Bigger sensor or faster glass?

[Cyay918]

I am still learning so bear with me. I have done nothing but study the past two days LOL. I am planning to make my first enthusiast camera purchase soon.

Daylight is pretty easy and I'm not thinking about depth of field just yet. But let's say I was at Symphony or even something like a Broadway live action play. Somewhere that you are sitting in the dark but you are focusing on a lighted subject using a telescopic lens

Would it be better to spend $1,000 on an ASP-C sensor with a cheaper lens, or would I be better off buying a $500 mft sensor body and put the remainder of the money into a better lens?

I know both of them come into play, but I am assuming that one of them would have more impact than the other.

 

[fmw]

Probably you would do better with the bigger sensor in terms of flexibility and overall performance.

 

[waday]

But let's say I was at Symphony or even something like a Broadway live action play. Somewhere that you are sitting in the dark but you are focusing on a lighted subject using a telescopic lens

How often are you doing that? If you're trying to plan for that one time you may possibly use it in this situation, then don't buy a camera for that situation. But, if you're planning on taking pictures in this type of situation regularly, it's more important that you buy a camera suited for this situation. So, how often do you realistically anticipate being in this situation?

What type of photography do you mainly do, or want to do?

I saw your post yesterday. Is it related to that? If you're buying a camera mainly for travel, I'd personally look at smaller, more portable systems, but that's me. I recently took my Olympus OMD EM-1 on a trip to Ecuador, and I was very happy to have a small, lightweight system. I was able to fit the camera, several lenses, SD cards, straps, batteries, chargers, etc all into a little camera-bag insert, which I then stuck into a backpack. Great for travel on airplanes, hiking, etc.

M43 systems tend to be (I'm generalizing here) cheaper than other systems. They also tend to be smaller, more lightweight, and take great photos.

(Obviously, I like my system.)

Some on here swear by Olympus, others by Fuji, and others by DSLRs like Nikon or Canon. It all depends on what works for you. See if you can try out the camera in a store before buying. Some Best Buys seem to have amazing selections for camera equipment. My local BB stinks.

Edited to add: You could likely find a used Oly EM1 or EM5 and a nice lens or two within your budget.

Some Olympus cameras have "in-body image stabilization" (IBIS). Very nice feature to have when your lens has no IS.

 

[Cyay918]

Yes you are right. Im still planning for my trip to disney but I dont want it be JUST for that. Hell of an investment just for that. I also want it to be a good camera for family outings like hiking. Waterfalls, micro on flowers, whatever. Also would use it for portraits during big holiday family gathering.

But you are right. The situation I posted is probably the one I will be in the least.

Right now i have a couple cameras in mind but im still doing research and narrowing things down. =)

 

[Designer]

But let's say I was at Symphony or even something like a Broadway live action play.

I wonder if they would even allow that.

 

[Light Guru]

But let's say I was at Symphony or even something like a Broadway live action play.

I wonder if they would even allow that.

Even if they did (which is unlikely) Your going to need a nice BIG telephoto lens, and I'm sure they wont let you in with that.

 

[goodguy]

Probably you would do better with the bigger sensor in terms of flexibility and overall performance.

Agreed, get an APS-C
I had a MFT camera and even with fast prime lens I wasn't too impressed with its low light performance, was so disappointed I sold it and got an APS-C camera instead.

 

[TCampbell]

Yes you are right. Im still planning for my trip to disney but I dont want it be JUST for that. Hell of an investment just for that. I also want it to be a good camera for family outings like hiking. Waterfalls, micro on flowers, whatever. Also would use it for portraits during big holiday family gathering.

For places like Disney... honestly that's where I'd probably just use the camera in your phone (and I almost never use the camera in my phone -- so that's saying something). There are two reasons for this...

1) Usually when I shoot, the entire purpose of the outing IS to do photography. It's not like I'm doing something else and just happened to want to take photos. When you're going to Disney, you're definitely _not_ going because you heard it's a nice place to take photos... you want to enjoy the day. Also, you're not going to win any prizes from photos you take at Disney (and it doesn't matter which camera you use). It's not really the spot to try to get award-winning photos. You'll annoy your family/friends if they have to spend the day posing for shots. So this really is the sort of day when you just want to grab some candids of everyone having fun. You don't need specialty gear for that.

And since you don't need specialty gear... you also don't want gear that gets in the way. I'm not going to take my DSLR and collection of lenses on any rides. And since I'd probably like to enjoy the day... I want a camera that can fit in my pocket (or is at least a small lightweight camera.)

A Canon PowerShot "G" series camera (these are Canon's most advanced point & shoots... before you get into the DSLRs) is probably the biggest camera I'd be willing to take. But I think a phone with a decent camera would probably be what I'd use.


