Beginner Quality between entry level and advanced cameras.

Esther

Esther

Messages
97
Name
Esther
Edit My Images
Yes
I didn't know how to word the title so it's a bit vague.

I bought my first dslr in March this year and chose the Nikon D5300 because it had good reviews plus I didn't want to spend too much in case I didn't get into photography.

Turns out I love it and have completed a college course on photography and joined the local camera club which I really enjoy, I'm now thinking about an upgrade and like the look of the D810 however it's really expensive and seems to range between £1800 and £2300 for the body only.
I'd have to have it on finance so I need to be certain before I buy it but I'm looking to buy one to last years and years so don't really want to buy a mid range one that I'll be swapping again.

It's probably a silly question but is there a huge difference in picture quality? I know it's a full frame as opposed to my cropped one but if I took a photo on mine then took one using the exact same settings on the D810 would it be 4x better? (I'm basing it on the camera being 4x more expensive).

I know it can do things the D5300 can't but would I see a big difference in a like for like test?

Also would my lenses fit? I know they'd be cropped but would they work at all and is there a difference between the image quality of dx and fx lenses?
 
Your lenses will fit, but you'll either have to use the crop-mode in the camera (does the D810 have this?) with a resulting loss of resolution, or suffer varying degrees of vignetting in your pictures (which will vary depending on the lens and, if a zoom, the focal length).

I'm not sure that you'd necessarily see a massive difference in image quality by upgrading. There will be some, certainly, but whether it's worth the outlay is up to you. You're probably better off spending the money on additional good-quality lenses or other kit (depending on what you want to shoot).
 
The most important element in your photographs is something you already have...

You.
A good photographer with usable kit will take great pictures day in day out.

A rubbish photographer, with the best gear in the world will never take a great picture.

There's an old truism:

Beginners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about the light.

Great gear makes taking great pictures slightly easier, it also allows you to take great pictures in challenging conditions, but unless you're shooting stuff that needs specialist gear (sports, wildlife etc) the gear isn't that important.

If you buy a D810 on credit, what lenses will you have? Will you have the time and money to go out and take advantage of the gear?

Would you be better with a 2nd hand D800 and a better lens? Or even an older cheaper alternative?
 
Upgrading from crop sensor to a top of the range full frame is rather like upgrading your Volkswagen to a Ferrari. The specification is hugely much better, but if 95% of your driving miles are shopping you'll not notice any improvements 95% of the time. For that special 5% which are better, you'll find it frustratingly difficult to show the differences to other people. All that extra money bought a rather small improvement. It's called the law of diminishing returns.

Many people find that with a given budget to spend on improved gear with a view to improving the quality of their photographs they get much better value for money upgrading lenses than camera bodies. As a general rule if someone proposing a certain upgrade has to ask other people what kind of differences they'll see then they're not likely to get either value for money or the hoped for improvements. The best place to spend your money is on what you have discovered in your own photography is the most annoying limitation of your current gear.
 
Damn good question Esther!!! I have a D5100 (love it) and was thining also of upgrading, but I dont think I would see any improvement in what photo's I take as I am no-where near good enough to take advantage, and I really am just a hobby snapper. No point in having all the gear , but know Idea:runaway:

However I would Interested in the kit vs top shot lens pro' and con's and as you stated based on cost between the two would I get value for money or is it only people who know photography rather than joe puplic who would see a difference between the two???
sorry if I have hi-jacked your thread but seems related:nikon:
 
Last edited:
Then of course, the notion of years and years these days is tricky as the urge to upgrade can be hard to resist. I have read many threads like this and something I often read is get to be master of your camera before the siren call of gear comes. You may also change what you want to do eg street where a DSLR can be seen as a bit intrusive and find you want something very different.. So maybe hold your horses a while. Perhaps also if you have come to know people at your club, they might allow you to borrow a camera when you think you have used the camera you have to full capacity. Phil is right about the "camera - lenses - light " mantra. We have a lady at our club who did her associateship of the RPS in 6 months with a crop DSLR and two lenses; it isn't about gear.
 
