Full Frame SLR Advice

[CmdrLaForge]

I understand that people like the mirrorless cameras because they are lighter. That's true but in my experience it's not like day and night.

In the picture you see my 3 cameras. The Sony A6000, Canon 100D and 5D Mark 3. The 5D has an unfortunate lens for this comparison. As you can see the Sony is smaller and lighter but not in another league. Then I think one must choose e.g. Sony RX series.

 

[v3rlon]

I understand that people like the mirrorless cameras because they are lighter. That's true but in my experience it's not like day and night.

View attachment 619047

In the picture you see my 3 cameras. The Sony A6000, Canon 100D and 5D Mark 3. The 5D has an unfortunate lens for this comparison. As you can see the Sony is smaller and lighter but not in another league. Then I think one must choose e.g. Sony RX series.

Yeah, that is what I don't get. You'd think an A7 was half the size of a FF DSLR by the way people talk. It is about 15mm smaller in each dimension and ~150g lighter. So it is about 25% smaller and lighter than a 6D (before adding additional batteries to balance out shooting life). Is the .289 liters of space that big a deal? It MIGHT get you one small lens if you were able to milk it, but the shape of any camera remotely ergonomic makes this unlikely. Realistically, you might salvage room for a small fixed prime like a 50 1.8. This is before the 3:1 battery ratio kicks in, of course.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yeah, that is what I don't get. You'd think an A7 was half the size of a FF DSLR by the way people talk. It is about 15mm smaller in each dimension and ~150g lighter. So it is about 25% smaller and lighter than a 6D (before adding additional batteries to balance out shooting life). Is the .289 liters of space that big a deal? It MIGHT get you one small lens if you were able to milk it, but the shape of any camera remotely ergonomic makes this unlikely. Realistically, you might salvage room for a small fixed prime like a 50 1.8. This is before the 3:1 battery ratio kicks in, of course.

In my experience it's the lenses that make the difference. The body is nothing compared to the weight of decent glass.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

this is the short version of what I'd like to say about gear:

Gear is nice to have, but widely overestimated....


Eric Clapton once was asked by a fan about the brand of his guitar...

Clapton answered

"It is not the guitar, it is the player!"

Do you ask an excellent cook in your favorite restaurant what cooking pot he is using?

 

[OreoCookie]

I understand that people like the mirrorless cameras because they are lighter. That's true but in my experience it's not like day and night.

It's the combination of smaller bodies and much smaller lenses — most mirrorless cameras have smaller sensors (APS-C-sized or m4/3). Just from a practical perspective, I rarely take my dslr out anymore, even though it is more competent for certain things. (Of course, YMMV.)

 

[MrAverigeUser]

It's the combination of smaller bodies and much smaller lenses — most mirrorless cameras have smaller sensors (APS-C-sized or m4/3). Just from a practical perspective, I rarely take my dslr out anymore, even though it is more competent for certain things. (Of course, YMMV.)

100% agree.
So,do,I.

I have a 5D III with a bunch of Pro- lenses, but since I purchased The Fujifilm XPro1 and the XE system with its top-lenses, my Canon gear gets rarely used. Instead I carry always(!) the mirrorless equipment in a little, tiny Lowe slingshot 100 with me and there is even enough space for wallet, keys, etc. in it. And it weights nearly
Since I have always my camera with me, I got often the chance to shoot scenes I wouldn't have shot before... The best camera is the one that is with you...in the "decisive moment" ... ;-)

Nevertheless, I like the 5D III a lot with its silent mode and low vibration features - this DSLR is much less intrusive thank tomits silence compared to its predecessors... And of course for its top- Autofocus and special lenses like 14mm and the TSE primes...

 

[-hh]

As a follow-up to what I wrote earlier, two items for comment.

First, on choosing a Canon body... short list is (in ascending order), the 5Dmk3, 6D, or 7Dmk2 (this list assumes the 5Dmk4 isn't in play).

Looking at autofocus performance for wildlife ... it looks like the DXO scoring tool fixates on ISO and nothing else ... is this correct?

Second, in digging into the Specs, it looks like the AF hardware's number of focus points is 65, 11, 61 -- to me, this implies that we should expect the 6D to be relatively horrible in comparison to the other two in terms of just how fast/accurate/etc its AF subsystem will perform on seeking/locking in on subjects. Is this a valid conclusion?

(For my own self-reference, my 7D has 19 points, and the ancient 20D had 9 points)

Finally, on Video, it looks like the 7Dmk2 has live autofocus, which the 6D and 5Dmk3 both apparently do not...?

