If you search the web on full frame vs. other sensor sizes (M4/3, APS-C, etc), you will no doubt be presented with all kinds of comparisons. Some are very good, but many are pointless, to the point of being silly. Consider a scene taken with a 24mm lens on full frame, and one taken with M4/3 with a 12mm lens, with aperture set at around f8, and compare away. With recently designed cameras, a picture like this will probably look identical in most cases, except the colour/white balance. I am pretty sure few people can tell the difference between the two pictures if white balance is equalized. Personally, I think this is the wrong way to compare cameras systems.
Choosing a camera should reflect the kind of pictures you want to make, and you make sure the camera you choose has the lenses that allow you to realize the style of pictures you want. Obviously, if you love to shoot architecture, you would want a camera that has tilt-shift lenses for it. If you a thin depth of field freak, you want full frame with large aperture lenses, and if shooting sports is the primary use of a camera, then a DSLR with fast tracking focus system should be the main consideration. The point is, the sensor format does not really matter much any more if viewed purely from the image quality standpoint, except when pushing the low light limit, in which case the full frame sensor usually has an advantage. What really matters is that the chosen camera meets your needs. Of course, if you have the means, and you really, really want, you can always have more than one system, to get the best features/functions from each system.
I chose a mirrorless full frame camera as my main system, because I like legacy lenses, and I am a thin depth of field freak. The short flange of mirrorless cameras allows pretty much all lenses ever made for previous cameras to be used with proper adapter, which is what I like to do.
The Light -- Tamron Adaptall 60-300mm f3.8-5.4 & Sony A7
for the images I take I find the Micro Four Thirds the ideal format: camera and lenses are light and sharper than I need (considering that I used to tote around a 6x6 Hasselblad)
ReplyDeleteBUT any adapted vintage lens becomes a telephoto with the 2x crop factor (wide angle vintage lenses are not very common). I am strongly considering a focal reducer to widen my field of view.
Your take on focal reducers? ... cheaper than a Sony body I hear (not to mention the Leica SL)
Micro 4/3 is a good compromise. I use my E-M5 occasionally, though I wish the handling is a bit better on the E-M5.
DeleteYou hit it in most places for things that I am really interested in. I had the A900 and A850 FF before but since I am about 70% BIF shooter, I disposed of the FF and concentrated on APS-C. Would love the 2X crop of M4/3 but lens reach and affordability prevents me from trying. Also playing macros and thus using dedicated macro lenses plus some achromat combinations and enlarging lens. Comes spring time with flowers, also using macro lenses and 100-135mm lenses with some extension tube combinations. When I have the time and funds (or the wife allows), I like to play with affordable legacy lenses as well and you have been a good source of info on new lenses to consider. More power to you.
ReplyDeleteThe day when mirrorless cameras are good enough for BIF is not far off. Already, the A7R II demonstrated its very capable tracking ability. legacy lenses are fun lenses. If I had to shoot stuff seriously, I will still need to use AF lenses.
Delete