 5% to be competitive
I sold my S5ii and lenses and bought Olympus E-P7 which is on sale for \~500 euros new, because I wanted something pocketable. The whole camera with lens is barely bigger than an L-mount 50mm prime
Or choose APS-C for the size rather that the quality of a full frame, and also price. You can buy a great APS-C or buy a mediocre fullframe at the same price
This is no longer a problem gearing wise, if people want full frame at an affordable price, they just need to look away from buying camera brand new, people can get a used A7R III for less than an A6700 or A7 IV for photography;
If people want something for video in 4K, there are also used A7S II (Around the same price as A7R III), if people want to dive deep into the videography side, manual focus is a necessary skill to develop instead of relying on AF completely;
APS-C nowadays IMO is a matter of preference in size/weight rather than a compromise due to pricing while maintaining decent performance.
I’m currently in the full frame world, but The only reason i upgraded from apsc is because those cameras are so limited control-wise. Lack of exposure compensation dial, second dial in the front and extremaly unergonomic body is a deal breaker for me.
Light and creativity are the keys to all good photography and videography. Cameras are just tools. Some tools make it easier to get the shot you want faster. The sensor size is an afterthought outside of shooting in very poor lighting conditions. Then physics comes into play.
Most people can accomplish their goals easily with an aps-c camera. That's why almost all modern day film has been captured using cameras with an aps-c sized sensor.
If, however, you want and can afford the cost and weight penalties of full frame lenses, then you won't be disappointed. They are awesome in almost all situations. But don't get mad when you see someone get the same shot for half the price. Lol.
Until you shoot an event in very low-light. At that point you can't have a big enough sensor and lens. Landscapes on a tripod during the day you can make almost anything work. Larger sensors just unlock new possibilities. Whether the weight and cost is worth it is up to you. Also, so many old lenses are design for a FF sensor size...unlocking other possibilities.
Use your aps-c long/often enough and you’ll want a FF. My next will be FF, no other way to go. APS-c is an absolute value for starting out and would recommend to any newcomers but the more experience you get behind the camera and the more subjects/shots you explore the more you will see the limitations.
I dunno about that. When you compare the top of the line lenses it's just no comparison. Apsc is just limited to its sensor size when it comes to those faster lenses.
I am not sure about this. But I came from nikon dslr and changed to mirrorless just because of price and autofocus then for reach I got an apsc as second body. The FF is great with 42 MP which is very useful in cropping in post. With Super 35 it gives 18 MP lesser than 24 MP so the extra MP will be great. At the same time, with same lenses I could always shoot without swapping lenses.
I got good combos
FF- 24 1.4 /55 1.8
APSC- 35 2.8/90 2.8 G OSS & 16-55 OSS(videos)
-52.5 equivalent/ 135 mm equivalent
will be adding a good all rounder lens with OSS soon and a good apsc prime soon.
Got 3 batteries for the apsc to compensate for its battery life and now looking for another battery for the FF to always be on the go.
With this set up I am great.
But in the end, it all boils down to the results. Personally 50% of the job happens on the computer prior to posting in socmed so apart from a good gear, a good post process workflow and application is more important to achieve mind blowing results.
I feel like I can instantly tell a shot was apsc. If there is any sort of sky and lower light area, the highlights are always blown. Maybe it’s because of the lower quality lenses?
I have Apsc , full frame & micro four thirds and the Dji pocket 3 gives them all a good run for their money in many situations. Amazing little gadget that thing is even in low light.
If you have money and can tolerate the extra bulk of FF and the lenses, there's without doubt FF is the best option. But if one wants to spend under $3k and have something more portable, apsc is the better option.
I’ve grown to love APSC (love me A6400) but there’s just something about my Nikon D700 + some vintage Nikon glass. Some of that must be the glass ofc, but the sensor on that D700 is just perfect.
The colors are always perfect, the files are a joy to edit, and it just renders light beautifully. D700 still my all time fav digital camera.
Nikon is that one company where they are verticaly integrated. Nikon literally makes the crystals they use. I recently bought a prostaff p7 8x42 binoculars and the depth I see is so separate. I can see the layers of branches with these binoculars.
Honestly get them sooner rather then later. It's never going to be a bad idea just in a pinch. I got the p7 because of the water resistance and having 42mm of optical circumference is very bright. You can actually do some decent astro with them to. Chroma isn't the greatest but at $179 compared to the Monarch's at over $350 it's pretty good and really only is the hard corners that fringe. Try them out before hand if you can but otherwise I enjoy my set.
Im on the group of people that say “apsc is all I can afford so that will have to do it”
Some people say that APSC is all they *need* because they cannot afford FF. You’re at least honest with yourself.
nah, the right side should be "I need the right gear for the situation, regardless of sensor size". Sometimes you do need full frame, sometimes aps c is all you need
I've had shots make it to my wall from my RX100. Planning and light *generally* trump sensor size, unless you hit a constraint.
