It's been a while - contemplating coming back to a FF camera

PVO_Dave

PVO_Dave

Suspended / Banned
Messages
537
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

Can't remember the last time I posted in here, after getting into wedding photography I quickly killed off what was a fun hobby and turned it into work, ended up selling off all my Canon gear and L lenses. I bought myself an Olympus OM-D (Mk1) at the time, which is nice enough, but recently I feel there's an itch I need to scratch :)

I previous had a Canon 5D2, which I thought was brilliant, the image quality, colours etc.. all great, but I'm out of touch now!

Thinking of spending around £500 ish (body only) is there a better FF DSLR in that budget than the 5D3? Seen a few deals out there that are tempting, I think I'd prefer Canon, as I'm hoping it'll be like riding a bike, but open to suggestions :)

Thanks in advance for any help.

Dave.
 
Have a look at Mirrorless Dave. There are real advantages such as face/eye detect, seeing the exposure and DoF and being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame. Oh, and MA faff on. Face/eye detect coupled with being able to focus anywhere is just on its own IMO a real and significant game changer.

£500 is not a lot though as you'll no doubt be looking for a lens... so I suppose your option could well be limited to a DSLR.
 
woof woof said:
Have a look at Mirrorless Dave. There are real advantages such as face/eye detect, seeing the exposure and DoF and being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame. Oh, and MA faff on. Face/eye detect coupled with being able to focus anywhere is just on its own IMO a real and significant game changer.

£500 is not a lot though as you'll no doubt be looking for a lens... so I suppose your option could well be limited to a DSLR.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply :)

If you've got any suggestions I'm open to checking them out, assuming secondhand btw, not worried about going new this time round.
 
PVO_Dave said:
Thanks for the reply :)

If you've got any suggestions I'm open to checking them out, assuming secondhand btw, not worried about going new this time round.
Click to expand...

I have the original Sony A7 which is quite old tech now but probably represents the cheapest way to get into FF mirrorless at around £400 used. It has a 24mp sensor and face detect and although the focusing system isn't comparable to the newer systems it's accurate and consistent with stationary and slow moving stuff and faster than any 5D or before that Canon DSLR I had and of course you can focus anywhere in the frame not just with focus points clustered around the centre as with a DSLR.

As Toni points out above going mirrorless will probably cost you more so that's the first decision, go for a DSLR system as they're relatively cheap or pay more for the benefits of mirrorless. One way to keep the costs down and still have fun could be to stick to one or two modern AF lenses and fill any gaps with film era manual lenses which can be focused very accurately on mirrorless if you have the time to MF, such as landscape and posed people shots.

Just on MFT v FF DSLR's. I had the original 5D and all my MFT cameras (GX80, GX9 and GM5) obliterate it for features and beat it for image quality. My wedding was shot with a 5DII and for reasons I wont go into I ended up processing the raws and IMO my MFT cameras are again better. How a 5DIII compares I don't know but my experience with the 5D and II tell me the only thing they offer over MFT is thinner DoF but with that comes a long list of handicaps and issues. So, in your place I think I'd think carefully about why I wanted FF and what if any benefits I'd get from a 5DIII as with an older DSLR you might not be gaining a lot (but you'd possibly be giving up a lot of features) over what you'd get from a MFT or APS-C system.

Good luck choosing but FF mirrorless can be expensive.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input so far everyone, I feel like a right old grandad, having been away and the technology moving on so much (just checked, it was over 8 years ago since I was active with a camera!)

I need to do my homework on what the equivalent lenses are now (I.e. what's the mirrorless version of the L lenses I used to own and covet when I had my 5D2) and work things out from there, was looking at EOS R's on eBay earlier, so the budget could already be blown :LOL:
 
If lenses are or could be a stumbling block in your decision, could you even begin to think about using legacy glass or would decent AF etc be an overriding, non-negotiable requirement for your glass?
I ask as someone who went Canon (crop) >m43 > Sony FF but I currently have only one AF lens (the other 12 are all legacy/manual focus).
 