The problem I see here is you would be buying a full frame camera then using it with dx lenses (the ones listed in your profile are dx), this means you would be using a full frame camera in dx crop mode. The easiest way of moving to full frame is to upgrade your lenses before the camera.

Upgrading to a full frame camera means upgrading lenses too. There is a size, weight and cost penalty of doing so. Phil is right about equipment, full frame is good if you need the benefits, for many situations it's not needed.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone, I admit I'm impulsive and really enjoying photography and want to get great photos every time which of course isn't going to happen, I do understand how the camera works and always shoot in manual as it forces me to think about the settings plus is the best way to learn from my mistakes and I delete inifintely less than I used to because I'm much more picky over whether to take one in the first place and do my best to get it right.

I've recently started to shoot in RAW now I know a bit about Photoshop and was amazed at the difference, I think that's what got me thinking about how much more could be possible with a better camera, as I said it's always been in the pipeline to upgrade but I don't want to be doing it every couple of years.

From the replies though it doesn't seem like there would be much of a difference in a like for like test though.

I get what people are saying about upgrading my lenses, I've got the kit 18-55mm, a 35mm prime and a 70-300mm and use the 35mm the majority of the time, I'm hesitant to buy more lenses though as I do want a full frame camera in the future and it feels like the money I spend on lenses for my D5300 could be put towards it.
 
Esther said:
I get what people are saying about upgrading my lenses, I've got the kit 18-55mm, a 35mm prime and a 70-300mm and use the 35mm the majority of the time, I'm hesitant to buy more lenses though as I do want a full frame camera in the future and it feels like the money I spend on lenses for my D5300 could be put towards it.
Click to expand...

Buy full frame lenses in that case. They'll work perfectly well on your DX camera and will also work on full-frame if you do decide to upgrade. They'll be more expensive and bigger than DX lenses, but you will be future proofed (unless you decide to go for a mirrorless system or MFT or something instead).
 
Esther said:
I
It's probably a silly question but is there a huge difference in picture quality? I know it's a full frame as opposed to my cropped one but if I took a photo on mine then took one using the exact same settings on the D810 would it be 4x better? (I'm basing it on the camera being 4x more expensive).
Click to expand...


No, no it wouldn't be 4x better.

In all but a few % of cases you will not be able to tell much of a difference, if any. In a very few % of cases you will be able to see a lot of difference.

Unless you have a lot of money burning a hole in your pocket AND money to burn on buying good lenses then going full frame is folly (and there is no point in buying a FF body unless you can get the appropriate lenses).

If you have the itch that full frame is something you really want then there is only really one way to scratch that itch but be aware that it may cost a huge amount of money for, in some cases, only marginal gain.

You could look at it a different way, would you rather a new camera body or a good holiday to somewhere like Thailand (or better still, Cambodia or Vietnam) where you will be able to take AMAZING photos using the kit you have and I can guaranty that if you take amazing images NO ONE will ask what camera you used except to try and emulate what you have done.
 
Last edited:
Esther said:
I get what people are saying about upgrading my lenses, I've got the kit 18-55mm, a 35mm prime and a 70-300mm and use the 35mm the majority of the time, I'm hesitant to buy more lenses though as I do want a full frame camera in the future and it feels like the money I spend on lenses for my D5300 could be put towards it.
Click to expand...
If you buy full frame compatible lenses they can be used on your D5300 now and you would be ready to move to full frame in the future. The downside is full frame lenses are much more than dx lenses. Full frame lenses would fine on a dx camera.

Like Nawty says depending on what you do you don't need always need full frame gear. The gear list Richard Peters used for his back garden safari series was interesting, some of it used entry level cameras and lenses so it's always about the best gear.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Buy full frame lenses in that case. They'll work perfectly well on your DX camera and will also work on full-frame if you do decide to upgrade. They'll be more expensive and bigger than DX lenses, but you will be future proofed (unless you decide to go for a mirrorless system or MFT or something instead).
Click to expand...