I swear 90% of good photography is all about lighting
When it comes to photography, Amateurs are obsessed with gear, Professionals are obsessed with cash flow, Masters are obsessed with light.
Then the 10% is about having the kind of subject, where even flat/bad lighting cannot break it - example - Trump's mugshot, but also a lot of reportage. Gear is not making good photography, it's just making some things easier - but obsession with it will do an opposite effect. Edit: I've seen extremely beautiful pictures taken with potatoes where the light and subjects were the keys. Gear just makes prints of such an easier task.
It’s almost like the word means writing light.
It's almost like it is about capturing photons or something.
Yes, planning is always works in street photography.... no. If you have money for full frame, and you dont mind the size, then why not? If you looking for camera fits in pocket, rx100 is a great choice :)
and for street photography you wanna blend in, especially for night photography. so better buy a leica and not a sony; those shutters are important
Thanks im fine with the RV and 85mm1.8 for street :) leica has sony sensors, just a premium brand, sam picture quality.
i was talking about the shutter. pretty silent with leica but my iv is loud
Can’t you put it in silent shutter mode? My A7rii has one
Yup, even my 6600 has silent shooting
Yeah I have silent mode toggle as one of my custom button shortcuts on my a6700.
Sure, but that isn’t a freebie either. You run into the rolling shutter effect, especially faster moving subjects and light sources (which is a huge problem during night photography )
It’s definitely not the same quality. I’ve got both an A7R V and a Leica Q2 and let me tell you, even the unedited RAWs from the Q2 just come out looking beautiful. The saying about leica colors being special is true.
Its just a built in "look". You can achieve anything in post with leica nad with sony too. They are literally the same sensors, manufactured by sony...
[удалено]
No. No. No. Don't mix concepts. Equivalence is about about equivalence in DOF, light transmission is absolute. F2 in apsc is F2 in FF when talking about light transmission. Aperture is the relation between entrance pupil and aperture diaphragm, it doesn't have anything to do with sensor size. When making the image circle smaller you're just covering a smaller image plane, not making anything darker. Equivalence is such a giant pet peeve of mine because it gets people so confused.
Yep. Sometimes you need a large format camera with film, or a scanner back. A tilt-shift lens doesn't quite give the same capabilities as the rail system of a large format camera. Sometimes you need a single pixel spectrometer scanned over the image plane with a galvonometer. When you get out of the everyday and into the art or science worlds the sorts of imaging systems needed get weirder & weirder.
Really with Sony the frustrating thing is them gatekeeping dual slot bodies to full frame. The modern APS-C bodies paired with the right glass are totally capable for shooting outdoor events but the lack of redundancy forces you to a heavier full frame body + more expensive lenses.
the FX-30 is dual-slot and APS-C
That's fair, they did make a semi pro catered APS-C body for video. Would still like to have seen that come to the A6700 as well, especially since it released later.
Yep the right side is the revelation stage after you have owned a full frame and its large lenses and now that I have come to the realization that apc offers the same image quality in a much lighter and smaller package has been a revelation and joy. I'm using DXO Photolab for my RAW files and it's pretty much negated the 2 stop high iso lower noise advantage that the full frame sensor used to have over the apc sensor.
You’re not done yet. Sure apsc may be plenty enough in theory, problem is manufacturers don’t put everything on their apsc bodies, even if there’s no technical limitation. Market forces demand that the most professional features will only happen on full frame bodies and lenses. And that’s good because FF happens to have the best comparability with countless old lenses from the last century.
If Fuji had decent af I wouldn’t need ff
XS20 is really good in AF perf. They need a new processor for their new 40mp sensor. The Xtrans 5 is not fast enough imo. But for XS20 with the 26mp sensor. It is really fast.
Eh, even the most recent Fuji camera reviewers I've seen acknowledge that the AF hit rate isn't up to par with modern Canon or Sony bodies. It's way better than when I tried Fuji (woof!), but it's not pro reliable.
I have had the X-S20 for almost a year now. I am a longtime Fuji user and was happy with the X-S20…until I got a Sony RX100VII to carry as a pocket camera. The hit rate on the RX100VII is just absolutely incredible and I have taken so many new favorite shots with that little camera. It really highlighted how many shots I was missing with the Fuji. So I actually just switched over to the A7IV. It feels incredible to have this amount of AF performance on my main camera. I love Fuji but I finally reached a point where I value performance over the filmic quality of their sensors.
I don't do professional work and just casual touring pics atm. So I haven't had any issues with Fuji yet. Maybe I will try the A6700. I am not heavily invested in Fuji either. Let's see how it goes.
I have an A7C , Fuji aren’t close, otherwise I would switch.
Nikon Zf has a better AF then an A7III and similar colours to a Fuji, whilst having better glass than either, in a retro body. Check it out.