What does M4/3 not deliver that makes you want to go FF?
 
wornish said:
What does M4/3 not deliver that makes you want to go FF?
Click to expand...

Noise handling, subject separation, microcontrast, ability to use small apertures and keep the image sharp, shutter shock issues with some camera/lens combinations, awkward handling of tiny camera bdies, halo effects when pushing processing hard. That would do for starters.
 
To be fair Panasonic at least seems to have cured the shutter shock issue with their new shutter design. I can't fault the newer cameras and I am one who detected and hated the SS issues I saw with the G7 and GX7. I can't comment on Olympus as I've never owned one and of course the early Sony's were criticised for SS too and some DSLR's as I remember so this isn't a MFT only issue, it's cross brand and cross format.
 
If wanting a FF Canon DSLR other than a 5D III then have a look at a Mk 1 Canon 6D. Just as good, if not better, in low light, and probably cheaper and less to go wrong than a 5D III, plus it's smaller and lighter. An underrated classic that quietly just gets on with it and consistently produces very nice looking photos - if you liked the 5D II then you should love the 6D IQ and colours wise. As usual, condition, low shutter count, plus a good long warranty is everything when buying a used camera. Once you've bought a 35mm FF SLR, then welcome back to the world of depth-of-field and luscious bokeh. (y)
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Noise handling, subject separation, microcontrast, ability to use small apertures and keep the image sharp, shutter shock issues with some camera/lens combinations, awkward handling of tiny camera bdies, halo effects when pushing processing hard. That would do for starters.
Click to expand...

I have never experienced shutter shock or halo effects and I certainly get sharp images using my M4/3 gear. I moved from a Nikon D810 and never looked back.

What kind of photography do you do?
Is it professional for print or for web?
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
If wanting a FF Canon DSLR other than a 5D III then have a look at a Mk 1 Canon 6D. Just as good, if not better, in low light, and probably cheaper and less to go wrong than a 5D III, plus it's smaller and lighter. An underrated classic that quietly just gets on with it and consistently produces very nice looking photos - if you liked the 5D II then you should love the 6D IQ and colours wise. As usual, condition and a good long warranty is everything when buying a used camera. Once you've bought a 35mm FF SLR, then welcome back to the world of depth-of-field and luscious bokeh. (y)
Click to expand...

One problem with the 6D for me would be the maximum shutter speed of 1/4,000 which would mean using ND's for wide aperture shooting in good light. This can be a right royal PITA as you can end up fitting an ND for one shot and taking it off for the next if it causes the ISO to need to be too high.

Maybe it's only me who finds this a PITA but it's something I struggled with when using wide aperture lenses on cameras with limited shutter speeds.
 
PVO_Dave said:
Hi All,

Can't remember the last time I posted in here, after getting into wedding photography I quickly killed off what was a fun hobby and turned it into work, ended up selling off all my Canon gear and L lenses. I bought myself an Olympus OM-D (Mk1) at the time, which is nice enough, but recently I feel there's an itch I need to scratch :)

I previous had a Canon 5D2, which I thought was brilliant, the image quality, colours etc.. all great, but I'm out of touch now!

Thinking of spending around £500 ish (body only) is there a better FF DSLR in that budget than the 5D3? Seen a few deals out there that are tempting, I think I'd prefer Canon, as I'm hoping it'll be like riding a bike, but open to suggestions :)

Thanks in advance for any help.

Dave.
Click to expand...
My 5D4 was a significant improvement from the 5D2 which I traded in. However, do not rule out other camera types. I now have half frame ML and the key performance factors compare well with the 5D4. The dynamic range and low noise performance is only marginally worse. The focussing system in the 5D4 is great but I actually think my Sony ML is probably better. The key issue for me is that the Sony with a long lens is 1/3 the weight of the Canon with a long lens.

Dave
 
woof woof said:
One problem with the 6D for me would be the maximum shutter speed of 1/4,000 which would mean using ND's for wide aperture shooting in good light. This can be a right royal PITA as you can end up fitting an ND for one shot and taking it off for the next if it causes the ISO to need to be too high.

