'Upgrade' to full frame? And which camera?

[snerkler]

I was going to say I could wait a few months to see what happened to the prices of the canon RP or R mount cameras and lenses to see if the prices come towards the Sony but you’ve highlighted that the Sony is superior for DR and noise handling. Why have Canon priced the lenses so high, it seems like they are betting on keeping the Canon loyal customers who have invested heavily into Canon lenses and will have no choice but to switch to the R/RP rather than a dull switch to Sony?

Canon appear to be focussing on premium glass at the moment hence the price. I assume they think most will be happy to use adapted EF lenses until they develop more mid range and lower end lenses.

I’m not sure my 2012 MacBook will be able to handle 42MP files from an A7Rii/A7Riii it’s slow enough already [emoji1] and to be honest, do I need to go to A7R, wouldn’t the A7ii or A7iii be more than enough camera for me (amateur/enthusiast hoping to grow my skills)

What speed's your MacBook? I had the 2012 and it has user replaceable hard drive and RAM, putting an SSD and upgrading the RAM made a world of difference for me, can be done quite cheaply if you buy reputable third part such as crucial.

Do you need the R model? No absolutely not, 24mp is more than enough for most things. It's just from my experience the high MP bodies do give landscapes that little bit extra. I can't even explain why, as in my head it doesn't make sense as I view on a 15.4" MBP that has a resolution of 2880 x 1800 which equals 5.2mp by my maths. However, when I compared images from my D850 and D750 the D850 ones did look better/sharper/more detailed somehow. Of course if could all be in my head

No I haven’t yet, indeed I do need to try the various cameras out and will

Yeah it's a must imo, although obviously impossible to do at the moment

 

[ancient_mariner]

I’m not sure my 2012 MacBook will be able to handle 42MP files from an A7Rii/A7Riii it’s slow enough already

and to be honest, do I need to go to A7R, wouldn’t the A7ii or A7iii be more than enough camera for me (amateur/enthusiast hoping to grow my skills)

TBH I doubt your 2012 Macbook will find the 50MB files from an A7III easy to handle, let alone the 100MB files from an A7IIIr if you work un-compressed. My 2009 Macbook couldn't handle 24MB files from my Nikon D610 very well.

The A7IIIr has a better EVF, better rear screen and allows more cropping IF the lens is up to it thus giving a bit more reach.

For most of us the A7III is the sweet spot for all-round shooting, though there are times when I'd like an R for landscape work.

 

[snerkler]

TBH I doubt your 2012 Macbook will find the 50MB files from an A7III easy to handle, let alone the 100MB files from an A7IIIr if you work un-compressed. My 2009 Macbook couldn't handle 24MB files from my Nikon D610 very well.

The A7IIIr has a better EVF, better rear screen and allows more cropping IF the lens is up to it thus giving a bit more reach.

For most of us the A7III is the sweet spot for all-round shooting, though there are times when I'd like an R for landscape work.

You can reduce the file sizes by converting to dng before importing into Lightroom. From my experience converting to dng's halves the file sizes from my A7RIV and I've seen no negative consequences editing in Lightroom.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

The extra image quality from FF comes from the sheer size, physical area, of the larger sensor. It collects more light, so shadow detail is extended (dynamic range) and high ISO performance is enhanced. Then the larger sensor requires less enlargement at final output, so resolution demands are lower and contrast increased for better sharpness - basically lenses perform better as they're not being pushed so hard.

My experience with Sony A6000 Vs A7II is the difference in image quality in normal light is negligeable both color and resolution wise. In fact the sigma 60mm f/2,8 art makes extremely detailed images on the A6000 and 24mp is 24mp No matter the pysical size of the sensor it's just the noise that will be less on the bigger sensor.
Ill make the claim the difference between current camera and 90d is way waaay bigger than than what youll see between 90d and a ff scrutinizing the files. As Zack Arias said, negligeable.