This is evolving into an interesting trade-off. I think I'm leaning now more towards the 7Dmk2

-hh

 

[v3rlon]

...

Second, in digging into the Specs, it looks like the AF hardware's number of focus points is 65, 11, 61 -- to me, this implies that we should expect the 6D to be relatively horrible in comparison to the other two in terms of just how fast/accurate/etc its AF subsystem will perform on seeking/locking in on subjects. Is this a valid conclusion?

(For my own self-reference, my 7D has 19 points, and the ancient 20D had 9 points)

Finally, on Video, it looks like the 7Dmk2 has live autofocus, which the 6D and 5Dmk3 both apparently do not...?

This is evolving into an interesting trade-off. I think I'm leaning now more towards the 7Dmk2

-hh

note: I do not use Canon

I generally use just one focus point and put it on my subject. There is, for the lens, only one focus point, after all. Everything else will be slightly out depending on how close or far it is from that point. I am always concerned that the camera will pick the wrong point or points and mess with my vision of what I want. Maybe in your practice, that is less efficient. This will be more true for moving objects. That said, it looks like the 6D chose a less than optimal place for the adjustment button.

I wouldn't describe the 6D as horrible, despite preferring Nikon, but it does seem to come in third place. Better weather sealing will probably matter to you at some point, and the 6D falls short. The 6D is lighter, and has built in GPS. The white balance is down in the menu system? yuck. Ok, maybe it is horrible.

The 5D3 is more rugged, and will track moving objects better.

A lot of people swear by the 5D3 for video, but I think they focus manually, anyway.

 

[fathergll]

I understand that people like the mirrorless cameras because they are lighter. That's true but in my experience it's not like day and night.



In the picture you see my 3 cameras. The Sony A6000, Canon 100D and 5D Mark 3. The 5D has an unfortunate lens for this comparison. As you can see the Sony is smaller and lighter but not in another league. Then I think one must choose e.g. Sony RX series.

One other thing i'd mention is that DSLRs tend to scream attention to the public. Doesn't matter if it's a $300 Rebel or $3000 D810. If you carry a DSLR around people stare.

Mirrorless can elevate a lot of this. Obviously the glass can get big using a full frame mirrorless but even then you still have the option for a stealthy setup when using certain glass. The difference gets much bigger when going down in sensor size.

A lot of this depends on where you are shooting or if you even care. I remember reading about one guy using an RX1 to shoot fashion on the streets and it basically drew much less attention like his Nikon DSLR which can be useful if you run into scenarios where someone is asking if you have a permit to shoot somewhere especially or if bad guys are walking around looking for gear to grab. Average person has no idea that an RX1 is way more expensive than some Canon Rebel especially at distance.

 

[Ray2]

Trying to save a buck because you apparently have some Canon cropped glass that you're willing to use on a FF body is a questionable investment. This is the time to rethink how you want to pursue your newly kindled interest in photography.

Are you such a good photographer you need FF?
Will your usage be constrained by the mere fact you're carting around an anvil? Can you take it wherever you want to go?
When it comes to future FF lens purchases, they're not going to be cheap.

If a FF dslr is what fits your requirements, I'd very seriously consider a switch to Nikon. It doesn't sound like you'd be obsoleting much gear.

If smaller makes sense, Fuji, Oly, Sony. These take a lot of research. While Sony gets a lot of buzz, having owned both Sony and Fuji cropped sensor cams, Sony is firmly on my do not consider list. The specs may make them an impressive camera but in use you have to live with the areas Sony cut corners in. As well as I find the Sony files need a lot more work in post. Something I repeatedly read from new adopters to Sony.

 

[v3rlon]

Trying to save a buck because you apparently have some Canon cropped glass that you're willing to use on a FF body is a questionable investment. This is the time to rethink how you want to pursue your newly kindled interest in photography.

Are you such a good photographer you need FF?
Will your usage be constrained by the mere fact you're carting around an anvil? Can you take it wherever you want to go?
When it comes to future FF lens purchases, they're not going to be cheap.

If a FF dslr is what fits your requirements, I'd very seriously consider a switch to Nikon. It doesn't sound like you'd be obsoleting much gear.

If smaller makes sense, Fuji, Oly, Sony. These take a lot of research. While Sony gets a lot of buzz, having owned both Sony and Fuji cropped sensor cams, Sony is firmly on my do not consider list. The specs may make them an impressive camera but in use you have to live with the areas Sony cut corners in. As well as I find the Sony files need a lot more work in post. Something I repeatedly read from new adopters to Sony.