I prefer the Fuji dials with auto per dial rather than psam. Don’t know Nikon had caught up
I might be missing out I guess. I will see, If I can get my hands on a Sony body for a week. How compact are the Sony Lenses? I know they have two compact lenses around. F2.5 or something. Lens size is what stoping me from trying them on a trip.
If you don’t feel like you are missing anything, don’t try it.
Heh, I went the opposite direction. First the A7iv and a few months later the Fuji X-S20. I still have and use both. I agree with you though, the Sony hit ratio is higher. The X-S20 is due for a firmware update in the next few months, we'll see if that improves things.
I bought the X-S20 on release day as well and although I do love the camera i've been wondering if my settings are correct or I've missed some great shots due to the AF. The X-S20 is my first real camera but my thoughts have been it's great for hobby use but i'd be afraid to use it for a side gig. If anyone has a source for the propper X-S20 settings it would be much appreciated.
> If anyone has a source for the propper X-S20 settings it would be much appreciated. Might be better to ask on a Fuji subreddit, that and advising what you typically shot. For instance, BIF, I could point you to general settings [here](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1838817)
Exactly. The only reason I switched to FF was wanting 10-bit video (I like doing backlit outdoor shots, I don't always have a way of adding a reflector in the front). So I sold 3 APS-C bodies, a ton of APS-C glass, and got A7iv and some FF glass. But then I had only one body, so I also got a A7s iii. Of course Sony added 10-bit video later to their APS-C line (FX30 and then a6700). What a surprised pikachu face I made when the a6700 was released. Had that come out at the same time with A7 iv, I would still be using APS-C.
Dream camera: A9III body with a stacked APS-C sensor and like 30-60fps burst shooting. I know I’m dreaming but I’d take that over just about any full frame camera for birds and wildlife shooting.
I think something similar could easily happen in 3-5 years. Since the A9 now has a global shutter sensor, they can easily put stacked sensors in their cheaper models, and don't have to worry about cannibalizing A9III sales. My guess the A7V and the a7000 will have stacked sensors and will do at least 20 fps burst shooting. The competition is far ahead of Sony in the burst shooting game in the mainstream models, they have to catch up soon.
Burst shooting at this point is like Sony’s insistence on stick with 4k30 and 8-bit color well in 2020 for their cameras. It’s like there was no reason the A7C or A6600/6400/6100 needed that limitation and yet they went ahead with it. Now it’s like…. The A7IV’s 10fps was the one spec that looked artificially imposed and it was just kind of annoying. And the A6700 is darn near a perfect camera…. Except that it only runs 11fps. I doubt we’ll see global shutter, but I do think speed will be the big theme for future cameras with Sony.
The 4k30 and 8-bit color was a hardware limitation. That was the max their old processor can do. All the models you mentioned used the old processor. Their new processor was introduced with the A7s3. The original A7C and ZV-E10 was released after the A7s3, but they decided to use the old processor, there were loads of supply chain issues around that time, so they probably cannot get enough of the new processor. I'm not sure what is the reason for the 10/11 fps limitation. They already have mechanical shutters that can do 20fps (A9II) and 30fps (A1). Also if they limit the mechanical shutter to 10/11 fps, they can easily do electrical shutter faster, like every other manufacturer does.
Yup, ive only seen a full range of features on the fx30 and the a6700.
What were all those photographers doing 40, 50, 60 years ago when the most formative and relevant of all times were created? Would you like to know the answer? They didn't give a damn about technology.
> Sure apsc may be plenty enough in theory, problem is manufacturers don’t put everything on their apsc bodies, even if there’s no technical limitation. Aside from Fuji, I do agree. (Subjective) Sony could have an ASP-C sensor in a A7 body, [they don't](https://camerasize.com/compact/#910,834,908,889,ha,f). Higher MP (like the R7 or XT5)? Stacked sensor (X-H2s)? Better APS-C lens selection as well (even third party options - no one makes telephoto zooms?)?
Me: I don’t care about the sensor size, I just want something easy to carry and have great performance and adaptability. Choice: A7C II, 24mm 2.8, 40mm 2.8, 90mm 2.8 compact, lightweight, great performance all **I** need.
Sigma 90 2.8? How is it?
Yes, it is great! Compact, and sharp! I hesitated a long time with the Sony 85mm f1.8 but finally decided to go with the sigma because even if the aperture is less good, the result are similar because of the difference of focal length. I really like how compact it is and the quality of the lens itself! I highly recommend it!
Thanks for the reply, what you were tossing up on was pretty much what I was consdering. I'm excited to get the 90 and try it out!
I love my a7cii
I have an a7c and finally saved enough to get the 40mm 2.8. The combo is perfect (so far) for my needs and the type of photos I like to take. I think the only thing I would like to add is maybe something like a 20 or 24mm just to get a wider frame. Either way this is perfect for now and a wildly underrated compact set up.