 

[LeeRatters]

My experience with Sony A6000 Vs A7II is the difference in image quality in normal light is negligeable both color and resolution wise. In fact the sigma 60mm f/2,8 art makes extremely detailed images on the A6000 and 24mp is 24mp No matter the pysical size of the sensor it's just the noise that will be less on the bigger sensor.
Ill make the claim the difference between current camera and 90d is way waaay bigger than than what youll see between 90d and a ff scrutinizing the files. As Zack Arias said, negligeable.

My boy has an A6000. Viewing on Instagram/Flickr I think it holds up well against the A7 too. I certainly rate it above the Fuji EX-2 I had.

 

[Will James]

What speed's your MacBook? I had the 2012 and it has user replaceable hard drive and RAM, putting an SSD and upgrading the RAM made a world of difference for me, can be done quite cheaply if you buy reputable third part such as crucial.

13" 2.9 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 (max allowed for this model, I got it with 8gb and upgraded to 16gb a couple of years ago). 750gb hard drive and I have <30gb left (mainly as I have so many photos from trips & holidays which I haven't been able to sort through yet)

 

[nandbytes]

Why have Canon priced the lenses so high

I think the right thing to say would be that canon have released mostly expensive lenses rather than them being priced that way on purpose. Their expensive lenses are f1.2 primes and a f2 zoom. Other manufactures don't offer this and would probably price it just as high if they produced such lenses.
Their f2.8 zooms are priced the same as other manufacturers

Also those lenses are massive! (may be that's not a problem for everyone but certainly a concern for me)

Sony currently has an advantage here because you can get quality f2.8 zooms etc for very good prices from 3rd parties without any sacrifice in image quality.
I imagine its only a matter of time before they support canon (not so sure about nikon though)

it seems like they are betting on keeping the Canon loyal customers who have invested heavily into Canon lenses and will have no choice but to switch to the R/RP rather than a dull switch to Sony?

They have done for a little while and have also realised it won't work forever. I think the way say see is that catching up is cheaper than leading innovation. And in a market that shrinking they don't care to lead innovation.

 

[nandbytes]

13" 2.9 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 (max allowed for this model, I got it with 8gb and upgraded to 16gb a couple of years ago). 750gb hard drive and I have <30gb left (mainly as I have so many photos from trips & holidays which I haven't been able to sort through yet)

should be ok for 42mp files
you can download full res RAW samples from places like dpreview. Download a few and have a go at them. you'll know for sure then.

 

[JohnX]

OP. Not sure if anyone has mentioned Pentax, but their K1 and K1 11 are FF and have been well received and reviewed, and not just by Pentaxians!

 

[twist]

I think the right thing to say would be that canon have released mostly expensive lenses rather than them being priced that way on purpose. Their expensive lenses are f1.2 primes and a f2 zoom. Other manufactures don't offer this and would probably price it just as high if they produced such lenses.
Their f2.8 zooms are priced the same as other manufacturers.

Agreed. Comparing the same type of lens shows the 35mm 1.8 Nikon at cheapest price is nearly £100 more than the Canon RF.

 

[nandbytes]

Agreed. Comparing the same type of lens shows the 35mm 1.8 Nikon at cheapest price is nearly £100 more than the Canon RF.

not really impressed with the nikons version TBH. Its not smallest, its not sharpest, its not best in terms of rendering, its not the fastest focussing and does not focus as close as others. Don't really know what they were thinking there....

canon version is the most interesting to me because of the 0.5x magnification.

 

[realspeed]

Forget getting a Cannon camera and go for something decent such as a Nikon D810/D850 and a 24-70mm lens add a 70-200mm lens and your all set . I can't understand why people go for cheaper makes and then moan because of this or that.

best make out there

 

[woof woof]

Forget getting a Cannon camera and go for something decent such as a Nikon D810/D850 and a 24-70mm lens add a 70-200mm lens and your all set . I can't understand why people go for cheaper makes and then moan because of this or that.

And you posted this with a straight face?

 

[AZ6]

If I went to an EOS R or RP, I could use my EF-S lenses by getting an adapter (£100); if I went to a 5d or 6d I can’t. However, I assume using the adapter would mean shooting in crop mode and therefore limited. I don’t understand how the adapter works as it’s the same one for EF (FF) and EF-S (crop) lenses.