Similar question then, if I took a photo on my dx 35mm and one on a fx 35mm would I see a difference? (Both on my current camera)
 
Why do people spend £2k on a camera + 1k on a lens if there's no difference between that and a £400 camera and £130 lens? That sounds facetious but it's a genuine question, is it a case of more money than sense? Surely there must be some visible quality difference in the photographs?
 
Esther said:
Why do people spend £2k on a camera + 1k on a lens if there's no difference between that and a £400 camera and £130 lens? That sounds facetious but it's a genuine question, is it a case of more money than sense?

Surely there must be some visible quality difference in the photographs?
Click to expand...
I think there can be a difference, but only if the photographer using it can maximise the gear to its full potential. There are also other benefits to using pro gear which won't effect the end product but will make it easier to use (for them), more reliable and harder wearing (consider weather sealing, metal bodies etc).

With reference to cost, you're right in saying that a camera four times the price won't be four times better. IMO, the higher up the ladder you get, the more you pay for a reducing increase in quality.
 
Esther said:
Why do people spend £2k on a camera + 1k on a lens if there's no difference between that and a £400 camera and £130 lens? That sounds facetious but it's a genuine question, is it a case of more money than sense? Surely there must be some visible quality difference in the photographs?
Click to expand...


Because it isn't all about image quality.

For example, more expensive kit has more direct access to functions that will increase your chances of getting the shot that you want, for example you can switch AF or metering modes at the press of a button without having to go through a menu.

And typically autofocus is better on more expensive cameras, this can be good but how often do you need to track a diving Peregrine Falcon or follow a footballer through a mazy run?

The truth of the matter is that most people on this forum are into kit as much as they are into taking photos, nothing wrong with that but it leads to a lust for gear rather than photography. And, some people have money to burn so why the hell not?

But as I said above, if you were genuinely into taking photos you would spend the money one going places to take photos and not on gear that could theoretically take better photos.
 
Nawty said:
Because it isn't all about image quality.
Click to expand...


And to just add.

It isn't all about ULTIMATE image quality, the fact of the matter is that all recent DSLRs are more than capable of taking amazing images. They may not be ultimately as good as FF but nowadays they are good enough for pretty much all circumstances and (to be crude) if you don't know what those circumstances are then you don't need FF.

Or, to put it another way, if it were all about ultimate image quality then we would be lusting after Medium Format but marketing doesn't work like that and it has brainwashed into thinking that FF is the ultimate in everything. It isn't.
 
Also a lot of people on here have in the last year sold off their FF gear and moved to mirror less crop cameras ie.Fuji's and seem very happy with their results.
 
Esther said:
Why do people spend £2k on a camera + 1k on a lens if there's no difference between that and a £400 camera and £130 lens? That sounds facetious but it's a genuine question, is it a case of more money than sense? Surely there must be some visible quality difference in the photographs?
Click to expand...
No one says there's 'no difference', we're saying the difference is not massive, it's a land of diminishing returns.

A £500 lens is better than a £100 lens, but it's not 5x better, it's maybe only 10% better. As a working pro, or a rich amateur, that 10% is worth the investment.

But if you put your £100 lens on a £2000 camera, you're technically limiting the camera down to the quality of the lens. A £500 lens on your entry level camera will be better than the cheap lens on that camera.

As others have said, upgrade lenses first, otherwise you're completely wasting your money on the camera.

One of my favourite lenses is my 35mm 1.4 Art (£600), it's marginally better than the Canon f2 (£350) and lots better than the Yongnuo F2 (£100) but most casual observers wouldn't spot the difference the way a serious photographer can. The other important thing of course, is that it's a joy to use, like any expensive tool. Whereas the cheaper ones are less fun to use.
 