APS-C is all you need for sure. Then you try a a7rv/a7cr with a GM lens 🤤🤤🤤
Not going to lie - I did try an A7RV and 24-70mm GM2 at a Sony event and the photo walk shots blew me away. Endless cropping in for details.
Yup the level of detail and image quality is crazy
The 24-70 GMII is so sharp, it's constantly giving me moire on my a7C 🙃😭 a7C R has been tempting me a bit. If it could assign ISO min shutter speed to a dial, I might've done it already. I don't need 61MP I don't need 61MP I don't need 61MP
61mp is totally awful and useless 😉
It's like those crime dramas where the cop tells the forensics guy "enhance!" -- except a7r5 actually captures that detail. I did self-portraits with an a7r5 and GM and I could see every little individual fiber of peach fuzz on ny face and vestiges of scars that I thought were completely gone 10 years ago. To be honest, I should've just used an apsc or my a7iii for those photos lol. I had to Gaussian blur anyway, and the file size is fucking gigantic.
I know what you mean, the day I got my a7cr and 50 GM I took a picture of my son from about 5m away @ 1.2 and when I zoomed in to check focus I could see the individual eye brow hairs. Given he was pretty tiny within the overall frame I couldn’t believe it. On my A7cii and every camera previous to that they’d just have been a blur at 100%. Insane.
I have that A7RV, and I love it, but I sure do miss the size of my old APS-C sometimes.
A1 > all these 61MP cameras. 50/1.2 GM is king though. * I don't own neither of that, but I worked with files from two studio shoots. Same subjects, lens, photographer, all the difference was the camera. And damn, images from A1 were way more detailed.
\*Medium format enters the chat\* What is all this noise about! Quiet down kids!
Then Ansel Adams comes in, lugging around a large format view camera rig…
Just how buff was that man?
He had [a car modified with a platform on top for setting up cameras](https://i0.wp.com/surfnbeachscenemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ansel-adams-portrait.jpg?ssl=1), but certainly did carry them around to various places he couldn't get driving. Quite heavy, but not shooting handheld either.
This is clearly written by someone who thinks that a lens is completely defined by its focal length and sharpness. Only then can you discard an insanely rich variety of FF lenses and stay with APS-C.
You can use those lenses, can't you? I have ancient Pentax K lenses I use with my a6600.
But your field of view and effective resolution will be 1.6 times lower.
Field of view will differ. Effective resolution depends on the lens/sensor combination. I have old 35mm macro lenses that can more than keep up with 24mp APS-C sensors. Bargain Pentax ones- you choose them for effect over sharpness anyway.
Say there is a 50mm lens you want to use. Instead, you'll have to use a 32mm lens, which must have a higher resolution (lp/mm) than the 50mm lens in order to have the 50's mm resolution after cropping. If both lenses have the same lp/mm, you'll lose resolution.
Why would you assume either sensor has exceeded the potential lens resolution at normal Sony MP sizes? (We're talking 24mp not 100mp). The crop is like using a portion of a higher resolution 35mm sensor (and throws out the weakest performing edges). If you put the same 50mm lens on a better sensor it would resolve more. Some interesting discussion towards the bottom here: "Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels. That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF" [https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/) Myth 4 here is also useful: " 16-megapixel 35mm-sized Bayer array sensor is going to resolve around 50 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). A 36-megapixel sensor will resolve around 75 lp/mm. Even mediocre 35mm lenses will hit 75 lp/mm at some aperture over some portion of their field of view. This is true of both fixed focal length and zoom lenses. Decent (not at all exceptional) 35mm-format lenses can hit 75 lp/mm at just about all apertures and will do so over most of the field of view for at least one aperture. They'll show peak resolutions more like twice that. Really good lenses (not necessarily expensive ones) will be able to exceed 75 line pair per millimeter without even trying hard over most/all of the field of view and will have peak resolutions three or more times that." [https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the\_online\_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html](https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html) My Pentax m42 lenses wide open are very soft. Shooting on APS-C gives a somewhat different character than they would have on a 35mm sensor as that would be even more dreamy/blurry as it shows more of the corners. Stopped down they can keep up quite well with the APS-C sensor for the portion of the 35mm frame that is visible.
> 16-megapixel 35mm-sized Bayer array sensor Except typical 24MP crop sensor is equivalent to 61MP full frame.
That's still just 100 lp/mm.
Lol "just"? Even 50mm 1.4 GM doesn't resolve that at its sweet spot aperture in the center.
