Hi all,
I’ve had a bit of time my hands this last week while on holiday in sunny climes, and I’ve been toying with various camera ideas. It all started with an urge to move to FF for BIF and the idea of buying a 5Dmkiv to go with my only BIF lens - the 400mmf5.6. Anyway at this point the EOS R appeared and so did Nikon’s offerings and the general hoo-hah about full-frame caught my attention. All the while I’ve been happily playing with my Fuji XT-1 and in the light over here it’s looking great, but I’m wondering if I’m missing out by not using FF sensors.
For birds, I’m using a 7DmkII and I will probably end up with some sort of FF for closer work ( from a hide ) in lower light with higher shutter speeds, so I can see the noise advantage there.
Most of my photography is people and travel, either in good light or by controlling the light with the addition of flash which will probably mean just about any sensor would produce great results and my Fuji does this admirably. I’m starting to wonder how much sense it makes having a Fuji system on the one hand and a Canon ( or - perish the thought - even a Sony system ) on the other.
Anyway I’m curious about the differences. Here's my thoughts.
I know the argument that FF is better for landscape due to DR and noise performance and I get that to some extent, however, the Fuji is not a noisy camera, and anyway, I’m able to control noise for landscapes by use of a tripod and low ISO and so I am dismissing that as an issue for me.
So that leaves DR. As to that, I’d say no matter how great and wonderful a FF sensor you’re using there will never be enough DR to accommodate every scene so you're never going to be satisfied with FF either. Also, could I not just use HDR from multiple mages if need be?
Finally, here’s my questions. How much difference in DR would there be between, for example, a 5Div and Fuji XT2 ( even less with the XT3 I imagine ) and would this really be significant?
I’m coming to the notion that a FF camera might help my birds but wouldn’t offer such great advantages as is often said, for landscape.
I know a lot of highly experienced photographers will disagree with this so I’m guessing I’m missing something. I would be happy to know what it is.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I’ve had a bit of time my hands this last week while on holiday in sunny climes, and I’ve been toying with various camera ideas. It all started with an urge to move to FF for BIF and the idea of buying a 5Dmkiv to go with my only BIF lens - the 400mmf5.6. Anyway at this point the EOS R appeared and so did Nikon’s offerings and the general hoo-hah about full-frame caught my attention. All the while I’ve been happily playing with my Fuji XT-1 and in the light over here it’s looking great, but I’m wondering if I’m missing out by not using FF sensors.
For birds, I’m using a 7DmkII and I will probably end up with some sort of FF for closer work ( from a hide ) in lower light with higher shutter speeds, so I can see the noise advantage there.
Most of my photography is people and travel, either in good light or by controlling the light with the addition of flash which will probably mean just about any sensor would produce great results and my Fuji does this admirably. I’m starting to wonder how much sense it makes having a Fuji system on the one hand and a Canon ( or - perish the thought - even a Sony system ) on the other.
Anyway I’m curious about the differences. Here's my thoughts.
I know the argument that FF is better for landscape due to DR and noise performance and I get that to some extent, however, the Fuji is not a noisy camera, and anyway, I’m able to control noise for landscapes by use of a tripod and low ISO and so I am dismissing that as an issue for me.
So that leaves DR. As to that, I’d say no matter how great and wonderful a FF sensor you’re using there will never be enough DR to accommodate every scene so you're never going to be satisfied with FF either. Also, could I not just use HDR from multiple mages if need be?
Finally, here’s my questions. How much difference in DR would there be between, for example, a 5Div and Fuji XT2 ( even less with the XT3 I imagine ) and would this really be significant?
I’m coming to the notion that a FF camera might help my birds but wouldn’t offer such great advantages as is often said, for landscape.
I know a lot of highly experienced photographers will disagree with this so I’m guessing I’m missing something. I would be happy to know what it is.
Thanks for your thoughts.