Last edited:
Nawty said:
But as I said above, if you were genuinely into taking photos you would spend the money one going places to take photos and not on gear that could theoretically take better photos.
Click to expand...

I have to say Nawty that is an incredibly patronising comment, who are you to judge what is a genuine interest in photography? I have 2 daughters aged 1 and 3 and have no desire whatsoever to travel to Cambodia so I can take photographs that others want to copy, I don't have such self importance. I enjoy taking photographs on my UK family holidays just as much and I get a great deal of satisfaction out of photographing the sunrise at my local nature reserve.

This is the beginners section and I came to ask advice on an upgrade not to question whether my interest in photography was as valid as other peoples.
 
Phil V said:
No one says there's 'no difference', we're saying the difference is not massive, it's a land of diminishing returns.

A £500 lens is better than a £100 lens, but it's not 5x better, it's maybe only 10% better. As a working pro, or a rich amateur, that 10% is worth the investment.

But if you put your £100 lens on a £2000 camera, you're technically limiting the camera down to the quality of the lens. A £500 lens on your entry level camera will be better than the cheap lens on that camera.

As others have said, upgrade lenses first, otherwise you're completely wasting your money on the camera.

One of my favourite lenses is my 35mm 1.4 Art (£600), it's marginally better than the Canon f2 (£350) and lots better than the Yongnuo F2 (£100) but most casual observers wouldn't spot the difference the way a serious photographer can. The other important thing of course, is that it's a joy to use, like any expensive tool. Whereas the cheaper ones are less fun to use.
Click to expand...
Thanks Phil,

You explain it very clearly, I was planning on getting a wide angle lens so I'll buy a full frame one and keep on mastering the basics!
 
Digital rev did a piece on pro cam, kit lens and entry camera, pro lens. The end result was the kit lens limited the pro body so much so that the cheaper body produced better results.

I'd keep the body you have already. Look at your lenses and decide if the D810 or D750 looks to be a good shout later down the line and if that's the case, trade the crop lenses in for the best full frame equivalents you can afford and then plan ahead.

Some of the best photos I've seen on here come from the micro 4/3 threads or the Fuji threads. It's obviously down to personal preference but the point is they are either the same size sensor or smaller but the results are superb.

It's been said above somewhere that..

Beginners think it's about the body
Enthusiasts think it's about the lens
Photographers think it's about the light.

This isn't strictly true as a crap combination of body and lens will yield bad results even if the lights perfect.

Ultimately the best of all three will yield the best results with the right circumstance. Any short comings on any of those will then lessen the chance of decent results and eventually the actual end result.

Keep the body, get some faster lenses and plan what you want to take a photo of to ensure the best results to be had (or time, weather etc for the best light your likely to get from what's likely available).
 
Esther said:
Thanks Phil,

You explain it very clearly, I was planning on getting a wide angle lens so I'll buy a full frame one and keep on mastering the basics!
Click to expand...
There's a problem with that.

You'll be aware that you need 'wider' lenses on the crop body, so most UWA's built for crop are quite good vfm, but obviously don't fit FF. The best wide FF zoom is probably the Sigma 12-24 and it's not cheap.

My personal strategy was to buy tele lenses that fit FF , then when I went FF I needed to buy just wides, but of course I ended up buying more than that to get my favoured focal lengths.
 
It's the Sigma I'd been looking at Phil, you've saved me 2k on a camera though so it makes the lens seem very cheap!:)
 
And just to prove a complete lack of understanding...
Andrew Moore said:
Beginners think it's about the body
Enthusiasts think it's about the lens
Photographers think it's about the light.

This isn't strictly true as a crap combination of body and lens will yield bad results even if the lights perfect.
Click to expand...

In the same post as...
Andrew Moore said:
.
Some of the best photos I've seen on here come from the micro 4/3 threads or the Fuji threads. It's obviously down to personal preference but the point is they are either the same size sensor or smaller but the results are superb.
Click to expand...

Some of the greatest images in the world are fairly poor technically, people still trying to get their head round what quality means can tie themselves in knots.