You assume that it is crop sensor glass. If the whole family is shooting Canon SLR, there is quite likely some FF glass. Also, using APSC glass is better than no lens at all. If OP needs to use that while waiting on money or shipping for their dream lens, it is better than nothing. As this was a stated reason for Canon, why throw out the switch to Nikon. I mean, I love my Nikon, but listen to what the OP is saying.

You also assume that you have to be "good enough" to use FF cameras. What is this nonsense? The button doesn't push any different. The only way to get good at anything is to practice. If OP feels they are 'good enough' to need FF, then they are. It doesn't matter what you, me, or Nation Geographic thinks. You don't need to pass a test and get a permit to move up past crop sensors.

The OP specifically stated FF Canon camera. Why do people insist on trying to talk the guy out of the major listed requirements. When you go looking for a long, fast tele, would you appreciate the guy at the store trying to redirect you to a nifty fifty? "You don't want to lug around that 600mm anchor, this 50mm is so much lighter. Its smaller, too. You could fit 10 of these in your kit for the same space, and 20 of them for the same price. Are you good enough to use a 600mm. How about The nifty fifty and 3 tele-converters? Its the best of prime and zoom. Just attach another converter when you need more reach!"

Now lets take a really good FF mirrorless and Canon lens. The outstanding 24-70 f2.8 is available on both platforms.
The Sony is 8.3*11.1cm at 975 grams for $2098 US at B&H. The Canon 8.85*11.1cm at 805 grams for $1749 also at B&H.

This means that a Canon 5D3 with 24-70 and battery (1606 grams) weighs 25 measly grams more than a Sony A7 with 24-70 and battery (1574 grams). The 6D with 24-70 weighs less than either at 1485 grams. And that doesn't include the extra Sony batteries. The lens is the same length with 5mm smaller diameter on the Sony. So the Sony rig comes out slightly smaller and slightly heavier and a bit more expensive. Of course, with the Canon, you would have all that extra money you didn't spend, but you can put that on a debit card so it doesn't count against your weight limit.

Want to try again with a 70-200 f2.8? Well the Sony isn't out yet, but the A mount is $2998 for price comparison.
We do have the sizing on the E mount version (again courtesy B&H). Sony E mount FF 70-200 f2.8 is 88*200mm at 1480 grams. The Canon is 889*1981 mm at 1490 grams at $1949. So the Canon is SMALLER than the mirrorless glass, but it is 10g heavier. It is also $1050 less.

None of this is "it feels smaller and lighter." This is math. The space saved won't amount to the free air space in your bag. You MIGHT squeeze a 50mm lens, but Sony doesn't make one for FF e mount. Now add an adaptor (and a point of loss/failure) to your kit. Fast glass to an FF sensor is going to take up some space. We can't beat physics (yet).

 

[-hh]

You assume that it is crop sensor glass. If the whole family is shooting Canon SLR, there is quite likely some FF glass. Also, using APSC glass is better than no lens at all. If OP needs to use that while waiting on money or shipping for their dream lens, it is better than nothing. As this was a stated reason for Canon, why throw out the switch to Nikon. I mean, I love my Nikon, but listen to what the OP is saying.

When I read that comment, I wasn't sure if it was being directed at the OP or my related question.

To answer it for myself, pointing out the crop sensor glass assumption as an assumption is a good point: for every EF-S lens I happen to have, there's also two EF "Full Frame" lenses...some of which dates back to the days of 35mm film. To contemplate changing to a different brand/interface wouldn't be cheap if I choose to maintain my status quo capability level, which effectively is a "Marketplace Barrier" of sorts (and don't assume that the OEMs don't know this).

So on EF-S lenses, its quite true that I've not been too particularly enamored with the idea of buying EF-S lenses at all because there's always been that prospect of getting a FF body at some point, but in counterpoint pragmatism, the good news is that the EF-S lenses typically are sufficiently less costly than their EF counterparts to merit consideration of the old "how good is 'good enough?" query. For example, the EF-S 10-22mm in lieu of the EF 11-24 f/4L is $650 vs $3,000...that's some pretty serious 'diminishing returns'.

You also assume that you have to be "good enough" to use FF cameras. What is this nonsense? The button doesn't push any different...

Well, there is the {good body with cheap glass} paradigm that's worth acknowledging, but all that that's really saying is that without both pieces being upgraded, one don't get a better product - - which is not really any different than {cheap body with good glass}.

The OP specifically stated FF Canon camera. Why do people insist on trying to talk the guy out of the major listed requirements. When you go looking for a long, fast tele, would you appreciate the guy at the store trying to redirect you to a nifty fifty? ...