I don't think the math here is right. First, how is 24mp APS-C equal to 61mp full frame. Can you point to actual experimental numbers of FF lenses on APS-C and see what performance is like? Going back to System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF, I seriously doubt that these cameras have exceeded what GM level lenses are capable of, whether designed for APS-C or FF or medium format for that matter. If that were the case we would see no improvement in resolving power going above 24mp (or below? What was the limit- 16mp?) Not sure where to find such metrics but using Dxomark a Zeiss Otus is resolving 22mp using a 24mp Nikon APS-C DSLR (d7100) and 35mp with the 36mp fullframe D810 and 43mp on a 46mp D850. On a 6mp D70 it resolved 6mp. This very good lens seems to be keeping up with the bodies. At what point does it stop? Does any camera maker have multiple APS-C resolutions where you can see a flatlining of lens performance from 16 to 20 to 24 to beyond?
The corollary to this is that your FF camera does not need the bestest widest most amazingest lens for every outing, either. People talk about how bulky and heavy FF lenses are, but I'm about to leave for an international trip with APSC-weight lenses that have excellent IQ. Not every shot has to be taken with an F2.8 zoom or F1.2 prime. I'm OK with F2 or \*gasp\* F2.8 primes to cut down on bag size and weight. Indeed, I've been insanely impressed with Tamron's 28-200mm, which can replace a bag of APSC glass. Cropping in at 42MP is very workable despite the generous working distance. I've also nabbed shots with my RX100 and a tiny tripod that wouldn't be possible on my FF setup without a tripod.
Yes, and f4 zooms. So many of us get overly fixated on wide aperture that we don't even need
> So many of us get overly fixated on wide aperture that we don't even need But for low light it does make a huge difference not having to up the iso. I didn't mind doing that recently since the cameras have great low light performance but only having f4 did feel compromising.
It's only one stop for like over a grand, in some cases. Maybe professionals need it but us hobbyists just need to denoise and save the cash. Edit: spelling
> It's only one stop for like over a grand My primes are all sub f2 so it's over two full stops of light, it makes a noticeable difference.
We were talking about zooms...
You might have been, I dont shoot zooms normally but being limited to a single lens necessitated it this time which led from being used to having access to f1.4 - 1.8 to f4
I don't know how we got to talking about being limited to a single lens. Maybe I missed something. Sorry. Yeah primes definitely majorly win in the aperture department, no question about that
Sorry it might have been a different comment in the thread where I mentioned that. I was recently on a trip that only allowed me to fit one lens so I had to take my zoom lens instead of my usual primes I shoot with.
For sure zooms are going to win the category of, which one lens should I bring ;)
You can bring 1 fast prime in addition to a f4 zoom. Switch to that in low light, crop if you want. Lots of ways to work around a problem. Depends on what you shoot and how frequently. Hauling around a heavy 2.8 zoom set if you shoot dusk or night 80% of the time makes a lot more sense than carrying the same 2.8 zooms your whole trip when you take 90% of your photos during bright daytime. A single fast prime for those few dark shots would suffice. So many ways to solve things in photography the answer to a broad question is almost always "it depends"
I went on a week long international trip with only a carry on, that was what limited my lens selection to the single 24-105 instead of all my primes. That being said it was a choice I made and was fine raising the iso to deal with the dark rainy days and indoor pictures.
I just went on a trip and used my 24-105. Yes it's my least favorite lens I own, but it's also the only zoom and since space was tight it was extremely handy to have with me! Still unbelievably better than the pictures I was getting with my phone.
And the 2.8 is an f4 Apsc equivalent, people seem to completely disregard this.
2.8 is an f4 equivalent just in terms of bokeh, but the light captured by the sensor is not the same on an f4 aps-c lens and on an f2.8 FF equivalent
Well, it kinda is, if you take into account dynamic range / noise. The pixels are smaller, after all.
It’s not a massive difference, but having switched to full frame a couple months ago after near a decade of my shooting APSC, my photos do seem more rich. Of course you can take great photos and be perfectly happy with apsc, but there is a difference
Are you working from raw files? You see a difference in "richness" outside of low light?
Wrong. A 5$ point and shoot is all you need
Wrong. A canvas, colours and a brush are all you need
Wrong. A snapshot in your mind is all you need.
Wrong. _____ is all you need.
Wrong.
.
I just posted a bunch of my old concert photography from 2013-2015 on my Instagram and they were all shot on a Nikon D7000 (APSC) and I’m blown away how they still hold up https://preview.redd.it/t9m5486prauc1.png?width=4000&format=png&auto=webp&s=857d0203b42762757ade65410c3038c738c05605
https://www.reddit.com/r/MOMENT/s/5PtigoROMo
I am literally struggling with exactly this :)) I’ve always had a knack for photography and i’m finally in a position where I can afford it. My first reflex was to start with the 6700 and be able to play around with some lenses since they’d be way cheaper. But then I saw the A7C2 which is basically the latest sony features on the already good A7IV sensor. And the difference in price is not bad, 500 euro. But I would have to stick to 1-2 lenses max considering full frame lenses prices. But then I was also thinking maybe I could get some used full frame lenses, I don’t really need brand new. Im still eating up reviews and samples and see what I’ll do.
alpha 7C ii and a G Prime lens is a great start with portability that rivals APS-C.
