Poll: Which Full frame camera will you buy?

[doodah]

An interesting take on the future of camera formats:
Why DX has no Future

Before the advent of mirrorless cameras, it's hard to imagine what can possibly happen to the DX/EF-S format. But by now, the writing is clearly on the wall: m43, Canon EF-M and Sony E mounts are here to stay. The Nikon CX mount will probably survive because of the Nikon brand name, but it's gonna be a niche player.

To be honest, I am contemplating dumping all my Canon gear for m43 stuff. Oly finally got their sensor shortcomings sorted out with the E-M5. But the m43 line-up does not have any equivalent to (i) the 16-35 mm lens without a bulbous front element (ii) the 150 mm 1:1 macro lens. So, I'll continue to wait and see..

 

[Kenneth67C]

I do believe there still is life in APSC, especially for macro and sports/wildlife, but these by nature are already quite niche...so...

Its a pity that the mirrorless formats are still so slow in development...I suppose the big manfacturers have to consider the lost revenue in their other formats.

 

[raydio]

I do believe there still is life in APSC, especially for macro and sports/wildlife, but these by nature are already quite niche...so...

Its a pity that the mirrorless formats are still so slow in development...I suppose the big manfacturers have to consider the lost revenue in their other formats.

I agree. I believe that there is still lot's of life left in APS-C. In fact, I was quite disappointed when APS-H suddenly disappeared.

People who require 'long reach' and/or 'fast FPS' for sports, wildlife and even moon shots will benefit from the APS-C. There is definitely a market niche and a real-life application for it. Besides, it would be a great shame to waste excellent lenses like the Canon 17-55, Canon 10-22, Canon 15-85, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 8-16 and so many others.

 

[SianTFN]

Hi guys I'm new here.

Think there was a todayonline article a few days ago saying the EOS M series is going to be closer to high-end P&S rather than entry APS-Cs. So perhaps APS-Cs still have chance to survive. I'm loving mine.

 

[rain5533]

Seriously for 650D slightly cheaper than EOS M series and can play more lenses.

For me I would stick with 650D and not need used the adaptor.

 

[vee5]

I think EOS M caters to those who like a much lighter and compact body, and it has lots of potential.

However, it's range of lens is very limited at the moment. And using the adaptor kinda defeats the purpose of using mirrorless.

 

[eggie87]

I think EOS M caters to those who like a much lighter and compact body, and it has lots of potential.

However, it's range of lens is very limited at the moment. And using the adaptor kinda defeats the purpose of using mirrorless.

Well it can fit 60 lenses..ef efs,n efm lenses....the bad thing about it is the slow n inaccurate auto focus ...saw the review from digital rev tv....pretty disappointing even with its hybrid sensor n lots of af points

 

[Lensman]

just heard that the 6D will be shipped with the 24-70 F4L-IS as the kit lens.

 

[ageha]

just heard that the 6D will be shipped with the 24-70 F4L-IS as the kit lens.

Nice, it has a cool .7x magnification.

 

[Mascaporne]

just heard that the 6D will be shipped with the 24-70 F4L-IS as the kit lens.

I wonder how expensive it would be....

 

[Redshutter]

One thing though, I did try the 5D3 for sports yesterday and it failed miserably. 6fps? I doubt it. For sports, only the 1D series will suffice. But for environment, landscape and other not fast moving objects, the 5D3 is best.

I did tried 5Dmk3 in one shoot before... FPS is indeed 6fps, makes my 5Dmk1 feels like an antique lol. Maybe it is the AF and Buffer that was slowing you down?

 

[Redshutter]

if my budget is not an issue, I will definitely go for the 1DX. Else I will go for the 5Dmk3! Very well rounded performer! Only gripe is the file size at full resolution.


1DX vs D4

 

[Redshutter]

I agree. I believe that there is still lot's of life left in APS-C. In fact, I was quite disappointed when APS-H suddenly disappeared.

People who require 'long reach' and/or 'fast FPS' for sports, wildlife and even moon shots will benefit from the APS-C. .

There is never a "reach" in a cropped sensor. Magnification is done by the lens and not the sensor. What a cropped sensor does is literally what it's name implies, a cropped image.

Which means you are not getting anywhere closer, you are just losing some of the images that the cropped sensor can't capture.