Maybe it's only me who finds this a PITA but it's something I struggled with when using wide aperture lenses on cameras with limited shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
I don't even own an ND filter, and have more cameras than you can shake a stick at (mostly film ones) and have been taking photos for around 50 years now. So I think it probably depends on the sort of photography you do. In my case it it's always been a lack of light rather than too much that's been the issue, and the 6D went a long way to sorting that problem out.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I don't even own an ND filter, and have more cameras than you can shake a stick at (mostly film ones) and have been taking photos for around 50 years now. So I think it probably depends on the sort of photography you do. In my case it it's always been a lack of light rather than too much that's been the issue, and the 6D went a long way to sorting that problem out.
Click to expand...

That's all fine for you but for others the point still stands and people need to be armed with knowledge to enable an informed decision.

When using cameras with a max shutter speed of 1/4,000 I often needed an ND when using wide apertures even in the dim half light that passes for daylight in northern England. With an f1.x lens it's possible to hit 1/8,000 in decent light. Stopping down to f2.8 can often bring the shutter speed down below 1/4,000 depending on the light levels and where you're pointing your camera but as shallow DoF is a thing that some value with FF the issue with shutters limited to 1/4,000 is worth taking into account.

PS.
I've been taking pictures for 50 years too. Not that it matters. Anyone picking up a camera and trying to shoot at f1.x could run into this issue on day 1.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
That's all fine for you but for others the point still stands and people need to be armed with knowledge to enable an informed decision.

When using cameras with a max shutter speed of 1/4,000 I often needed an ND when using wide apertures even in the dim half light that passes for daylight in northern England. With an f1.x lens it's possible to hit 1/8,000 in decent light. Stopping down to f2.8 can often bring the shutter speed down below 1/4,000 depending on the light levels and where you're pointing your camera but as shallow DoF is a thing that some value with FF the issue with shutters limited to 1/4,000 is worth taking into account.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think we got that in your first post. As I said, it depends what sort of photography you do,

I'm sure the OP will appreciate that buying a Canon EOS FF DSLR will open the door to a huge range of Canon EF lenses (EF-S lenses won't fit FF cameras) at quite reasonable prices these days. Something certainly worth considering if buying on a budget - so there should be plenty of money left for an ND filter, if required! ;)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
If wanting a FF Canon DSLR other than a 5D III then have a look at a Mk 1 Canon 6D. Just as good, if not better, in low light, and probably cheaper and less to go wrong than a 5D III, plus it's smaller and lighter. An underrated classic that quietly just gets on with it and consistently produces very nice looking photos - if you liked the 5D II then you should love the 6D IQ and colours wise. As usual, condition, low shutter count, plus a good long warranty is everything when buying a used camera. Once you've bought a 35mm FF SLR, then welcome back to the world of depth-of-field and luscious bokeh. (y)
Click to expand...
Yep that’s what I was going to say 6D has excellent image quality, I’ve got the 6D MK2 which may be out of budget
I was just blown away with the image quality from full frame and wouldn’t now go back to a crop camera
 
Mr Badger said:
Yes, I think we got that in your first post. As I said, it depends what sort of photography you do,

I'm sure the OP will appreciate that buying a Canon EOS FF camera will open the door to a huge range of Canon EF lenses (EF-S lenses won't fit FF cameras) at quite reasonable prices these days. Something certainly worth considering if buying on a budget - so there should be plenty of money left for an ND filter, if required! ;)
Click to expand...

Well obviously.

If you shoot with f2.8 or slower zooms or are an f8 and be there sort of person you may never need faster shutter speeds but it's definitely worthwhile pointing out any particular issues like this to people looking at these cameras.

ND's? Fitting and removing them for reasons of keeping the shutter speed below 1/4,000 is something I hated. Been there. Done it. And felt like drop kicking the kit over a hedge multiple times.

Given the choice and if money allows sorry but I'd choose a camera with a higher max shutter speed every single time.
 
woof woof said:
Well obviously.