I would probably want to get some better glass anyway, so it would be merely a short term benefit getting a Canon R/RP in order to keep my current glass whilst saving for new. Due to the prices of the RF mount lenses, I would end up only affording EF lenses to use on the adapter...so it doesn’t feel right.

Yes I see your point. As a Nikon user, I'm not up to speed with all the various combinations of other brands' stuff. The RP will give you something like a 10Mp image, as it'll be cropped down by a factor of 1.6. My Z6 automatically crops down to DX format, if I put a DX lens on via the adapter.

So, currently, you have some very useable lenses, but they aren't (except the 50mm?) compatible with a full frame camera? Then you will need to virtually start from scratch. In that case, I'd still go with my original recommendation of the Sony, although I'd ignore all the bumph about how much better Sony is blah blah blah. All cameras are amazing these days really. You can get an older FF body much cheaper now; the original A7with 28-70 kit lens is only £829 from Wex, for eg. The A7ii is £1200 with the same kit lens from John Lewis. The A7iii with kit lens, £1847.

OR

Going with the 'recommend what you have' mantra; a Nikon Z6. Currently around the £2000 mark with the 24-70 kit lens, and an F mount adapter. A brilliant camera; has more capability than I'll ever use. Some excellent native lenses already (albeit still quite a small range), but with undoubtedly the best range of lenses available with adapter (with full capability including mechanical aperture control); literally many hundreds, including 3rd party options too. And unlike the Canon, in body image stabilisation (Canon only has that in some lenses). Better video implementation than either Sony or Canon (you WILL need a new Mac to do any serious video work with it though ). For me, as an existing Nikon user, it was a no-brainer to get a Z6 with adapter. The kit lens is superb.

Of course DSLRs still exist; in your price range, a Nikon D750 with 24-120 would prove an extremely capable and versatile combination, as would a Canon EOS 6Dii, with 24-105. DLSR systems will be around for a while yet, and there will be a huge amount of lenses available, and a huge s/h market, which isn't nearly as extensive with Sony. Bigger and heavier than ML though.

All that said; my choice would be between a Sony A7iii and a Nikon Z6. There are slight differences between the two; the Sony has slightly better AF, the Nikon has arguably slightly better IQ, and better video capability. But in real world use, there isn't anything to separate the two, other than handling. Mind you; getting to actually handle a camera, in a shop, is a bit of a no-no right now...

 

[snerkler]

13" 2.9 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i7, 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 (max allowed for this model, I got it with 8gb and upgraded to 16gb a couple of years ago). 750gb hard drive and I have <30gb left (mainly as I have so many photos from trips & holidays which I haven't been able to sort through yet)

should be ok for 42mp files
you can download full res RAW samples from places like dpreview. Download a few and have a go at them. you'll know for sure then.

I think there’s two things holding your computer back, the hard drive and lack of free storage. If you buy a 1 or 2TB SSD drive it will likely transform your computer, and then you can download sample files as nandbytes suggested.

Just be aware that adding an SSD will make your processor work harder/faster and so will get hot so you need to be prepared for the fan noise. Perfectly normal but MBP fans are not quiet to say the least, especially the older models.

 

[realspeed]

Thought that photo might cause a few ripples in the Cannon fraternity

 

[LeeRatters]

Thought that photo might cause a few ripples in the Cannon fraternity

I don't think it has?

 

[AZ6]

Forget getting a Cannon camera and go for something decent such as a Nikon D810/D850 and a 24-70mm lens add a 70-200mm lens and your all set . I can't understand why people go for cheaper makes and then moan because of this or that.

best make out there

Soz; can't quite make out the brand on that body cap on the left....

 

[nandbytes]

Thought that photo might cause a few ripples in the Cannon fraternity

nah, DeadSLRs aren't very offensive

 

[AZ6]

Actually; seeing how the spectre of brand rivalry has reared it's head once more..