Well, we've all seen fanboys with whatever flavor of P&S w/superzoom try to extoll that hardware's virtue, even while often refusing to acknowledge any possible downsides to that trade-off. The simple reality is that any choice has to have some level of trade, somewhere ... the trick is in recognizing what they are to see if they might be a minor or major issue for one's specific use case priorities.

Now lets take a really good FF mirrorless .... We can't beat physics (yet).

We also can't beat the marketplace either. When I replaced my 35mm film underwater camera system with a housed dSLR back in 2009/10, it was the early days of 4/3rds & mirrorless .. and the primary capability that I was looking to replicate from 35mm film of a 15mm wide angle simply did not exist at any price from any of these vendors. Thus, I was "stuck" with a conventional dSLR system, with the EF-S 10-22mm on a crop body being one solution and the other being a 17-35mm on a FF body ... and going with the latter added not only to weight/cube, but it also increased the total system cost by roughly 30% (+$2K): since both were going to be shooting through the same 8" dome port, their optical performance potential would be equally hindered by that water/air interface.

 

[dollystereo]

Short answer, Canon 6D, excellent camera. Light and cheap.
5D MK3 is a terrible investment right now, you can get the 6D for half the price.
I have a XT100T and the 6D and they are both excellent, with impressive low light performance. The autofocus is very good, and with good glass the quality is amazing. I use both cameras, I still prefer the SLR over the mirrorless camera.

 

[gui0312]

Short answer, Canon 6D, excellent camera. Light and cheap.
5D MK3 is a terrible investment right now, you can get the 6D for half the price.
I have a XT100T and the 6D and they are both excellent, with impressive low light performance. The autofocus is very good, and with good glass the quality is amazing. I use both cameras, I still prefer the SLR over the mirrorless camera.

I can definitely vouch for the 6D. Its the best investment I have made in the camera department. I bought it 3 years ago and has been awesome. The 24-105L it usually comes with is a great lens for all around. Couple that with a 50 1.4 and I have had some really nice shots. YMMV of course with lenses and what you would like to shoot. It is true the 5D and MkII are a waste of money.

 

[JohnDS]

I am the guy who previously recommended the 6D, and that is still my recommendation if you are going to stick with Canon. However, I have just sold all my Canon gear and bought the new Olympus EM-1 MkII. Because this is a micro 4/3 camera, you save weight both on the body and on the lenses (which you don't do if you buy a mirrorless APC or full frame). As a result, I don't see the point of going to mirrorless APC or full frame, but there is a significant weight saving in Micro 4/3. For instance a Canon 6D with a 24-70mm f2.8 lens weighs 1,575 grams, where as an Olympus EM1 Mk II with a 12-40mm f2.8 lens (the full frame equivalent of a 24-80mm lens) weights only 956 gm, a saving of a about 1.4 pounds.

The camera and lenses are also smaller and more compact which means I can easily stick the camera and four lenses in a small bag to take on an airplane. If you want an example, look at the attached photo of the Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro lens (full frame equivalent = 120mm). It is tiny compared to the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro.


The freedom of not having to lug around heavy and bulky gear means I am more likely to use my camera more.

This short article by Scott Bourne reflects why I did this now: https://photofocus.com/2016/12/19/first-look-om-d-olympus-e-m1-mark-ii-micro-four-thirds-camera/

Basically, the long and short of it is that you are no longer compromising much in IQ, ISO or focussing ability to move to micro 4/3 and you are gaining huge in the convenience department.

As well, if you read the reviews of the new Olympus, you will see it has features that are unheard of in regular DSLR's (like a 60 fps electronic shutter, built in focus-stacking and ISO stacking, 6.5 stop IS, and a host of other features). And if you are into movies, the IS is so good you don't need a steady-cam or a tripod with a gimble.

Sorry if I am sounding like a fanboy, but I think a lot of people are coming to the same conclusion.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Actually while shooting I prefer the ergonomics of my FF DSLRs far over my Sony A6000. Just carrying around is a different topic

 

[TheDrift-]

There's a lot of linking to sensor charts and technical details going on...it might be a welcome change of pace to look at some actual pictures?

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2016/spot-news/warren-richardson

Thats the winner of the world press photo this year (5d2 btw!) you can scroll through the gallery's and if you look down on the page in mosts cases it lists the camera it was taken on and the shutterspeed/focal length/aperture

FWIW and YMMV the 5d2 is a huge bang for buck, and still evidently very capable

 

[Fozzybadfeet]

Currently shooting with a Fuji X100T and have been debating if I should save up for either the X-Pro 1/2 or the X-T1/2.