If you shoot with f2.8 or slower zooms or are an f8 and be there sort of person you may never need faster shutter speeds but it's definitely worthwhile pointing out any particular issues like this to people looking at these cameras.

ND's? Fitting and removing them for reasons of keeping the shutter speed below 1/4,000 is something I hated. Been there. Done it. And felt like drop kicking the kit over a hedge multiple times.

Given the choice and if money allows sorry but I'd choose a camera with a higher max shutter speed every single time.
Click to expand...
For goodness sake, you've made your point, now stop repeating yourself and hogging the thread. I'm beginning to think you like chianti a bit too much!
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
For goodness sake, you've made your point, now stop repeating yourself and hogging the thread. I'm beginning to think you like chianti a bit too much!
Click to expand...

Looks like I triggered you with honesty and clarity but no matter how much you love your 6D this possible issue is worth pointing out to anyone who doesn't know the implications.

With knowledge people are then informed and free to choose.

As to the rest. IMO you're bordering on insulting now so that's me, job done for the OP and I'm out of this thread.
 
Mr Badger said:
I'm beginning to think you like chianti a bit too much!
Click to expand...
That wasn't really necessary was it?
FYI It has nothing to do with drinking, it was a comment about him cooking his wife ...
 
woof woof said:
Looks like I triggered you with honesty and clarity but no matter how much you love your 6D this possible issue is worth pointing out to anyone who doesn't know the implications.

With knowledge people are then informed and free to choose.

As to the rest. IMO you're bordering on insulting now so that's me, job done for the OP and I'm out of this thread.
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between sharing knowledge and and just repeating yourself over and over again, and becoming increasingly irritating in the process.
 
Mr Badger said:
... and becoming increasingly irritating in the process.
Click to expand...
t1940.gif

I guess you missed my hint to drop it?
Do you need help with it?
 
The best camera is the on that feels right to you, and it seems from your first post that would be the 5D III.
I changed from Canon to M43 at the end of last year, and I am getting better results and enjoying the hobby more. That doesn't mean the G9 is batter than the Canon, it just means that what I do with it and how I do it works better on the G9.

If you are not set on the Canon, why not make up a short list and look at fleabays completed items to get an idea of the price ranges for the cameras and the lenses you think are the first to buy.

Then I look at DPReviews studio shots to get a looks at how they perform (not a perfect method, but a whole lot better than personal opinions) https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...t=1&x=0.8564773735581189&y=-0.984897251794999

This shows the Canon and the Panasonic, and clearly at 1600 RAW the Panasonic is noticeably more noisy, on jpegs the same difference only becomes so noticeable at 6400.

However, the lighter lenses, dual stabilisation and the way the camera feels in my hands allows me to use a lower ISO than I could on the Canon,
Other makes will have similar factors that could be deciding factors for you, but maybe not for others.

Somebody mentioned small bodies on M43 cameras, the G9 is as comfortable size wise as anything I have used, it is certainly not small ! The G80 is a bit smaller but also comfortable.

Personally I think you should stick to FF, as that is what your original comment was, and if it was me and I got something different, the itch wouldn't be scratched :)
 
Thanks everyone for their input and apologies for somehow starting some beef :oops: :$

I’m probably just as, if not more confused now. The link posted above by @Sangoma to compare cameras is interesting, although not perfect, it shows there’s really not an awful lot in it, that said, the colours look better to my eyes still with the Canon FF.

I’ll keep an eye on eBay and see what comes up, something like a 6D2 and a 24-70 L 2.8 would be ideal, absolutely loved that lens, my old kit was 5D2 )regular 5D as a backup), 24-70, 70-200, 50mm and 17-40, was a brilliant setup
 
People get invested in a particular brand or format and it can make them defensive. TP is often like this.
:eek: :ROFLMAO:
 
For the budget I would look at the Nikon D610 with a Kit Lens, if only to rule it out. I have not used Canon for many a year and agree that reading lots of reviews will show there are no really bad camera's and the differences between them are minor - might a suggest a trip to a local camera shop to have a look and feel, might help you dilemma.

Have fun and good hunting !
 
