DSLR - Full frame or APS-C
Discussion
Ok, been a long time since I used my film SLR, a Minolta Dynax 6000i, principally because the mirror came adrift and I never got round to getting it repaired.
Seriously considering getting a DSLR. My main concern is whether to go for full frame, or APS-C. I used to be pretty competent with the old film SLR and regarded myself as a fairly advanced photographer (not pro level though).
If I go APS-C am I going to notice detriments in the frame size cf 35 mm film ? I understand that I need to re-learn/adapt to different focal lengths on an APS-C because of the smaller image size, but anything else one needs to consider (apart of course from the higher price of a full frame DSLR).
Now which marque to go for is always personal choice. I never liked Canon or Nikon film SLR button and dial layouts or "hand fit", hence last camera being the Minolta (a couple of Olympus' prior to that (OM 10 with manual adapter, then OM40)).
All the reviews seem to recommend Canon and Nikon, with an occasional mention for Pentax and Sony not appearing on any recommendation lists.
Seriously considering getting a DSLR. My main concern is whether to go for full frame, or APS-C. I used to be pretty competent with the old film SLR and regarded myself as a fairly advanced photographer (not pro level though).
If I go APS-C am I going to notice detriments in the frame size cf 35 mm film ? I understand that I need to re-learn/adapt to different focal lengths on an APS-C because of the smaller image size, but anything else one needs to consider (apart of course from the higher price of a full frame DSLR).
Now which marque to go for is always personal choice. I never liked Canon or Nikon film SLR button and dial layouts or "hand fit", hence last camera being the Minolta (a couple of Olympus' prior to that (OM 10 with manual adapter, then OM40)).
All the reviews seem to recommend Canon and Nikon, with an occasional mention for Pentax and Sony not appearing on any recommendation lists.
FF advantage -
lower higher iso noise
shallower depth of field
better lens selection
FF disadvantage -
expense
size
shallower depth of field
Crop advantages
cost
more depth of field
smaller lenses
Even todays crop sensors have pretty good high iso, with 3200 being quite usable, and plenty of decent fast lenses, even some 1.8 zooms. Whatever (aperture) you can put on a crop you can put on a FF body so the FF advantage always stays but you do need longer lens and bigger glass for a FF equivalent.
EG a crop can use 50/1.8 for portrait , on FF you would need an 85mm lens, but a 85/1.8 would get you over a stop shallower dof.
In general the crop vs ff focal length/lens issue is mostly felt in wide angles where you need wildly different lenses ( 10-20mm vs 16-35mm etc)
FF has typically at least a stop better noise if you shoot in the dark a lot.
Canon and Nikon digital slr's are very similar to their film ones, but far far more advanced on ergonomics imo. Go give them a try.
Sony current mirrorless full frames (a7 series) are great, you still give up some ergonomics but not a lot.
Fuji make the most ergonomic system but they only do crop bodies (X-t2 etc) or a very expensive medium format one.
TBH you cant really go wrong with much, very few bad cameras around! just depends what you want.
lower higher iso noise
shallower depth of field
better lens selection
FF disadvantage -
expense
size
shallower depth of field
Crop advantages
cost
more depth of field
smaller lenses
Even todays crop sensors have pretty good high iso, with 3200 being quite usable, and plenty of decent fast lenses, even some 1.8 zooms. Whatever (aperture) you can put on a crop you can put on a FF body so the FF advantage always stays but you do need longer lens and bigger glass for a FF equivalent.
EG a crop can use 50/1.8 for portrait , on FF you would need an 85mm lens, but a 85/1.8 would get you over a stop shallower dof.
In general the crop vs ff focal length/lens issue is mostly felt in wide angles where you need wildly different lenses ( 10-20mm vs 16-35mm etc)
FF has typically at least a stop better noise if you shoot in the dark a lot.
Canon and Nikon digital slr's are very similar to their film ones, but far far more advanced on ergonomics imo. Go give them a try.
