UKC

Next dSLR.....full frame?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 The Lemming 03 Nov 2016
I'm umming and ahhing about a new toy but should I step up to a full frame sensor or get another aps-c camera, just because my lenses won't go full frame?
In reply to The Lemming:

If I remember correctly, you used to say you didn't shoot RAW files and didn't think you'd ever want to. Does that still hold? Because if so, I don't think you'll ever fully realise the benefit of moving to a bigger sensor.

Not that you won't see benefits; just that you won't see the full benefits. So if you're still only shooting Jpeg's, why not give RAW a go and see what you think? It'd be a shame to have a full-frame camera and not use it fully.

T.

OP The Lemming 03 Nov 2016
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Yes I still shoot JPEG. However after last weekend at a Halloween Ball, with low light I think I may have got better results if I shot in RAW.

I think it is now time to experiment with RAW again.

If truth be told, I'm looking for a dSLR with excellent quality video capabilities.
In reply to The Lemming:

Can't help with video from my own experience, though when I was working we had some students round shooting video with, I think, a canon 5D mk III (one of them had parents that were well off; student loans don't stretch that far) and they got some good results; they were shooting things that were static, mind.

I use the 5D mk I, bought off eBay. Built like a battleship and I get some decent shots now I'm used to it, working only in RAW and processing with lightroom CC. It doesn't do video, unlike the later versions of the 5D. However, the weight of the body and size of the lenses I have meant that when I was on holiday in the US in September, the canon kit stayed home and I took my Olympus four-thirds kit. Still shot in RAW though...

T.
OP The Lemming 03 Nov 2016
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

four-thirds you say?

What are the pros and cons of that compared to a dSLR apart from the obvious mirror/prism missing?
 jethro kiernan 03 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

I made the mistake of getting aps-c when I lost my last camera (I was put on the spot by the insurance company before I had really thought it through) I have been suffering from frequent bouts of buyers remorse ever since, I can't invest in new glass because I know I will go full frame at some point ;-(
Raw and Lightroom it has to be done, once you crack it you'll be amazed, it took me a long time to shake of my old slide film way of thinking
In reply to The Lemming:

Proper four-thirds, as it were; not mirrorless. An E-520. It's all a bit past it these days but it is a smaller, lighter carry than the full-frame system and up to A4 size prints (probably beyond) you couldn't tell the difference. I did miss the IS and slightly shorter focal length on my usual Canon lens, but I gained a great deal more convenience. Horses for courses and all that.

From memory, there's been a few mirrorless discussions here so a search may reveal a good deal, or start another one specifically about the merits of full-frame vs mirrorless formats for someone that wants to include video shooting in the mix as well as good quality stills. I can't recall that being covered much if at all before.

I'd give RAW another go though.

T.
 Mikkel 04 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:

, I can't invest in new glass because I know I will go full frame at some point ;-(

Ehh why not?
just avoid lenses designed for cropped sensor and you will be fine.


 Damo 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

> If truth be told, I'm looking for a dSLR with excellent quality video capabilities.

If you're just shooting jpegs with an ape-c DSLR then maybe try something like a Lumix GH-4. Renowned for their video, smaller and cheaper than a DSLR and you may not notice any loss of jpeg quality.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh4
http://www.starkinsider.com/2015/03/top-5-best-dslr-cameras-for-shooting-vi...
OP The Lemming 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

I've made an executive decision. I am going to sell my camera and three possibly four lenses and go full frame.

My mate gets first refusal and if that goes south then I will create a premier post to sell my stuff.

Fookin scary how much second hand stuff is, so I won't be expecting megga bucks for my kit.
OP The Lemming 04 Nov 2016
In reply to Damo:

Video is the way I want to go.

And a full frame sensor will work like butter in a dark environment. Shame I bought a Sony AX-55 this year thinking that it would work well indoors.

Its got the same size sensor as my GoPro 4 and produces the same results. Those GoPro's are awesome little bits of kit in such a tiny box, especially when connected to a gimbal.
 Toerag 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

4/3rds pros and cons:-
pros:-
Size - everything is smaller and lighter 'like for like', especially lenses.
Increased depth of field - if your style needs more stuff in focus then this is good.
Increased 'reach' - a 150mm lens on 4/3rds is equivalent to a 300 on FF in terms of angle of view.
IBIS - olympus stabilisation is the best there is and compensates for the noise disadvantage below (for static subjects).
lens adaptability - you can put pretty much any lens on them with an adaptor due to the short flange distance.
cons:-
not so good in low light - the smaller pixels suffer noise more than bigger ones in FF sensors. If you're shooting in low light often e.g. astro then results aren't as clean as those from a bigger sensor.
Dpeth of field - if shallow DoF is your thing then it's cheaper and easier to achieve with FF.
EVF - no m43 cameras have optical viewfinders.
Lens range - you can't get native tilt/shift lenses.
continuous/tracking autofocus isn't as good as that on a half-decent DSLR.
battery life not as good as a DSLR.

So, analyse what you shoot and work out what you need to shoot that sort of stuff best, then try some cameras and make a decision. Unless you're printing large images the image quality from M43 is good enough.