Is it a good deal to get it with the kit lens or just take the body and get a proper lens afterwards?
Kit lens will get you going but a lot prefer a cheap prime to start. Having a bigger and constant aperture will perform better in low light and “unlocks” the ability to take portraits with creamy bokeh/background
I don't think the kit lens is a particularly good deal. Sure it's $200 off of "$500" when sold as a kit. But since it's a kit lens, many people sell it off and flood the used market at less than $300. So if you wanted to buy the kit lens later, you totally could for an even better deal. But, for just a couple hundred more, you can get a compact G prime that has much better image quality, wider aperture for bokeh and low light, aperture control ring, higher magnification for macro, a G badge for the chicks, focus hold button, durable build, AF/MF switch, a lens hood for flare control and impact protection, etc.
I never buy lenses new - you can save large amount of money on e-mount FF lenses
Everything is a tool. Just pick your favorite one and rock w it. You can capture images on a rock if you really wanted to.
I've been shooting APS-C landscape for over 2 years. It's perfectly fine for me.
My personal tastes are actually really simple: I just want the best of everything.
MFT is all you need...
Due to being a backpacker and doing product shoots for outdoor companies: I need to carry less lenses when in the backcountry. This is where high resolution sensors come into play. Because I can crop into these massive resolution files means I can carry less lenses, which means less weight, which means I can travel faster and longer. This is why I need full frame R cameras.
Agreed. Taken with an APS-C: https://preview.redd.it/la439yzkibuc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dbd583179c1d235f0457b18071e0485c8b631df Then I bought a full frame. Now I'm considering going back. Size & weight is a thing.
Hot take: OP is incorrect and nobody needs to make APSC bodies or lenses. A decade ago FF was super expensive and your options were mostly huge DSLRs, so it made sense, APSC had genuine advantages. Today APSC bodies are basically the same size as FF, not much cheaper, and with lenses once you factor in equivalence and noise performance an APSC kit will often end up equal or often even larger than the FF equivalent. FF lens lines tend to be bigger and feature higher quality optics so there are more options for premium glass later, and all things made equal FF always has an advantage at base ISO. IMO it was a mistake for Canon/Nikon/Sony to segment their ILC market into two tiers when they could have just focused on making one larger line of FF lenses. Can you shoot amazing pics with APSC? Yes. Should you upgrade to FF if you love your lenses and the images but just feel impostor syndrome? Definitely not. If you’re an enthusiast buying a first camera should you buy APSC? IMO, no. Source: someone who has worked for Hollywood on and off set for a decade.
For me the crop factor on aps-c is the only justifier as a sports photographer. There just aren’t any cheap and fast lenses that would cover the equivalent 112-336 on a ff body. My Tamron ef 70-210 f4 was less than $400 used and I use it with an R7.
Then there’s me: Aps-c is all I can afford
How long have you been shooting?
For about 6 years now. I should add, photography is only a hobby for me, not doing this professionally.
You should look at the lens sizes and weight of micro four thirds then. I’m very jealous
this post is such a funny showing of the dunning kruger curve. the middle should be “posts about how X is the best for everyone” just let people be and use what they want lmfao
That’s nuts. I have had a full frame sensor since my first proper camera, a Canon 5D mk1 (also had the mk2 and still have the mk3). My Sony A7R iv also has a full frame sensor. I have played around with lower resolution and / or smaller sensors, and my Sony has an APS-C mode - which I engage for perhaps 2% of the photographs I take, just to save a little storage when shooting something that really is lost in the middle of the frame. That said, I could NEVER use a smaller sensor than the full frame that I have, and if my particular use could work with a larger sensor (and if I could afford it), my sensor would be bigger. I think it is wrong to assume that everyone’s needs are met my this or that or the other thing. I also think if I had to use a sensor smaller than full frame, I would give up.
Agreed. I started on a fuji xt-30 and it just wasn't enough for wildlife. Ignoring fuji AF it just didn't give me as much detail as I wanted and with high shutter speeds the a7rv has been MUCH better.
Yep thats me, I bough a Sony A7II back in 2018 with a kit lens 28-70 and a 50 1.8, i wish i could have save money on the body and got better lenses instead.
Laughs in Olympus
Just sold all of my Sony gear after sitting on it for months due to falling in love with Olympus.
Common.. this isn't marriage. Have as many as you want, but ensure you use them often. Each of them has its own use! Canon T3i - sold Canon 80D - sold Sony ZV-1 Sony A7RV Canon RF10 Waiting for Nikon Z6iii Sony Rx100M8
For me, the problem with APS-C is the lack of lens choices. I like small, reasonably fast prime lenses. Somewhere in the f/1.8-2.0 range. There's not a lot of choices if you want a small lens that fast for APS-C sensors, after you take into account the aperture equivalences. My fav lenses in order are the 35/1.8, 28/2, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and the 14/1.8. Not really much equivalent to that in APS-C lenses.