Sony current mirrorless full frames (a7 series) are great, you still give up some ergonomics but not a lot.
Fuji make the most ergonomic system but they only do crop bodies (X-t2 etc) or a very expensive medium format one.
TBH you cant really go wrong with much, very few bad cameras around! just depends what you want.
I would strongly advise you to go to a local camera shop, if you still have one, and explain your situation.
Beforehand, you need to decide on an approximate budget for camera, lenses, and any accessories you might need.
Then, what sort of photography? Just be honest with yourself!
If you were, as you say, quite handy with 35mm, I think you'd find some aspects of APS-C frustrating. The inability to achieve smalls depths of field with even good primes can ruin portrait and still life photography, for example.
I changed from APS-C to FF four years ago, and my own photography took an immediate leap forward.
Sony? Well, I'm a Canon man, but the latest Sonys are very highly regarded.
If you get to try cameras in a shop, give the menu systems a good coat of looking at, especially if you go with a cheaper APS-C, as some cameras are very 'menu driven' and are downright frustrating. You'll miss shots.
Enjoy!
Beforehand, you need to decide on an approximate budget for camera, lenses, and any accessories you might need.
Then, what sort of photography? Just be honest with yourself!
If you were, as you say, quite handy with 35mm, I think you'd find some aspects of APS-C frustrating. The inability to achieve smalls depths of field with even good primes can ruin portrait and still life photography, for example.
I changed from APS-C to FF four years ago, and my own photography took an immediate leap forward.
Sony? Well, I'm a Canon man, but the latest Sonys are very highly regarded.
If you get to try cameras in a shop, give the menu systems a good coat of looking at, especially if you go with a cheaper APS-C, as some cameras are very 'menu driven' and are downright frustrating. You'll miss shots.
Enjoy!
I’ve recently moved from crop to FF and at the same time from Nikon to Sony (A7iii) plus the 24-70 f2.8 gm and 70-200 f2.8gm lens. Thoroughly recommend them.
It was mainly for the extra features of the FF camera I chose, plus a desire to move more into low light and portrait photography.
At the end of the day it depends upon what you intend to use it for of course, my Nikon D5100 was great, I just wanted to move on and expand what I could do with a camera.
It was mainly for the extra features of the FF camera I chose, plus a desire to move more into low light and portrait photography.
At the end of the day it depends upon what you intend to use it for of course, my Nikon D5100 was great, I just wanted to move on and expand what I could do with a camera.
quote=singlecoil]
SCEtoAUX said:
The only thing that affects depth of field is lens aperture.
For any given sensor size. The same lens and aperture on a larger sensor will give shallower depth of field because the camera has to move closer to the subject to fill the frame.Tony1963 said:
You are right, but...... for the same size image taken with "equivalent" lenses (same angle of view) the resulting images will have very different looking backgrounds.
Indeed, but the issue here is depth of field and the concern is to get the minimum, the background is of lesser importance.I used to use Minolta film SLRs - original 7000, then ended up with a Dynax 9xi which was brilliant - 1/12000 top shutter speed and fast flash sync. Waited what seemed ages for Minolta to launch a DSL (7D) and went to that switching to digital. Over a period of time, I got frustrated with the lack of lens availability, so decided to switch to Canon or Nikon. Borrowed a friends Nikon D300, and had a play with both Nikon and Canon at the local camera shops. Eventually went Canon (40D) as I got on better with the menu system, and have stuck with Canon.
Example with 40D:
IMG_0363 by conradsphotos, on Flickr
Since then, I went to FF (original 5D), and never looked back - hard to define exactly, but I much preferred the look of the FF images. Now on 5D mark3.
Example with original 5D:
web_2793 by conradsphotos, on Flickr
Example with 5D Mark3:
Amur_Leopard_A3_300dpi by conradsphotos, on Flickr
Over the years, it seems that Canon and Nikon have each taken the lead in image quality/low light performance. I understand Nikon probably has the edge on low light/low noise at the moment, but no doubt the pendulum will swing the other way at some point.