A great subject in great light really doesn't need great gear to produce a stunning result, it never did, and it never will.

However, making the most of difficult subjects and crap light can be overcome with the best gear and some talent.

But it does really always come back to talent. Good gear, crap light, crap gear, good light, the ten inches behind the viewfinder will always be the important bit.
 
I have a FF camera (Canon 1DsII) and the Canon 40D and when used with my "L" glass lenses the difference in quality is very hard to see, so much so that I find myself using the 40D more than the 1DsII because the 1.6 crop means I have to crop less when processing the images.

FWIW the 40D is 8MP, the 1DsII is 16MP.

My advice , FWIW is the same as some others here, stick with your camera and buy FF lenses for if you decide to upgrade.
 
Whether you'd see the difference is surely going to depend on how closely you look - or more accurately, how big you print and then look at the results. I've never produced a better, sharper print than one that came from a plastic lensed box camera. There were two reasons for the amazing quality: a) I didn't produce the print, a professional printer did and b) the negative was 6x6 cm and the print only a 2 times enlargement. Enlarge more, and the imperfections are enlarged.

My answer to your question about whether you'd see the difference is that it depends how big you print. If you only view on screen, then unless you pixel peep and don't view the image at all in a meaningful sense, there won't be a difference. Note that it's not just how big you print, it's the degree of enlargement that matters, so a larger sensor size will have more in reserve for those times that you need to crop.

The subject matters even if you print large; you can get away with a lot more on a head and shoulders portrait than you will on an image that depends upon finely rendered textures.
 
Phil V said:
And just to prove a complete lack of understanding...


In the same post as...


Some of the greatest images in the world are fairly poor technically, people still trying to get their head round what quality means can tie themselves in knots.

A great subject in great light really doesn't need great gear to produce a stunning result, it never did, and it never will.

However, making the most of difficult subjects and crap light can be overcome with the best gear and some talent.

But it does really always come back to talent. Good gear, crap light, crap gear, good light, the ten inches behind the viewfinder will always be the important bit.
Click to expand...
Your arrogance blows me away. Photography is subjective. Read what you quote before typing and people won't get their backs up when you spit.
 
Just an addition as I am a newbie too. As the OP mentioned for example a 35mm FF compared to her DX 35mm, the picture will be different (the quality perhaps different). The full frame lens will be cropped so it will become like a 50mm lens (or whatever equivalent). It will be a narrower lens once cropped by the smaller sensor. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What may be useful for the OP and retail therapy (I have the syndrome too) would be a full frame lens that would be suitable for portraits (she has the models ready and waiting) on the cropped sensor but I cannot make any suggestions.
 
Esther said:
It's the Sigma I'd been looking at Phil, you've saved me 2k on a camera though so it makes the lens seem very cheap!:)
Click to expand...
The full frame 12-24mm is more expensive than the crop sensor 8-16mm and a LOT less wide! For technical reasons there is no such thing as a full frame 8-16mm. These wide angle lenses are a special case.
 
Andrew Moore said:
Your arrogance blows me away. Photography is subjective. Read what you quote before typing and people won't get their backs up when you spit.
Click to expand...
Accusing me of arrogance is pretty interesting when your post was intended to prove me 'wrong' but in doing so you directly contradicted yourself. :dummy:

And the post you chose to have a dig at had already been very useful to the OP :thinking: and as its sound advice, useful to thousands of photographers for years.

But hey ho, whatever makes you happy :)
 
Last edited:
Esther said:
I have to say Nawty that is an incredibly patronising comment, who are you to judge what is a genuine interest in photography? I have 2 daughters aged 1 and 3 and have no desire whatsoever to travel to Cambodia so I can take photographs that others want to copy, I don't have such self importance. I enjoy taking photographs on my UK family holidays just as much and I get a great deal of satisfaction out of photographing the sunrise at my local nature reserve.

