Is it worth a full frame camera ?

[Manfred M]

John – I used the iPhone example for impact; and you are right, other than to prove a point, I can’t think of any pros or serious amateurs who would use one, because of its limitations.

As a design engineer, you above all, should know that there is no “one size fits all” solution for cameras (or anything else). Design parameters ultimately drive performance. Just as I don’t use the same shoes on the shop floor (the ones with steel toe caps) as I would when I am out hiking (full-height hiking boots), the same analogy goes for cameras. A full-frame DSLR is something I will use most of my work, except when weight and size become an issue; then I will switch to something smaller and lighter, fully understanding that this will limit the way I photograph things.

As for the E-M5 (and I reserve the same comment for the Nikon Df), building a camera that uses a body shape that takes us back to the film days, really makes little sense photographically. The medium (film) and the production technologies (casting and metal stampings) drove those designs. If manufacturer’s have to revert to the “retro look”, rather than technical innovation to move cameras, there is something fundamentally wrong here. Design decisions should be made based on ergonomic / human factor considerations and manufacturing capabilities. Skeuomorphism is out of fashion; would somebody please inform Olympus and Nikon.

[ajohnw]

It'll be a cold day in you-know-where before I'll even be caught dead with an Olympus in my hand, let alone buy one.

Silly man

I'm in west wales again. On the way picked up a camera shop person rumour. Seems that the new 7D will be a hybrid electronic view. Small display projected into the current viewfinder. Not that they are worried about anything of course.

Didn't intend to buy anything. Also walked out with a lightweight tripod. Hahnel Triad Compact. Similar to a certain Japanese make and the first one I have come across that competes with an old one I found loitering in a junk shop. Weight is about 1.2kg and legs fold up over the centre column. The centre column telescopes as well but probably a step to far but there is a hook for weighing down. Packs down to circa 330mm. They haven't skimpt on the case and what looks like a decent Swiss plate ball head comes with it.

http://www.hahnel.ie/contentFiles/pr...Triad%20C4.pdf

They reckon 3kg. The legs can be splayed more but that isn't a good idea with a heavy camera on it so I suspect that rating is rather conservative,

John
-

[DanK]

As for the E-M5 (and I reserve the same comment for the Nikon Df), building a camera that uses a body shape that takes us back to the film days, really makes little sense photographically. The medium (film) and the production technologies (casting and metal stampings) drove those designs. If manufacturer’s have to revert to the “retro look”, rather than technical innovation to move cameras, there is something fundamentally wrong here. Design decisions should be made based on ergonomic / human factor considerations and manufacturing capabilities. Skeuomorphism is out of fashion; would somebody please inform Olympus and Nikon.

Since this thread has wandered far afield of the original question, I'll chime in and push it even further away. Manfred, I completely agree with you. I am still very nostalgic about my old Canon FTb, but I think designing a full-featured digital camera to look like it would be just plain foolish. The ergonomics of my 5DIII are orders of magnitude better, and the old design wouldn't readily accommodate the large number of additional functions on a digital camera. I read somewhere that a Canon exec said that they do not intend to play in the retro-design market. If so, they got this one right.

[ajohnw]

Since this thread has wandered far afield of the original question, I'll chime in and push it even further away. Manfred, I completely agree with you. I am still very nostalgic about my old Canon FTb, but I think designing a full-featured digital camera to look like it would be just plain foolish. The ergonomics of my 5DIII are orders of magnitude better, and the old design wouldn't readily accommodate the large number of additional functions on a digital camera. I read somewhere that a Canon exec said that they do not intend to play in the retro-design market. If so, they got this one right.

The driving force behind things like a camera are primarily the things that they contain. The only model I have come across that truly looks retro is one Nikon may make or intend to make. A film slr obtains it's shape due to a roll of film, a take up spool, shutter and a pentaprism,mirror etc plus view finder. One complication is the the film needs to be kept flat where it's exposed. That and the size of the film set the space between the film reel and the take up spool. This is why slr's tend to look the same who ever made them. Olympus oddly have always tended to go small. Taking the whole gamut of film camera of this period where they may have had a battery for metering all sorts of materials have been used for the cases. SLR's are expensive and conservatively marketed. Plastics wouldn't have gone down well. They still don't for some. Battery sizes have increased steadily as more and more electronics are added.

Stick a digital sensor in it and the other bits and pieces and all of a sudden a much larger BATTERY is needed. Some cameras even used 4 AA cells. Some one says - I know lets call it a grip and make space for the batteries. Good job too because I'm not sure it's possible to hold a camera of this nature in the same way a conventional film camera would be held. I may do as I don't think about it but don't have one here to find out. I'm pretty sure I do hold the Canon's film camera wise but can't be sure.

Then comes retro. A Pen looks nothing remotely like an original Pen. With buttons and multi way and rear screen etc it's rather hard to see how it could really. Some even have a thumb wheel. None have a film wind lever. It's just a model type that they have always made. Small, compact and rather powerful for what they are. i feel they could come up with a much more desirable Pen eaaily but it looks like it's the E-M10 which departs from the idea of a Pen. Pity really.