My view on this is that it's a lot down to individual ego. People need affirmation; we are social beings, some need it a lot more than others. This manifests itself in how we dress, cultural behaviour etc. And the things we have. Subconciously even, many people choose to join 'tribes'; this is why brands have so much prominence in our western society. And once you've joined that tribe, you tend to stick with it, for fear of being cast out alone. And nobody likes the choices they've made, to be subject to scrutiny or crititicism. So they constantly tell themselves their choices are the best, other people make inferior choices. Ego ego ego. Sony is best, no it's not it's Nikon, no you're both wrong it's Canon. Etc etc etc.

Utter b*****ks the lot of it. How much of this making choices, really affects how we do our thing? Does somebody playing a Casio keyboard, play better than someone playing a Yamaha (or vice versa; I have no idea which brand is considered 'better' in that sense)? Does someone using X brand of camera take better pics than someone using Y brand?

'I chose X brand therefore all other brands are inferior, and all other users of those brands are inferior to ME'.

That's what it boils down to, with all this fanboi nonsense.

(Apart from Macs vs Windows PCs of course; Macs are just better, end of. )

 

[Deleted member 49428]

My boy has an A6000. Viewing on Instagram/Flickr I think it holds up well against the A7 too. I certainly rate it above the Fuji EX-2 I had.

Yeah it's an amizing little image maker. With the 12mm samyang, 24mm Zeiss and 60mm sigma it's very capable compact setup.

 

[AZ6]

My boy has an A6000. Viewing on Instagram/Flickr I think it holds up well against the A7 too. I certainly rate it above the Fuji EX-2 I had.

I nearly bought an A6000 a few years ago, as a small 'travel' cam. Then decided that buying into a completely new system was utter madness, and that I'd just end up with far more kit than I really need. So I went with another Nikon (the DX D3300).

And ended up with far more kit than I really needed.

 

[LeeRatters]

I nearly bought an A6000 a few years ago, as a small 'travel' cam. Then decided that buying into a completely new system was utter madness, and that I'd just end up with far more kit than I really need. So I went with another Nikon (the DX D3300).

And ended up with far more kit than I really needed.

At least the end result was the same

 

[AZ6]

At least the end result was the same

Don't. Ended up with like 5 lenses for it. So much for 'oh I'll just use it with the kit lens and not bother buying any extra ones, as I already have several other Nikon lenses that will work fine with it'. I'm still selling that old kit off now, a year later.

 

[HoppyUK]

That's derived from lens MTF (Modulation Transfer Function = sharpness) performance - as resolution demands go up with smaller formats, so image contrast (the most important aspect for visual perception of sharpness) goes down. That always happens, fact of physics, and it creates a big gap that has yet to be bridged by any manufacturer.

Interesting. I would assume then that this may also account for why some see FF as having more depth/pop/3D quality?

Yes, so-called 'pop' and 3D qualities are certainly aspects of the improved lens contrast inherent to larger formats, though there are other major contributors too, such as light quality (eg bright sun vs overcast) and depth-of-field effects. A comment was made earlier that "24mp is 24mp no matter the size of the sensor" but that's simply not true - it doesn't matter how many pixels you've got if the lens is not resolving clearly to that level of detail and smaller formats just make that task more difficult.

For example, the eyelashes on a head & shoulders portrait, require roughly 30-lpmm resolution on full-frame. But on 1.5x APS-C that becomes 45-lpmm and on M4/3 you're asking the lens to work at 60-lpmm. Now look at these MTF graphs from Lens Rentals that show how lens contrast drops as resolution goes up from 10-50-lpmm. There are hundreds of similar graphs on that site and every one shows the same thing - that's format size at work and it's inescapable.

I'm not bashing smaller formats though, even though it probably sounds like it. They have significant advantages (mainly size/weight/cost) it's just that best image quality isn't one of them. But I will add another thing though - the law of diminishing returns. As standards rise, across the board, we have now have to ask when enough is enough as improvements become increasingly hard to see.