The focal length of a 200mm telephoto lens , when is been used on a 1.3 or 1.6 cropped sensor, does not change. What is changed however is the field of view, a result of a smaller imaging area that crops the image circle of the lens.

 

[SkyStrike]

There is never a "reach" in a cropped sensor. Magnification is done by the lens and not the sensor. What a cropped sensor does is literally what it's name implies, a cropped image.

Which means you are not getting anywhere closer, you are just losing some of the images that the cropped sensor can't capture.

The focal length of a 200mm telephoto lens , when is been used on a 1.3 or 1.6 cropped sensor, does not change. What is changed however is the field of view, a result of a smaller imaging area that crops the image circle of the lens.

Be that as a fact....but we still get more megapixels on crop as compared to using FF then crop out..

 

[raydio]

There is never a "reach" in a cropped sensor. Magnification is done by the lens and not the sensor. What a cropped sensor does is literally what it's name implies, a cropped image.

Which means you are not getting anywhere closer, you are just losing some of the images that the cropped sensor can't capture.

The focal length of a 200mm telephoto lens , when is been used on a 1.3 or 1.6 cropped sensor, does not change. What is changed however is the field of view, a result of a smaller imaging area that crops the image circle of the lens.

I am very well aware of what you are saying and I've heard it all before. You are correct. However, the word 'reach', although technically inaccurate, simply says 'it' better than any other word.

How else would you say:

"In wild life photography, crop cameras have the advantage of better 'reach' over their full frame brethren."

If you can substitute one word for the word 'reach' and still maintain the integrity of the statement, I'd be glad to use it.

 

[Redshutter]

Be that as a fact....but we still get more megapixels on crop as compared to using FF then crop out..

hmmm I believe a cropped image from say a 1DX or D4 will still have better image quality (not pixels count) than an uncropped image from 7D or D600? Or even better... use a telephoto converter on a 800mm with a FF and do without cropping? Framing not tight enough or magnification not enough? Just crawl stealthily even closer hahhaha

 

[Redshutter]

I am very well aware of what you are saying and I've heard it all before. You are correct. However, the word 'reach', although technically inaccurate, simply says 'it' better than any other word.

How else would you say:

"In wild life photography, crop cameras have the advantage of better 'reach' over their full frame brethren."

If you can substitute one word for the word 'reach' and still maintain the integrity of the statement, I'd be glad to use it.

ahhh icic...yeah "reach" is very misleading hahaha... That is why I often feel that this phrase is still very inaccurate.

It is not a reach or magnification at all... but rather a better pixel output on a cropped sensor than a cropped image from a full frame sensor. Which is a perception of better image quality also? But "reach" is already well accepted in the wildlife shooter community.

 

[doodah]

use a telephoto converter on a 800mm with a FF and do without cropping?

This horse has been beaten to death many times already. Here is an example: "Comparing a lens without TC on 7D vs lens with 1.4x TC on FF, the 7D gives slightly better image quality - more detail and less chromatic aberration." Looking at the actual images themselves, the difference is not at all 'slight' IMHO.

 

[Redshutter]

This horse has been beaten to death many times already. Here is an example: "Comparing a lens without TC on 7D vs lens with 1.4x TC on FF, the 7D gives slightly better image quality - more detail and less chromatic aberration." Looking at the actual images themselves, the difference is not at all 'slight' IMHO.

Woah... very interesting.... it would be interesting if both 7D and 1Ds3 are using same f stop and iso though.... and would be interesting to see 5D3 or 5D2 vs 7D instead of the older 1Ds3

I have seen a lot of samples online such as these:

Canon EOS 5D Review: Digital Photography Review
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Review: Digital Photography Review
Canon EOS 7D Review: Digital Photography Review
Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR Camera Review
Canon 1Dx or 5D3 the Best Night Shooting Camera? | Uncage the Soul Video Production

everywhere I have seen... cropped sensor image quality is always lesser than a FF. Lacking the details.

Or even high iso, cropped sensor is below par when compared to FF

Personally from my experience, my 20D image quality is definitely not as good as my 5D1. My 1D4 on the other hand is better than my aging 5D1.
But... technology these days advancing so fast... barely can catch up...

 

[Learnphotography]

You cannot judge Details based on these 3 photos

The photographer DID mention that it is a test on noise. So he didnt focus on the same spot

Obviously the middle one is focused somewhere btw the Lens and car.

Nonetheless, detail from FF camera is of coz more which is a fact.