This is the beginners section and I came to ask advice on an upgrade not to question whether my interest in photography was as valid as other peoples.
Click to expand...


Sorry if it sounded patronising, it wasn't meant to. My point was that in my view, and after having spent thousands of pounds on full frame camera gear I no longer own, it is better to create memories worth photographing than thinking buying more expensive cameras will get you better results. Cambodia was just my example of what I find interesting, you obviously have other interests but we weren't to know that. If you have the luxury of doing both then great but we hadn't established that as yet.

FWIW I personally think buying full frame lenses 'just in case' you go full frame is pretty daft because the focal lengths of FF zoom lenses are generally different to those of a crop sensor. This is so that you can get the same field of view using the same types of lens. E.g. a crop 18-55mm kit lens gives the same field of view on a crop body as a 28-80mm lens on a full frame. Stick that 28-80 lens on your body will give you just that, a 28-80mm lens but the field of view will be much narrower and for me, 28mm isn't wide enough for general usage on a crop camera. Add to that FF lenses are much bigger, heavier and more expensive it just doesn't stack up.

If you buy and sell on the used market then you can switch between crop and FF with minimal cost incursion and have the benefits of the system you have at the time, not a compromise between the two. This is especially true of wide angle lenses, a very good 10-20 lens for a crop sensor is quite nice and small and relatively affordable, a FF equivalent will be big and expensive and generally wont be wide enough to be properly wide on a crop body.
 
If you want to take more interesting photo's - stand in front of more interesting things :)

I have recently "upgraded" my d5100 to an X-T10. I say "upgraded" because in 3 months I have taken more photo's that I love with the Fuji than I did in 3 years with the Nikon - the simple reason being I love using the Fuji and therefore take it with me more (its size helps that too). Because I have it with me more often the chances are that when I am stood in front of more interesting things I can take a good photograph of it. That said I never got to a point with the Nikon where I felt it couldn't do what I wanted it to - I don't shoot wildlife or fast moving sports, so I don't need super fast AF tracking - only if that changed would I look to for a different camera.
 
ashtennisguru said:
the simple reason being I love using the Fuji and therefore take it with me more
Click to expand...
^^^ this, this, this

I wouldn't buy a body just because on some spec-sheet or review it is "better" for some notional idea of “better”, all reasonably modern bodies are good enough for general photography. One thing that comes across in many of these “which kit” threads is that buying more expensive gear is a real motivating factor and really improves people’s photography, not because the kit is better but because the photographer enjoys what they are doing more, I know this was the case for me a few years ago.

So I would try to get some hands-on experience of different gear (have you thought about hiring a camera for the weekend?) and see what you love, it might turn out to be your current camera.
 
Yeah, I'll second (third?) that too. I bought a Lumix GX7 earlier this year because I wanted something light and compact to take on holiday. I also bought a 20mm f/1.7 pancake lend for it. It's now pretty much all I use. I don't tend to need a zoom or very wide angle for most stuff I shoot, so the 20mm (40mm full frame equivalent) is a perfect focal length for general use.

My DSLR gets used for macro stuff as I have a nice Sigma 105mm lens, and I take it with me if I know I'm going somewhere I might want some additional options, but for general walkabout use, the GX7 is my go-to camera. It's very unobtrusive, produces great results, and because it's little burden to carry around, means I'm more likely to catch interesting situations when they arise as I take it with me most of the time I go out. I originally had concerns that dropping down form an APS-C sensor to micro four thirds would result in a notable reduction in image quality, but it really doesn't to any discernable degree.

I'd thought seriously about upgrading to a D7200 earlier in the year, but don't really feel the need at present. In fact I've gone the opposite direction and bought a bunch of film cameras instead and am having lots of fun with those (all full-frame or larger too :)).
 
Last edited:
I am a great fan of macro photography and providing that the lens enables you to get close enough then people can take photos with all sorts of camera. Look at this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/30983027525/in/dateposted/ taken with a Canon 760D - in this case the other equipment is what made the great photo (he has quite a complex set up).
Same with great portrait photos, it is often great lighting set up that does it as much as the camera.
 