Video - I believe serious video shooters use Canon 5Ds or Panasonic GH4s these days unless they have a dedicated video cam. Olympus IBIS is great if you're shooting handheld all the time but their video options aren't great unless you've got their latest models.
Personally I use an Olympus E-M5, it's the first 'proper' camera I've owned so I can't really compare it to other things.
 jethro kiernan 04 Nov 2016
In reply to Mikkel:
I'm looking to upgrade for landscape at the wide angle, a 16-35 or a decent 20mm would be wasted on a dx sensor.
It's a bit all or nothing at the wide angle, I have 50, 85 and 180mm primed which are good for both fx and Dx, much less cross over at the wide angle :-/
OP The Lemming 04 Nov 2016
In reply to Toerag:

Thanks for that informative reply. And it is reinforcing my reserch that a full frame sensor is best for me if I want to shoot video indoors and like shallow dof.

You have reminded me that a 4/3rds camera struggles with those tasks.

I think I have settled on a Nikon D750 but I am open to alternatives, especially as I will be buying new lenses.

Is there anything that can compete with a Nikon D750 on spec and price from other full frame brands?

Is there anything on the horizon that is due to replace the Nikon D750 seeing as its getting old-ish and 4K is the future?
 db79 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

You should take a look at the Sony A7s ii. The film footage that comes out of it is the best I've seen from a camera cheaper than the FS7. You'll need to grade it to make the most of it though.
 jethro kiernan 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

Nikon have held off releasing new cameras, every one was looking for the new D810 which I gues would lead to a new D750, they are having problems with sensor production due to earth quakes I believe :-/

You could buy a D750 now and then sell it to me when you upgrade next spring
 kevin stephens 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

you may be surprised at how the low light and video capabilities of APS-C sensors and cameras have improved compared to your current camera, worth trying out before committing to full frame?
OP The Lemming 04 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:


> You could buy a D750 now and then sell it to me when you upgrade next spring

I think we can all agree that I do enough impulse purchases as it is.

From what I'm reading at the moment, and the direction that I want my camera to take, there does not appear to be that much advantage with a full-frame sensor when shooting video compared to still images when a full frame sensor wins hands down.

1080 resolution is old tech and 4K is here-and-now so I'm not going to invest serious wedge on a camera that can not do 4k.

OP The Lemming 04 Nov 2016
In reply to kevin stephens:

> you may be surprised at how the low light and video capabilities of APS-C sensors and cameras have improved compared to your current camera, worth trying out before committing to full frame?

The Nikon D500 sounds awesome in that respect.
 Mikkel 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

Canon 7D MK II also do really well in low light and the AF is very good
 Bootrock 04 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Pfft. Old school mate. Nikon D2X.

That's how I roll.

 Marek 04 Nov 2016
In reply to Mikkel:

> Canon 7D MK II also do really well in low light and the AF is very good

Apparently the 7D2 has by far the lowest dark current of any Canon DSLR, full-frames included.
 jethro kiernan 04 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:
King of the low light is the D810 apparently only a small upgrade
 Stone Idle 05 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

Canon 5d is the business but is heavy. Might therefore be worth checking out the lighter alternatives. However it's only worth laying out for the body and all those lovely lenses if you plan serious artwork or vast enlargements, in RAW of course, whi ch also means decent software. It all needs deep pockets.
 Fraser 05 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

> 1080 resolution is old tech and 4K is here-and-now so I'm not going to invest serious wedge on a camera that can not do 4k.

If you plan on editing and retaining resolution of 4k video and uploading online, then you'll need a fairly high-end PC to do so. Or a lot of patience!
 Toerag 07 Nov 2016
In reply to Fraser:

> If you plan on editing and retaining resolution of 4k video and uploading online, then you'll need a fairly high-end PC to do so. Or a lot of patience!

Yep, I know a cinematographer who works for Getty images who's held off going the 4k route for this reason - uploading stuff on anything slower than a superfast connection is a nightmare. He says 4k is now the standard to shoot in because some content providers (Netflix) insist on it, and it allows you to downsize to 1080p and do things like software panning & zooming.
OP The Lemming 07 Nov 2016
In reply to Fraser:

> If you plan on editing and retaining resolution of 4k video and uploading online, then you'll need a fairly high-end PC to do so. Or a lot of patience!

More importantly, you need a fekin large amount of storage

I can down load a Hollywood movie for around a gig.

Editing myself and I'm looking at 4gb an hour.

Gulp
OP The Lemming 07 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

Is a full frame mirrorless camera worth three grand?

Had a fondle of a Sony a7r ii today and got a semi. However the pricetag soon fixed that in an instant.

But is three grand worth shelling out on the body even before I buy a lens?
 Xharlie 07 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

Do you have a stock of good glass, yet? If not, I'd say forget the full frame sensor. Pick a system - Canon or Nikon, not Sony - and buy their entry-level body that takes full-frame lenses, then start building up a collection of really good lenses. The glass will last practically forever. You can buy a full-frame body in the future.

In the short term, you'll get part of the reward: good glass makes for good pictures. In the long term, transitioning to the dream-setup will cost you only as much as the body.

Oh, and start shooting RAW in any case. JPEG is lossy compression - it doesn't matter how big the files are or how high the quality setting is, it is axiomatically impossible for JPEG to record all the image data from the sensor without altering it - known as artefacts. Full-frame sensors trump smaller formats because the bigger pixels are less susceptible to signal noise. If you're then using JPEG to compress the data, you're wasting your money - it's like mixing a grand old single-malt with coca-cola.
 Adam Long 08 Nov 2016
In reply to The Lemming:

I picked up an A7 for £400 a year ago. The main advantage of the ii is stabilisation, I can live without that. The image and video quality is very good and you can use about any lens ever made on it. Plus it feels about half the size of a 5d.
alger 16 Nov 2016
what's your budget?


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...