To get back to photography, though I have many years experience, I am not sure why one would wish to use a lens at f1.XX unless very low light. I take most genres so wonder which one requires such a narrow DOF?

Dave
 
wornish said:
I have never experienced shutter shock or halo effects and I certainly get sharp images using my M4/3 gear. I moved from a Nikon D810 and never looked back.

What kind of photography do you do?
Is it professional for print or for web?
Click to expand...

Why would the kind of photography or whether I earn money from my photography make a difference? There have been plenty of my images on this site over the last few years.

FWIW we have an Oly EM10 here, and it's a nice camera to use, but in some circumstances it suffers badly with shutter shock, and processing requires a lighter touch. I remember Snerkler posted some pictures a year or 2 back of the same scene, processed as closely as possible, using a D810 and an M43 (think it was an EM1). The M43 camera was obvious to me in each picture - there was a lack of depth, of subject separation. There are plenty of really nice pictures produced using M43, but for the reasons I gave, I prefer 35mm.

Since intent & attitude is hard to convey, I'm not trying to be arsey or argumentative, but rather explain. (y)
 
ancient_mariner said:
Why would the kind of photography or whether I earn money from my photography make a difference? There have been plenty of my images on this site over the last few years.

FWIW we have an Oly EM10 here, and it's a nice camera to use, but in some circumstances it suffers badly with shutter shock, and processing requires a lighter touch. I remember Snerkler posted some pictures a year or 2 back of the same scene, processed as closely as possible, using a D810 and an M43 (think it was an EM1). The M43 camera was obvious to me in each picture - there was a lack of depth, of subject separation. There are plenty of really nice pictures produced using M43, but for the reasons I gave, I prefer 35mm.

Since intent & attitude is hard to convey, I'm not trying to be arsey or argumentative, but rather explain. (y)
Click to expand...

Of course, FF cameras produce great images, in the right hands, the same goes for M43. For me, the sheer size and weight of the FF kit meant I just left it behind.
You have obviously made up your mind based on your experience and have chosen FF. That's fine by me.

If you look on the web where people have actually done the comparison between the two formats guess what, they can't tell the difference in the final image.
If you disagree please provide a link that says otherwise. I have not seen one to date.

To answer your actual question: :)
The reason I asked about the kind of photography you do is that if you are making a poster/ billboard sized blow up then I can understand the need to move to FF or even Medium format. Pro wedding photographers also tend to use FF because that's what their customers expect. You have to have a "proper" camera!
IMHO the quality of the images they produce is indistinguishable from the latest M43 cameras.

What version of the EM10 are you referring to? Tech moves on.
Shutter shock in very specific circumstances has been seen in many cameras M43 and FF. I know for a fact that Nikon cameras had the issue way back, I had one.
Just use the electronic shutter and problem solved. I don't take that many pictures of rotating propellor blades anyway.

The latest Olympus EM1mk2 and mk3 and the OM-1 can stand up in image quality and features to any FF camera regardless of cost. Have a look at the reviews and the hundreds (even thousands) of images posted on here in the Olympus threads.
For sports, action photography and BIF they lead the pack regardless of price. I am biased I know.

Like you, I did not mean to be "arsey or argumentative", your words. I was simply asking for more background info.

If FF works for you then fine let's just leave it at that. I don't want a format war.

Camera or mobile phone let's just take images and share them.
 
If you can't see a difference then that's great - you absolutely should carry on with what you're happy with.

For me, in a blind test looking at images posted by Snerkler on this forum, I could see the difference at web size posted on here - it's up to him whether he posts them again for your evaluation. These days I tend to shoot quite a lot at f1.4 with particular lenses, and it creates a look that I like which would be difficult to reproduce on a small sensor at the equivalent focal length. When I travel and use an f4 zoom instead of primes then there's likely less difference between formats, though there would still be some including the noise at higher ISO.

In terms of dynamic range and shadow recovery, the EM1MkII and III have 12.8 stops compared to the 14.7 stops of the Sony A7III I use. It's really helpful if I need to retain detail in both highlights and quite dark sections of an image.