Camera format is fundamental, and it pays to make that decision early before you're too heavily invested in the wrong lenses. There is an improvement in image quality with full-frame, but it's slight and mostly invisible. Full-frame also has better high ISO performance, and if you're into very shallow depth-of-field effects that's easier to achieve - the difference in both case is about one stop. Against that, full-frame cameras and lenses are generally bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Most people simply don't need full-frame and never realise the slight advantages. An exception to that is those people that simply like using 'the best' gear for whatever reason, and that includes a lot of us if we're honest. And nothing wrong with that IMHO ;)

Using a crop-format camera with full-frame lenses, in preparation for when/if you change up, is not the win-win solution that is often suggested. It's actually a lose-lose, because of the effect sensor format has on field-of-view that changes everything. For example, if you use an EF 17-40/4 L as a standard range zoom on a cropper, you will lose out on either focal length range or aperture compared to EF-S alternatives. Then if you change to full-frame, the 17-40 becomes a super-wide and you'll need to buy a replacement standard range zoom.

Edit: changing lenses and cameras, even switching systems, doesn't have to be massively costly. If you buy good used kit, you can usually sell for much the same price. The classified section here is excellent (y)
ps Doesn't work so well if you're impatient and impulsive :D
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Camera format is fundamental, and it pays to make that decision early before you're too heavily invested in the wrong lenses. There is an improvement in image quality with full-frame, but it's slight and mostly invisible. Full-frame also has better high ISO performance, and if you're into very shallow depth-of-field effects that's easier to achieve - the difference in both case is about one stop. Against that, full-frame cameras and lenses are generally bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Most people simply don't need full-frame and never realise the slight advantages. An exception to that is those people that simply like using 'the best' gear for whatever reason, and that includes a lot of us if we're honest. And nothing wrong with that IMHO ;)

Using a crop-format camera with full-frame lenses, in preparation for when/if you change up, is not the win-win solution that is often suggested. It's actually a lose-lose, because of the effect sensor format has on field-of-view that changes everything. For example, if you use an EF 17-40/4 L as a standard range zoom on a cropper, you will lose out on either focal length range or aperture compared to EF-S alternatives. Then if you change to full-frame, the 17-40 becomes a super-wide and you'll need to buy a replacement standard range zoom.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware Canon only make L lenses in ef mount, is this a marketing ploy to encourage consumers to buy full frame. If an efs mount is designed to only fit crop cameras and an L lens is not used to it's full ability on a crop, why not make a efs L lenses. There must be more crop cameras in use than full frame.
Hope you can make sense of what I'm trying to say here. It's a bit of a rhetorical question really.
 
Nostromo said:
As far as I'm aware Canon only make L lenses in ef mount, is this a marketing ploy to encourage consumers to buy full frame. If an efs mount is designed to only fit crop cameras and an L lens is not used to it's full ability on a crop, why not make a efs L lenses. There must be more crop cameras in use than full frame.
Hope you can make sense of what I'm trying to say here. It's a bit of a rhetorical question really.
Click to expand...

True, Canon L lenses are designed for full-frame. They're top class optically of course, but that is only half the story - they're more robustly made, usually with weather-proofing, built to take a professional beating, and that's where a lot of the extra cost goes.

In optical terms, many EF-S lenses are on a par with L, and more than adequately built. But the real point is, they have specifications that full-frame lenses cannot match. Take the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS - a top class lens by any measure. The closest Canon can get to that in a full-frame L is the 16-35/2.8 Mk II that falls way short on focal length range, doesn't have IS, and costs twice as much. The new Mk III version is even heavier and costs 3x.

Edit: the reason EF-S lenses can do more for less money is because of the smaller image circle required for crop-format. The much larger image circle demanded by full-frame sensors is a severe hindrance to optical design, especially at shorter focal lengths.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top