2) You mentioned some indoor venues such as theater, symphony, etc. This is a big red flag.

Generally if you have to buy a ticket to get into the event... then they likely have a photography policy. I used to shoot a lot of touring bands. These are the sorts of things where you would buy a ticket and the venues do have photography policies. But I was fairly connected in the music industry... got to know a few artists and labels... and they'd arrange for me to have a "photo pass" waiting so I could shoot the event.

HOWEVER... without that "photo pass", these venues all had photography rules. Generally the rule was no "professional" cameras allowed. What's a "professional" camera varies by venue. For some it was "no camera with a removable lens" (that means only camera phones or point & shoots with fixed non-detachable lenses.) For some it was "no lenses longer than 6 inches" (seems rather arbitrary but it's their rules).

This means it is rather unlikely that you'd be permitted to bring a camera with removable lenses to any Broadway show or symphony performance (without knowing some contacts who can get you a special pass.)




But overall... it sounds like you just want a general purpose camera that isn't necessarily optimized toward any one use. We could literally just suggest you buy the most expensive camera you can find if you're worried that every corner-case you might think of is covered... but honestly I think any decent modern camera is going to cover your needs.

But getting back to the question about shooting in poor lighting. Generally the lens wins.

When the lighting is poor... you might have to crank up the ISO to 3200 or 6400, etc. to get the shot. and when you do this, you start to lose dynamic range and increase "noise" in the image. A "full frame" camera generally buys you maybe a stop... two tops... of extra ISO before you notice the noise (as compared to a camera with an APS-C sensor.)

HOWEVER... a nice low-focal ratio lens will usually get more. A typical zoom lens is a variable focal ratio and usually something like f/3.5-5.6 meaning it's f/3.5 at it's wide-angle end and f/5.6 on it's telephoto lens (and usually not a linear distribution... usually by the time you're half-way through the zoom range it's already at f/5.6)

An f/4 lens collects literally double the light of an f/5.6 lens.
An f/2.8 lens collects literally double the light of an f/4 lens (or four times more light).
An f/2 lens collects literally double the light of the f/2.8 lens (four EIGHT TIMES more than an f/5.6 lens)
An f/1.4 lens collects literally double the light of the f/2 lens (or SIXTEEN TIMES more light than an f/5.6 lens)

So while the "full frame" body might get you one or two stops of better ISO before you start to notice the "noise"... the right lens can get you 3 or 4 stops. So generally the lens will do more.

This doesn't come without trade-offs. Shooting at very low focal ratios also means having a very shallow depth of field. I've taken concert shots at f/2 where unfortunately the microphone was in tack-sharp focus... and the face of the performer was a little blurred. That's not a keeper. So you really gotta be careful when shooting at these very low focal ratios.

 

[Cyay918]

Great information, thank you!

 

[Braineack]

The processing power between my Sony DX and Sony FX sensors are night and day... Where my FX sensor is quite ISO invariant, the DX sensor is quite not.

with that being said, when I bought my mirrorless, I made sure to go with the aps-c sized sensor.

 

[astroNikon]

Since you are an "enthusiast" I'd just go for the APS-C sensor camera.

many come on here wanting a "professional" camera and every focal length lens for wide angle, portraits, birding, etc with out of focus backgrounds for $200 and are disappointed when reality hits in relation to budget and what you get.

So .. just buy an APS-C camera that is comfortable in your hands, where you like the menu system, and is a normal camera from FujiFilm, Sony, Nikon, Canon etc and get to using it.

I bought a small sensor camera before for "travel" and stuff and found out my iPhone was far more convenient and took better pictures in many instances.

 

[benhasajeep]

If you are talking events for your kids. Even though the stage will be lit. Probably will not be the best lighting. I think a good body with high ISO performance will probably get your better along than a lens thats just 2 stops faster. Now if your talking about pictures in paid professional events. In almost all cases detachable lens cameras are a no no. Could be the cheapest DSLR on the market and they will say no professional cameras allowed!

For my recommendation I suggest a full frame camera, even if used. The low light performance for a 5 year old D600 will out shoot a D7200 with ease. Low light performance is night and day between them!

As for Disney a point and shoot or even cell phone is probably the way to go. If your going with kids your not going to want to carry a camera bag around with you! Almost all of Disney is close quarters. No need for big lenses there. One exception is Animal Kingdom and safari ride. Don't expect a real safari experience though. The savanna outside the Animal Kingdom lodge is actually better. Just no aggressive animals in that area. Also if your going on rides that move fast, you don't want your camera flopping around. Or lugging the bag around. Nobody wants to watch the bags while others go, then have to wait for the rest to go on a ride. Especially if the lines is hour long or more! Take something easy to handle / secure. Doesn't weigh a lot. And can free hands for when the little ones are tired of carrying their precious loot.