The E-M5 has no battery bulge so I most definitely do hold it like a film camera. I even just checked. Seems this make it retro. I'd guess this makes Canon happy and Olympus sad and the very idea is down to marketing men and imbecilic reviewers. Maybe that is why they have shifted from this arrangement on the E-M1. Might be down to buyers too. Anyway the E-M5 has the requisite twin thumb wheels and sufficient buttons to control the camera and like Pen's and the Nex for that matter it's body is slim. Ergonomics are fine.

The interesting thing is the slimness. Done by running the battery along the body and possible because the size of electronic chips etc have dramatically reduced since low priced dslr's appeared on the market. Making use of current technology in other words. Retro as there is no battery bump.

Menu's. Hate them. Mostly down to Canon early bridge cameras I have owned that have lots of settings including manual focus electronically even with mag view in whole view etc. Oddly no problems with Pen's past the E-PL1 and the E-M5 because I hardly use them and when I do very little needs doing. Touch screen so I should use the super panel really but don't. I would say switching to continuous from single doesn't really take more time than pressing the fiddly little button on a D7000 and turning the dial. It's also possible to drive the menu from the viewfinder on Pen's. Assume OM is the same but have no need. I'm not keep on moving focus points around, neither are others going on how popular focus while I press this button is.

Really hoping to avoid upset when I say it in areas like the expensive camera market it's people who tend to be retro and dislike change. I would imagine there was a similar reaction to the bulge when it appeared. As my gear was nicked I dropped out of that style of camera for rather a long time. Nearest thing I ever came near to was an auto this and that film camera I selected for my wife. Bulky. I enjoyed guessing distances and using a minox for a number of years. An all plastic one actually with a brilliant lens. I went slr again when the D300 came out. That was Canon's first mass market dslr.

John
-

[Didace]

I forgot noticing that but do remember some confusion NEX mount and NEX lenses aren't full frame?

There are two types of lenses for the Sony E-mount. The new FE lenses are for the A7 and A7R. You can use the E lenses but the image may not cover the entire sensor. Both he FE and E lenses can be used on the APS-C cameras - the NEX line and the new A3000, A5000, and A6000 (all E-mount).

[AB26]

Joan,

The real advantages of a FF camera can only be determined by you yourself. If you feel you have outgrown the 450D and it is now restricting your full potential you will find real value in a 6D.
Understanding why you wish to upgrade to FF should be your only motivation to upgrade. If for any reason you do not understand why you wish to upgrade you will not be able to fully utilize the advantages of a FF camera.

[Joan]

Joan,

The real advantages of a FF camera can only be determined by you yourself. If you feel you have outgrown the 450D and it is now restricting your full potential you will find real value in a 6D.
Understanding why you wish to upgrade to FF should be your only motivation to upgrade. If for any reason you do not understand why you wish to upgrade you will not be able to fully utilize the advantages of a FF camera.

Andre,

My motivation is clear: to take better pictures. Once this said, the question was if to do it it was worth to spend the hard earned bucks buying a FF camera, or with a new generation cropped sensor camera the results could be similar.

Everything is prepared from my side to jump the gap: all my lenses were bought having a FF camera in mind. The doubt came when seeing pictures taken with cropped cameras much better than the ones I could take with my 450D (main problems: pictures with high ISOs and poor dynamic range)

Anyway, I have decided to buy the 6D, even if I am not convinced of the relevance of FF vs. cropped sensor.... The camera for sure has to be much better than my current unit and with many interesting add-ons (e.g. GPS location and Wifi connectivity).

[William W]

. . . I have decided to buy the 6D, even if I am not convinced of the relevance of FF vs. cropped sensor.... The camera for sure has to be much better than my current unit and with many interesting add-ons (e.g. GPS location and Wifi connectivity).

And, irrespective of the camera's "add-ons": the lenses that you have mean that you will be able to explore the Wide Angle View, which you could NOT do before.

Will you keep your 450D?

WW

[Joan]

Will you keep your 450D?
WW

I don't think so.... My Canon film reflex camera is still somewhere, I don't know where...

[steve welle]

Thought I should add my two cents because I actually did buy a 6D a year ago. I used to have a 550D but gave it to my daughter. The only time I miss it is when I need more reach than I can get with my 70-300 mm zoom, my longest lens. I could get 480 mm equivalent with the 550D but very rarely need it.
You have been given good advice about the pros and cons. I think the weight issue is less important because you are going to be using FF lenses rather than the lighter EF-S lenses. The 6d is heavier but not terribly so. So with heavier lenses the proportional weight increase should not be a big issue. It is not for me.
The lack of pop up flash is not an issue for me because I have an external speedlight. I usually like to bounce flash indoors.
The fact that it has only a single cross type autofocus point is not an issue for me. I always use the focus and recompose method. Focusing in dim light is easier with this camera because of its better low light sensitivity.
I like the wider angle of view with the full frame for landscapes. And have to get up closer to my granddaughter to photograph her, which gives a better background blur at the same aperture. That can be a disadvantage for macro, but I have not been bothered by that so far.
Overall, I am very pleased with the 6D. But as the other responders say, it all depends on your shooting style and subjects.