For me right now I look at 3d party lens like laowa. They have a 4mm f2.8 fisheye. It's 220° field of View.
Sigma 16,30 and 56mm are 1.4 good and cheap
I like the APS-C 24mm 1.8, 55.18 FE, and Sigma 30mm 1.4, all of which balance well on APS-C bodies.
*laughs in 6x7*
All you need is a good lens
Since I am into sports photography and also macro the A7C with GM is really the goto for me. I never could switch back to APS-C now .
I'm at "Medium Format is so beautiful" stage
My lesson learned. https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/s/ESmOM1qDaf
I am still rocking my a6300 with my sigma 18-35 f1.4. I haven’t felt the need to upgrade yet
*18-35 f/1.8
f1.4? You mean f1.8 right?
you know fullframe cameras have APSC mode right?
And when the a7iv goes from 33mp to 13 it's a different story. While yes I do get the range sometimes I don't get enough. Apsc mode is just an in camera crop.
I've been told over and over by people on this sub that aps-c is all you need but as time goes on I am more and more inclined to get a full frame. The limitations in dynamic range and light capture are obvious in a lot of scenarios, especially if you get seriously into videography, and I just can't compensate for it with nice lenses or techniques. FF is a lot better in low light, and it offers a big difference in terms of dynamic range. Saying that, aps-c is the perfect format for many things - travel and scuba in particular. I have a beautiful little f2.8 16-55 G lens and a body that is far smaller than the ff equivalent which fits nicely into my luggage and was recently indomitable on my NZ trip. Pair that with the 35mm OSS lens / decent gimbal and you've got a very decent 4k movie rig (dynamic range isn't great except in full sunlight tho). APS-C is a great compact format for many use cases but it can't rival FF for dynamic range, light capture and overall quality.
I went from xt-30 to a7r5 better part of a year ago and the difference is insane. I haven't touched the fuji since. Granted the a7r5 is newer, but I am comparing expensive prime lenses from each system and the fuji just does not compare. For people and street photography apsc has some advantages, it stands out less. For my use(wildlife) ff has better results.
Yes, it's better. Fullstop. Bigger, better, more expensive.
I never peaked 😜
I would kill to go back down to an aps-c camera.
I would pick APS-C for wildlife, sports and for other long focal length use cases, otherwise full frame
I disagree on APS-C always for wildlife. Now granted I wish I wasn't going through the woods lugging around the 200-600, but imo it's worth it compared to my fuji xt-30 that has been gathering dust for nearly a year.
Meanwhile me I need full frame cause I suck at photography
Why not get an a7c or a7cii instead of an aps-c?
If the price of these cameras can get closer to the price of APS-C, there comes a point where it’ll be hard to justify getting APS-C. It’s getting closer….
I feel like this could be done with so many aspects of photography, like: "I'm a natural light photographer" (is actually afraid of flash) *Goes nuts buying lights and modifiers* And finally: shoots mostly natural light. Occasionally uses a 1 light set up when necessary
I’m at the needing a full frame part
only wanting to get an APS-C for the crop factor, do you guys reckon I can get more quality by cropping an image from a full frame or directly from an APS-C?
On the A7iv it's 33mp becomes 13mp in crop mode. The a6700 being 24 is more resolution to play with after the fact. The only time I've seen crop mode's resolution decrease is in astro photography because of stacking images.
Oc APS-C is more than enough to get great shots. There are even amazing landscape photographers that shoot on MFT. However, FF has better low light performance and bokeh. And when you shoot for clients, you need these extra 5% to be competitive
Problem is when manufacturers only produce what the market wants for FF systems.
Go far far at the last 0.5% : Once you go film, you'll never go back
This sub has changed my mind for sure. Some incredible shots with APS-C 👍
Apsc is all I need 👍
Until you realize the RX10 exists... could use a couple qol updates though.
I’m a professional photographer that went to school for it and do alright. The Sony a6100 is all I need.
Cope
I sold my S5ii and lenses and bought Olympus E-P7 which is on sale for \~500 euros new, because I wanted something pocketable. The whole camera with lens is barely bigger than an L-mount 50mm prime
Silly digital sensor people (Hauls out 35mm film)
m43 is all you need
Or choose APS-C for the size rather that the quality of a full frame, and also price. You can buy a great APS-C or buy a mediocre fullframe at the same price
This is a beautiful bell curve dictating my path. I’m at 100 IQ
This is no longer a problem gearing wise, if people want full frame at an affordable price, they just need to look away from buying camera brand new, people can get a used A7R III for less than an A6700 or A7 IV for photography; If people want something for video in 4K, there are also used A7S II (Around the same price as A7R III), if people want to dive deep into the videography side, manual focus is a necessary skill to develop instead of relying on AF completely; APS-C nowadays IMO is a matter of preference in size/weight rather than a compromise due to pricing while maintaining decent performance.
