SLR vs a DSLR

If you have nice legacy lenses that you still want to take advantage of then for a modest investment the Micro Four Thirds offerings with an FD Lens Adapter could be the way to go. You've been using the P&S for a while now, so this would be a fair step up in capability while giving you the advantage of using the better optics you already own.

Erm, those legacy SLR lenses on a Micro4/3 would be hit by a 2X crop factor! Thanks but no thanks. Avoiding crop factor collapse is one of the key arguments for FF.

Kelly

I have been struggling with similar angst regarding DSLRs for the past half decade or so. I started with an old Canon A-1, then upgraded to an Elan2 in the mid 90s. About 2005 I made the jump from film to digital and traded in my Elan2 for a Digital Rebel (which I still have). I don't regret the switch to digital, but there are plenty of things about the Digital Rebel that I regret and I blame most of them on the crop sensor. I kept my primes from the Elan2. A 28mm 1.8 became my "normal" lens. I could never abandon the idea of upgrading to FF enough to buy an EF-S wide angle lens.

I hope to upgrade to a full frame sensor soon, but the only way that is even close to affordable is to buy a used 5D. I can't justify paying for a new 5DMk2 or a Nikon D700. This seems to be the only way to get back to the sort of pictures I was able to take with my old SLR without giving up the considerable advantages of digital.

No disagreement about FF being the best at the end of the day, but coming out of the P&S experience the fact that a FF will weigh nearly 3X what a Micro Four Thirds camera would be might be too much of a jump to take in one step. For <$500 he could give digital interchangeable lenses a try to see what he really wants to do with his photography, and then if he needs more capability upgrade to the bigger/better system that best suits his needs.

mattmoran wrote: ... there are plenty of things about the Digital Rebel that I regret and I blame most of them on the crop sensor ...

"Things" such as??? My Canon 50D is a crop sensor, my only regret is that my budget would not stretch to a crop sensor 7D.

Kelly

KCook wrote:

mattmoran wrote: ... there are plenty of things about the Digital Rebel that I regret and I blame most of them on the crop sensor ...

"Things" such as??? My Canon 50D is a crop sensor, my only regret is that my budget would not stretch to a crop sensor 7D.

Kelly

Things such as the relatively dim viewfinder. The fact that my 50f1.4 went from being an all purpose lens to being a specialty portrait lens. My 100f2, which used to be a great (if a little long) portrait lens turned into a mostly useless short telephoto (too long for portraits, too short for distance shooting). The fact that it is now harder to take pleasing portraits with sharp faces & a soft background because of the wider DOF on a smaller sensor.

Also, the autofocus on my digital rebel sucks. I'm not sure I can pin that on the small crop sensor. My Elan2 had much better autofocus. I think maybe it's because the dim viewfinder makes it much harder to tell when the autofocus missed. The "full time manual focus" feature on my 50 1.4 is mostly useless with the digital rebel cause it's pretty much impossible to manually focus accurately.

I'm sort of taking in on faith that a 5Ds viewfinder would be better than the digital rebel. I've never played with one. (Why tease myself?)

Ok, for max bokeh, FF is an advantage. I don't shoot portraits, so I overlooked that.

Kelly

I rather enjoy using a crop sensor body for sports, yes it messes up my primes except for my 300mm but I really like the 80-200 being bumped to 120-300 and the 300 bumped to 450.

Henry Peach wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: True but it's not just about being able to tell the difference in prints. You know as well as I that the extra pixels give you about 1.5 stops more light using FF cams (assuming the same pixel density and sensor tech) also the fact that at a given MP amount the larger photosites allows for better noise control (meaning you can use higher iso). Plus there's the shallower DOF effect FF has over crop.

I do not know such things. I've had plenty of opportunity to compare my old 5D to newer APS-C cameras at ISO 3200. Shallower DOF for a give angle of view is the only point I agree on.

And actually, for me and most of the world, it is just about what the finished photograph looks like. Only photo geeks care what the pixel peep samples look like.

Yeh but compare a modern FF sensor to the new APS-C sensors and then see which one is better. The 5D (which I owned) is old sensor tech. A D700 (and even more so the D3s - which I own) and even the 5Dii (which I owned also) will beat a D7000 (which I currently own). The D7000 being the best APS-C camera on the market IMHO, but it's grain just isn't as nice as a FF camera and it can't gather light like a FF camera.

It's not just about pixel peeping either. More stops of light gathering will let you shoot faster and therefore reduce the chances of an out of focus shot due to subject/camera moment. People will notice an out of focus/blurry shot without peeping at pixels. In a decent size print too, people will notice a grainy picture (fine if it's black and white but not so much in colour).

Sure you can "get by" with a crop cam, they're fine. But fact is FF is just better.

KCook wrote:
Let me say up front that I am not a low light Ninja. So, for me, the only advantage with a FF body would be the ability to take full advantage of old WA primes. It was cheaper to go with a crop body and new WA zoom instead. Yes the zoom is slower than a nice prime, so I end up shooting at higher ISO. But the results still look good, so I am sticking with crop bodies. A FF body is pretty hard for most hobbyists to justify.

Kelly

Sounds like you're making excuses.

Once you go FF it's hard to go back. I quite like my D7000 with 35 1.8 it's good for most things, but the D3s is just better in so many ways (costs a lot more too).