Edit: Oops - forgot the link
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...m-f1-4-gm-sony-35mm-f1-8-tamron-35mm-f1-4-sp/

 

[Will James]

I think there’s two things holding your computer back, the hard drive and lack of free storage. If you buy a 1 or 2TB SSD drive it will likely transform your computer, and then you can download sample files as nandbytes suggested.

Just be aware that adding an SSD will make your processor work harder/faster and so will get hot so you need to be prepared for the fan noise. Perfectly normal but MBP fans are not quiet to say the least, especially the older models.

Thanks, I hadn't considered this before. As for RAM I've got the maximum in (16GB) but I'll certainly look into ordering an SSD this weekend, that will help me massively and will save me upgrading my laptop for a little while again. Even going through all the photos from trips etc is painful at the moment (slow).

 

[snerkler]

Thanks, I hadn't considered this before. As for RAM I've got the maximum in (16GB) but I'll certainly look into ordering an SSD this weekend, that will help me massively and will save me upgrading my laptop for a little while again. Even going through all the photos from trips etc is painful at the moment.

I feel I should write some kind of disclaimer now

 

[Phil Maddocks]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Im still open-minded about what I will use the camera for, I’m still discovering...hence the need for an ‘all-rounder’. I love hiking when travelling and therefore tend to shoot landscapes mostly but want to dabble into other types.

For a similar price range I am looking at, curious to see if any of you decided not to go for full frame and instead went for a higher end APS-C before going to FF. Is there benefit to be had from me doing this instead?

Or for a similar price range have any of you opted for other brands when seriously considering Sony mirrorless FF, apart from the reason of having already invested heavily in glass so it made sense to stay with the current system?

Has anyone regretted going from APS-C to full frame, speaking in an amateur / enthusiast capacity?

I did, I went for the Fuji X-T3 and 16-55 f2.8. absolute monster of a camera and the Fuji lenses are quality. The whole system is also much cheaper than Sony. What put me off full frame was the size and weight. While full frame Mirrorless bodies are smaller... the lenses.. not so much

 

[nandbytes]

I did, I went for the Fuji X-T3 and 16-55 f2.8. absolute monster of a camera and the Fuji lenses are quality. The whole system is also much cheaper than Sony. What put me off full frame was the size and weight. While full frame Mirrorless bodies are smaller... the lenses.. not so much

Depends on the lens tbh, there are plenty of small lens

 

[ancient_mariner]

I feel I should write some kind of disclaimer now

I think you probably should, because an old dual core that was barely current when released is going to creak a bit. Sure it's boot faster, but LR is still going to bury the processor. At least the OP bought a Fuji, so the files won't be so big.

 

[Cagey75]

Depends on the lens tbh, there are plenty of small lens

Plenty of smaller lenses for APSC also

I was a little obsessed about going back to FF for a while, I imagined I would get much better IQ, ISO performance etc ... but I haven't been convinced after looking at tonnes of examples on here, Flickr and other sites. I've seen some FF images shot at mid level ISO range [say, 800 - 3200] that appeared to have every bit as much noise as I would get from my X-H1. As for all the 'Pop from FF' thing, sure, you can get shallower DOF at similar apertures, but it's never really enough of a difference to me at least, that would have me yearning for that 'FF look'. A 1.4 lens on APSC can offer pretty much the same look and 'pop' as a 1.8 or F2 lens on FF from what I've seen. Regardless of mathematical equivalent - Of course, 1.4 then on FF does offer that shallower DOF on top but, do you need it? for portraits it can be too shallow! Do you want only the eyes and nose in focus? do we really need the whole backdrop OOF? personal taste on that front I feel.

 

[snerkler]

I think you probably should, because an old dual core that was barely current when released is going to creak a bit. Sure it's boot faster, but LR is still going to bury the processor. At least the OP bought a Fuji, so the files won't be so big.

To be fair that was the spec of my old MBP (although it was 15” not 13”) and it handled LR just fine with 16GB RAM and an SSD Of course a new one would be better but you’re looking at £2k plus

 

[Will James]

I think you probably should, because an old dual core that was barely current when released is going to creak a bit. Sure it's boot faster, but LR is still going to bury the processor. At least the OP bought a Fuji, so the files won't be so big.