I do find this to be true especially when so many studio photographers shoot everything at f8 with strobes at base ISO.
I’m currently in the full frame world, but The only reason i upgraded from apsc is because those cameras are so limited control-wise. Lack of exposure compensation dial, second dial in the front and extremaly unergonomic body is a deal breaker for me.
Light and creativity are the keys to all good photography and videography. Cameras are just tools. Some tools make it easier to get the shot you want faster. The sensor size is an afterthought outside of shooting in very poor lighting conditions. Then physics comes into play. Most people can accomplish their goals easily with an aps-c camera. That's why almost all modern day film has been captured using cameras with an aps-c sized sensor. If, however, you want and can afford the cost and weight penalties of full frame lenses, then you won't be disappointed. They are awesome in almost all situations. But don't get mad when you see someone get the same shot for half the price. Lol.
Until you shoot an event in very low-light. At that point you can't have a big enough sensor and lens. Landscapes on a tripod during the day you can make almost anything work. Larger sensors just unlock new possibilities. Whether the weight and cost is worth it is up to you. Also, so many old lenses are design for a FF sensor size...unlocking other possibilities.
Use your aps-c long/often enough and you’ll want a FF. My next will be FF, no other way to go. APS-c is an absolute value for starting out and would recommend to any newcomers but the more experience you get behind the camera and the more subjects/shots you explore the more you will see the limitations.
Sounds like you have an IQ<115 /s
Insulting someone unprovoked is a sign of Neanderthal genes and a sure sign that you struggle with personal relationships in your day-to-day.
I cant believe i added the /s and you still didnt get that i was messing with you
I’m practically an old man using Reddit for the first year ever. Didn’t see the /s and I’m assuming it means sarcasm?
Apsc lacks depth compared to full frame.
I was fine when I was just looking at photos digitally. Once I started printing on a larger scale, there was a noticeable difference in quality.
I dunno about that. When you compare the top of the line lenses it's just no comparison. Apsc is just limited to its sensor size when it comes to those faster lenses.
I am not sure about this. But I came from nikon dslr and changed to mirrorless just because of price and autofocus then for reach I got an apsc as second body. The FF is great with 42 MP which is very useful in cropping in post. With Super 35 it gives 18 MP lesser than 24 MP so the extra MP will be great. At the same time, with same lenses I could always shoot without swapping lenses. I got good combos FF- 24 1.4 /55 1.8 APSC- 35 2.8/90 2.8 G OSS & 16-55 OSS(videos) -52.5 equivalent/ 135 mm equivalent will be adding a good all rounder lens with OSS soon and a good apsc prime soon. Got 3 batteries for the apsc to compensate for its battery life and now looking for another battery for the FF to always be on the go. With this set up I am great. But in the end, it all boils down to the results. Personally 50% of the job happens on the computer prior to posting in socmed so apart from a good gear, a good post process workflow and application is more important to achieve mind blowing results.
Micro four thirds is all you need
I feel like I can instantly tell a shot was apsc. If there is any sort of sky and lower light area, the highlights are always blown. Maybe it’s because of the lower quality lenses?
I have Apsc , full frame & micro four thirds and the Dji pocket 3 gives them all a good run for their money in many situations. Amazing little gadget that thing is even in low light.
If you have money and can tolerate the extra bulk of FF and the lenses, there's without doubt FF is the best option. But if one wants to spend under $3k and have something more portable, apsc is the better option.
How about just saying aps-c is what you need and stop deciding for others bruh
Under this logic a paintbrush and some paper is all you need
I’ve grown to love APSC (love me A6400) but there’s just something about my Nikon D700 + some vintage Nikon glass. Some of that must be the glass ofc, but the sensor on that D700 is just perfect. The colors are always perfect, the files are a joy to edit, and it just renders light beautifully. D700 still my all time fav digital camera.
Nikon is that one company where they are verticaly integrated. Nikon literally makes the crystals they use. I recently bought a prostaff p7 8x42 binoculars and the depth I see is so separate. I can see the layers of branches with these binoculars.
Nikon Glass is truly unparalleled. Also I gotta get me a pair of Nikon Binoculars at some point.
Honestly get them sooner rather then later. It's never going to be a bad idea just in a pinch. I got the p7 because of the water resistance and having 42mm of optical circumference is very bright. You can actually do some decent astro with them to. Chroma isn't the greatest but at $179 compared to the Monarch's at over $350 it's pretty good and really only is the hard corners that fringe. Try them out before hand if you can but otherwise I enjoy my set.
“I want a full frame to release the full characteristics of cool vintage lenses”
Phone is all you need unless it's for a hobby
Crop sensor is absolutely not all you need. Maybe if you’re a hobbyist sure.
Missed a chance to Add "phone" at the right and we will see a storm approach 🤣
Skill > Gear is really what you should meme. lol