Since you mention wedding photography, many wedding togs have switched to Sony because of eye detection - granted that's not a format specific feature - although Canon & Nikon have finally caught up. The bulky 'pro' DSLRs have been dropped by many now. FWIW when I shot weddings I used 645, mostly for quality, because 35mm film really couldn't cut it for me.

I just like the look a large sensor combined with a decent fast lens give to an image - it's what works for me.
 
Dave Canon said:
To get back to photography, though I have many years experience, I am not sure why one would wish to use a lens at f1.XX unless very low light. I take most genres so wonder which one requires such a narrow DOF?

Dave
Click to expand...

Depth of field, some people like thin depth and a lot of bokeh.
 
I have FF and M43 in my S5 and G9 (and GX9). If I'm going for a quick walk or know I may want to shoot faster moving objects I will grab my G9 (I love that camera with the PL 12-60). I will use the S5 more in darker light though.

If it helps, I'm on a photography course at the moment and last week we had to produce 10 images for a street photography assignment. I came first and they were all shot on my G9 :-)
 
Don153 said:
Mike Lane recently compared the Sony A1 with the OM1.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap-azoSgt90


He also did some extensive "blind tests" to see if people could tell the difference in the images. (They couldn't).
Click to expand...

I've been with MFT since the G1 and still have them.

When I looking at whole pictures taken with low to high ISO's like 3,200 or even more I can often forget what camera I used but there are a few occasions when the difference between my GX80, G9 and GM5 and Sony A7 are there to be seen and they're as follows...

- High dynamic range scenes.
- The very high ISO's that are available these days.
- When pixel peeping at high magnification.

I do agree that when looking at whole pictures at low to middling ISO's or even quite high ones and when processed for best effect it can be difficult to impossible to consistently identify MFT pictures in a stack also containing FF pictures without looking at clues like DoF or the characteristics of a known lens but when pushing what's possible at the extremes of DR, ISO and pixel peeping I don't think I'm kidding myself and I do think the differences are there to be seen if you look especially when doing side by side comparisons. Looking at whole pictures in isolation and seeing clear differences, maybe that's harder.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Depth of field, some people like thin depth and a lot of bokeh.
Click to expand...
On what types of subject? For example, I hate portraits where the model has sharp eyes but the nose and much of the hair are out of focus. With my Sony A6600, I bought a 35mm f1.8 fixed lens about 18 months ago but have not yet been tempted to use it even once.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
On what types of subject? For example, I hate portraits where the model has sharp eyes but the nose and much of the hair are out of focus. With my Sony A6600, I bought a 35mm f1.8 fixed lens about 18 months ago but have not yet been tempted to use it even once.

Dave
Click to expand...

I feel the same about people pictures and I mostly want the whole head in the DoF not just one eye but if limited DoF at longer than a tight head an shoulders shot is wanted then a wide aperture will be needed plus some people just like subject separation, smooth out of focus backgrounds and bokeh balls. Put any number of these things together, distance, separation, a desire for smooth rendering and bokeh balls and f1.4 and even f1.2 on FF are what does the job.

On APS-C f1.8 equates to f2.7 on FF for DoF which isn't particularly wide these days. f1.2 on FF can be pretty extreme.

If it helps at all I did a comparison at 40mm f1.2-2.8 at various distances.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Differences at f1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2, 2.8.

Just out of interest. The difference between f1.2 and f1.4 for DoF and bokeh has cropped up a couple of times so I thought I'd post a series of pictures. Note that I'm ignoring light gathering here and just looking at depth of field and bokeh. I looked at bokeh and depth of field years ago and...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

I'm not a great user of extreme aperture but I do like this one, 40mm f1.2.

FPC3Rm4.jpg


Other than that. I do have a 85mm f1.8 picture printed and framed.
 
Last edited:
Here's an example of what I like about 35mm and larger formats.
www.talkphotography.co.uk

She said no.

This is a friend who hates people trying to take her picture. She's beautiful, but hard to photograph. She said NO by Anton Ertl, on Flickr
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top