I didn't buy a Fuji, I haven't bought anything yet

 

[snerkler]

I think you probably should, because an old dual core that was barely current when released is going to creak a bit. Sure it's boot faster, but LR is still going to bury the processor. At least the OP bought a Fuji, so the files won't be so big.

Been thinking about this, won’t some of depend on the version of Lightroom as well as hardware components as LR CC now uses the GPU to handle a lot of the processing rather than it being solely the CPU?

I still think that having more free storage and having an SSD will make his system noticeably better, but whether it’s fast by today’s standards is a different matter

The trouble is to get a new 13” MBP with i7 processor, 16gb RAM and 1TB SSD it’ll set you back £2699

MBP’s have always been overpriced, but they’ve gone silly in the last year or so imo. If I ever need to replace mine it’ll cost over £4K now to get an equivalent system (n)

 

[Will James]

The trouble is to get a new 13” MBP with i7 processor, 16gb RAM and 1TB SSD it’ll set you back £2699

MBP’s have always been overpriced, but they’ve gone silly in the last year or so imo. If I ever need to replace mine it’ll cost over £4K now to get an equivalent system (n)

I completely agree, I think I paid no more than £1249 new when I bought this in early 2013. I'm happy to 'pay more for Apple' but the prices recently have been even higher than usual

 

[ancient_mariner]

Been thinking about this, won’t some of depend on the version of Lightroom as well as hardware components as LR CC now uses the GPU to handle a lot of the processing rather than it being solely the CPU?

I still think that having more free storage and having an SSD will make his system noticeably better, but whether it’s fast by today’s standards is a different matter

The trouble is to get a new 13” MBP with i7 processor, 16gb RAM and 1TB SSD it’ll set you back £2699

MBP’s have always been overpriced, but they’ve gone silly in the last year or so imo. If I ever need to replace mine it’ll cost over £4K now to get an equivalent system (n)

I was very glad to buy my XPS15 & replace my Macbook with a core 2 duo - that really struggled with 20MB sony files on LR5. The XPS cost me around £1000 via the Dell outlet when the equivalent Macbook was about £1800 in 2014, and I'd hate to think what the equivalent would now be. I'm starting to think about a replacement in another year or 2, but it's still coping OK at the moment with A7III files.

 

[RWDW]

My first full frame camera was a Nikon D3 - I wouldn't go back to a smaller sensor now.

 

[stickytape]

Thanks, I hadn't considered this before. As for RAM I've got the maximum in (16GB) but I'll certainly look into ordering an SSD this weekend, that will help me massively and will save me upgrading my laptop for a little while again. Even going through all the photos from trips etc is painful at the moment.

why not look into iCloud? All my photos are stored in that, I’m on the 2tb plan. Then you won’t have to through the picture just yet!

 

[Will James]

why not look into iCloud? All my photos are stored in that, I’m on the 2tb plan. Then you won’t have to through the picture just yet!

How do you organise them with iCloud in terms of your workflow? For importing, editing and exporting photos do you just store all of your photos in an iCloud Drive folder in the first place and also use that as the main ‘export’ area from Lightroom for example? As opposed to importing them all into the ‘Photos’ app I mean?

 

[snerkler]

I was very glad to buy my XPS15 & replace my Macbook with a core 2 duo - that really struggled with 20MB sony files on LR5. The XPS cost me around £1000 via the Dell outlet when the equivalent Macbook was about £1800 in 2014, and I'd hate to think what the equivalent would now be. I'm starting to think about a replacement in another year or 2, but it's still coping OK at the moment with A7III files.

Hmmm, interesting. In what way did it struggle, I honestly don’t recall mine being bad? The area I find LR struggles is if you scroll through each image in quick succession you get the spinning beach ball, but that still happens even though I’ve got 2.9ghz i7 quad core, 16GB ram, SSD and 4gb GOU these days.