older FF v newer Crop

At low ISO`s the d5500 I owned with 24mp no AA filter was better than d700 I also owned.

Very high detail on the d5500
 
Coming from a Canon 5D and comparing it to MFT I used to think the 5D was better but using MFT with better lenses at wider apertures tilts things more towards MFT. The FF camera may give the sharper image.
 
I've got a d600 and a d700 and I'm blown away by how good and sometimes the DR is of the 700
 
For what purpose? And how old? For the vast majority of uses/situations, I don't think there's much to it. The biggest difference you might find will be in ISO performance (fill efficiency/amplification noise).
 
oh sorry I forgot to mention the purpose for taking daylight photos of cats flowers and canals etc
 
stevelmx5 said:
Not being funny, any camera from the last 50 years can take a picture of cats, flowers and canals in daylight.
Click to expand...
I know Steve,just wondered if the FF would be a choice that might give a different look to what I've had before sorta
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I know Steve,just wondered if the FF would be a choice that might give a different look to what I've had before sorta
Click to expand...

With the d700 you'll lose out on MP. What you gain is a pro build, fantastic AF, shallow dof and very good high iso, the files are really nice. You can still print massive files from a d700.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
With the d700 you'll lose out on MP. What you gain is a pro build, fantastic AF, shallow dof and very good high iso, the files are really nice. You can still print massive files from a d700.
Click to expand...

And a lovely big viewfinder. I love FF viewfinders.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I know Steve,just wondered if the FF would be a choice that might give a different look to what I've had before sorta
Click to expand...

Didn't you say the other day that you've owned 28 different cameras in recent time? Did you find any of them giving you a look that you liked? Alternatively, if you want a really big viewfinder have you considered trying medium format film?
 
stevelmx5 said:
Didn't you say the other day that you've owned 28 different cameras in recent time? Did you find any of them giving you a look that you liked? Alternatively, if you want a really big viewfinder have you considered trying medium format film?
Click to expand...
my favourite was the D750 ,I liked the files I got from that with the 85mm 1.8 and the old Nikon 80-210,ive liked some of the files from all the cameras but the D750 had thee most pleasing to my eye
 
I can't afford another D750 though,thats why I thought of the D700,ive been impressed with quite a lot from the D3300 also
 
stevelmx5 said:
Didn't you say the other day that you've owned 28 different cameras in recent time? Did you find any of them giving you a look that you liked? Alternatively, if you want a really big viewfinder have you considered trying medium format film?
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm adventurous enough Steve re the mf
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
oh sorry I forgot to mention the purpose for taking daylight photos of cats flowers and canals etc
Click to expand...
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I know Steve,just wondered if the FF would be a choice that might give a different look to what I've had before sorta
Click to expand...
You might be able to get wider angles and less DOF easier/cheaper with FF.
 
I prefer the gradation of tones on ff, actually I prefer medium format film, but that wasn't the question ;-)
Matt
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I can't afford another D750 though,thats why I thought of the D700,ive been impressed with quite a lot from the D3300 also
Click to expand...
I sold my D750 plus lenses to go into a pot for my new car. I recently bought a D600 for half the price so a good saving and it still has the very good Sony 24.3mp sensor.

Whilst it loses a lot to the D750 in terms of spec/focusing it does have a reassuring heft to its feel (much like my old Sony A99) whereas I always felt the D750 felt like a plastic toy.

I would suggest the biggest difference nowadays between ff and space (unless your pixel peeping) is depth of field and that 3D pop/look that ff is better at.
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I can't afford another D750 though,thats why I thought of the D700,ive been impressed with quite a lot from the D3300 also
Click to expand...
The lower end DX Nikons can be fiddly and frustrating to use if you've been used to a higher end model due to lack of physical controls, they have pokey little viewfinders and won't use screw driven lenses. Nothing wrong with their sensors though.
 
Canon 5D + Sigma 50mm f1.4 at f8 v Panasonic GX7 + Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 at 30mm (60mm equiv) and f4. 100% crops.

c-IMG_9465.jpg

c-P1090664.jpg

And out of interest, the files...
5D = 4368 x 2912, 46.23 x 30.82cm at 240ppi. JPEG saves as 6.81mb.
GX7 = 4592 x 3448, 48.6 x 36.49cm at 240ppi. JPEG saves as 12mb.
Note that the detail and backgrounds are different which may account for the file size.
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I know Steve,just wondered if the FF would be a choice that might give a different look to what I've had before sorta
Click to expand...

If you apply the crop factor and use nice lenses the look you get from FF v Whatever should be very similar, assuming the smaller format can match the FF aperture with the crop factor. With for eg MFT shooting at f1.8-5 should give a similar look to FF at f3.6-10. If you are lucky enough to have a f1.4 MFT lens then it's f2.8-10 :D
 
Last edited:
I think your best bet is to buy both, have ff in one hand and a crop in the other, best of both worlds:woot::woot:.

When you find you still like your IXUS better you can sell me the 5D Mk1V at a knock down price:ty:.
 
This isn't old v new but new v new :D Sony A7 with 35mm f2.8 at f8 and Panasonic GX7 with Olympus 17mm f1.8 at f4. If you look closely there are differences but the pictures could be processed to look even more similar. the A7 shot is sharper if you pixel peep.

View attachment 106624

View attachment 106625
 
Last edited:
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I don't think I'm adventurous enough Steve re the mf
Click to expand...
You don't need to be adventurous to shoot MF film, I reckon you could easily buy a system and shoot a fair number of rolls for the same amount you've probably lost in buying and selling one of those digital cameras. The idea behind trying MF is that it's something different to spark your imagination. Simply buying yet another digital camera, which will all deliver excellent results regardless of the make/model, won't do that.

If you take a look in the Film & Conventional section you will get some great ideas and advice. Personally, I'd suggest picking up something like a Yashica TLR and a couple of rolls of Portra 400 for less than £100. By the time you've shot the rolls and got them developed/scanned from FilmDev.co.uk (£5 each) you'll know if it's something you want to do more of.

I shoot digital alongside film and wouldn't be without it but, realistically, one modern digital camera system can deliver equally good results as anything else in the conditions you're talking about.
 
I prefer FF so my vote would be for a D700 (still my backup camera). I like the handling and ruggedness of it, not so keen on the smaller bodies, the D750 is about as small as I would like. Plus, as I have a 24-70 then FF makes more sense should I be in the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top