[Joan]

Overall, I am very pleased with the 6D. But as the other responders say, it all depends on your shooting style and subjects.

Steve, I am in a very similar situation as you were with the 550D. I do not need a built in flash, because I have an external Speedligth and I also usually use bounced light. AF points is not a big issue for me because most of my pictures are static ones. For more reach I have a 1.4 multiplier that with my 70-200 zoom should be more than enough. For the weight issue, you are right: the 6D even that it weights more than the 450D, weights much less than my lenses. I am increasingly convinced that definitely I must go for the 6D.

Thanks very much for sharing your experience.

[William W]

I don't think [I will keep my 450D]...

Well, perhaps re-think that.
What are the options? Sell it – what would you get for it vs. how much worth is it to you having a spare?
. . . obviously depends on where one finds oneself, but a few years ago I bought a 350D and kit lens from a pawn shop for a very small sum of money and I have used it when sailing (i.e. hanging over the edge) and I leave it in my car’s glove box most of the time. It is always handy and it has made some good photos for me.

WW

[AB26]

My motivation is clear: to take better pictures.

Hi Joan,

If your motivation is to take better pictures I would suggest you stay with the 450D until you can take better pictures. The 6D is not going to make you take better pictures, it will only help you “stepping up” your photographic skills.

We sometimes believe we need a better camera to take better pictures. It is not the camera taking the pictures, it is you. Your 450D has Manual WB settings, can shoot RAW & Jpeg, you can adjust colour in camera, you can change lenses, resolution is high enough. What does the 6D offer you more than the 450D. If it is low light capability, use a tripod. If it is higher resolution, how big do you want to print?

Think very carefully about what you will be able to do better with a 6D. Think carefully about what you cannot do with the 450D. Learn to take better pictures with the 450D before upgrading. You do not NEED a 6D to take better pictures.

I have been trough this exercise of WANTING to upgrade. I will upgrade when I NEED to upgrade. Do not invest in a camera simply because you WANT to have it, invest because you NEED to.

If you really WANT the 6D, it is a very good camera and it will probably fulfill your needs for a very long time.

[BJ Denning]

Hi Joan,

Wow, tons of great knowledge/advice. All in all it comes down to you and your style. My suggestion is to rent a 6D (sony, m4/3, 5d mkiii, what'ever) for a week and put through your normal routine. Better to spend several hundred and know then several thousand and find out it wasn't as big of a leap as you wished.

[Venser]

We sometimes believe we need a better camera to take better pictures. It is not the camera taking the pictures, it is you.

This statement always drives me bonkers. In some instances, you simply need the better camera, full stop. It is the limitation regardless of the skill of the photographer.

I have been trough this exercise of WANTING to upgrade. I will upgrade when I NEED to upgrade. Do not invest in a camera simply because you WANT to have it, invest because you NEED to.

If money isn't an object, this statement is irrelevant. If spending money on things you may need makes you happy, pull the trigger. I do it all the time. Whoever said money doesn't buy you happiness was probably poor.

[PhotomanJohn]

Whoever said money doesn't buy you happiness was probably poor.

+1

[Manfred M]

This statement always drives me bonkers. In some instances, you simply need the better camera, full stop. It is the limitation regardless of the skill of the photographer.

I agree, but with a caveat; I've seen too many people with good cameras that were way over their heads and were producing mediocre images.

Frankly the main reason I upgraded my equipment over the years was because I was consistently missing shots because of the technical limitations of my gear, rather than being caused by a lack of skill on my part. This is more than just a better camera body, but also includes lenses and other accessories.

On the other hand, if you are not consistently getting the shots you want, then getting better gear is not going to get you better images. In fact, feel that a better camera is going to actually result in WORSE images for the inexperienced shooter, because there are so many more things one can screw up.

So while I don’t disagree when someone says, “it’s not the camera, but rather the person behind the camera”, it is really oversimplifying the situation.

[chauncey]

invest in a camera simply because you WANT to have it, invest because you NEED to.

Andre, it is indeed rare, almost to the point of being unheard of, that "absolute need" has influenced our purchasing decisions...in any hobby whatsoever. We "want" something and then, create the "need" in our minds. I, being an anal-retentive, pixel peeping SOB at 200%, "need" that high MP body because it satisfies the unachievable drive for the perfect image viewable at 2". Ridiculous/irrational, without a doubt, but it's in our DNA.
It should go without saying that we should have sufficient disposable income to indulge ourselves in that "need".

[Shadowman]

Good day everyone:
I saw a big difference in colours and sharpness and maybe in clarity between D-7000 and D-800 or D-4.
is this due to the time difference (later version and better sensor) or due to the difference between FF and half frame.
i have an example to mention:
will I see this difference between D-3300 and D-800 since they are both newly released?
thank you in advance.

Hafedh,

A bit late but did you have examples you wanted to show?

[Joan]

+1

+2 (at a risk of oversimplifying life)