Lens wise, both make great quality lenses particularly if you are able to save up for the Canon L series, or the Nikon equivalent top of the range. Some of the 3rd party lenses are also top quality - I love my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 zoom (used for the leopard shot above).
Either are capable of great images, so in choosing which, I'd try to have a decent play at a camera shop (if you can find one), and go with whichever you get on better with from an ergonomics/menu system point of view.
Sorry, but I can't comment on the new Sony or Fuji offerings as I have no personal experience of them, although they are highly regarded. What I would say is that I definitely prefer having an optical viewfinder rather than mirrorless.
The good part is that whichever system you end up with, they appear to all be very good cameras capable of great images, which will enable you plenty of room for improving your own technique. The camera is unlikely to be the limiting factor.
Example with 40D:
IMG_0363 by conradsphotos, on FlickrSince then, I went to FF (original 5D), and never looked back - hard to define exactly, but I much preferred the look of the FF images. Now on 5D mark3.
Example with original 5D:
web_2793 by conradsphotos, on FlickrExample with 5D Mark3:
Amur_Leopard_A3_300dpi by conradsphotos, on FlickrOver the years, it seems that Canon and Nikon have each taken the lead in image quality/low light performance. I understand Nikon probably has the edge on low light/low noise at the moment, but no doubt the pendulum will swing the other way at some point.
Lens wise, both make great quality lenses particularly if you are able to save up for the Canon L series, or the Nikon equivalent top of the range. Some of the 3rd party lenses are also top quality - I love my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 zoom (used for the leopard shot above).
Either are capable of great images, so in choosing which, I'd try to have a decent play at a camera shop (if you can find one), and go with whichever you get on better with from an ergonomics/menu system point of view.
Sorry, but I can't comment on the new Sony or Fuji offerings as I have no personal experience of them, although they are highly regarded. What I would say is that I definitely prefer having an optical viewfinder rather than mirrorless.
The good part is that whichever system you end up with, they appear to all be very good cameras capable of great images, which will enable you plenty of room for improving your own technique. The camera is unlikely to be the limiting factor.
I had a Sony FF mirrorless for a while and I would have to say they have a lot going for them, so much so that although I am currently using a Canon FF with an optical viewfinder I won't buy another body until Canon bring out a FF mirrorless There's a lot of rumours that they might do so later this year.
st4 said:
Full frame no question if you ask me 
Absolutely, all day, every day.To go back to the above though, yes I was being succinct, but it's true. A greater distance between subject and background does not change the depth of field, nor does sensor size, nor does lens focal length. It's quite useful to have a really good think about this and understand why.
Pinkie15 said:
If I go APS-C am I going to notice detriments in the frame size cf 35 mm film ? I understand that I need to re-learn/adapt to different focal lengths on an APS-C because of the smaller image size, but anything else one needs to consider (apart of course from the higher price of a full frame DSLR).
I might be so bold as to suggest that any DSLR, full or crop frame, will urinate heartily on what you've had before. I've used crop sensor DSLRs for almost 14 years and made my living with them for a good portion of that. Technically full frame will be 'better', but the chances are that a crop sensor will be better than you, if you see what I mean! You could choose FF for 'future-proofing' but the lenses are generally bigger/heavier/more expensive than their crop counterparts.Pinkie15 said:
Now which marque to go for is always personal choice. I never liked Canon or Nikon film SLR button and dial layouts or "hand fit", hence last camera being the Minolta (a couple of Olympus' prior to that (OM 10 with manual adapter, then OM40)).
I bought my first Nikon (F70) in 1999 mainly because everyone I knew had a Canon and I like to be different. Since then I've used D70, 2x D200, D300, D700 and D500. If I was dipping into the market now just for fun I might head for Olympus simply because I like the look of them. That said you will find the Nikon hand-fit and ergonomics utterly different from an SLR so don't rule them out based on what they were 20 years ago.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff