Big or Small

[chuasam]

I noticed a lot of members going towards FullFrame Cameras as if it was the holy grail of photography.
But why?
Why sacrifice the ease of carrying a camera everywhere for the sake of "better" image quality? Quality that won't be realised if all you're doing is sharing the images online. Sacrificing the ability to capture memories for the sake of getting clearer nothing.

Which direction do you find yourself heading? I use a D810 for work but when I'm on my own time, I find myself gravitating towards Micro43 or smaller. Recently, Canon handed me a G5x to play with.
Holy smokes! I really like it...a lot. I might buy one later in the year (or the G7x II).

When I first started photography, I didn't care about the technicals and fstops and rules of composition. I just wanted to capture the memories and the moments. 15 years later after learning lighting and composition and studio work...I realised one thing.
The only thing the truly matters is the memories you capture. What image do you want to keep looking at 20 years from now? Some pretty model taken in a park, or images of you and your friends having a fun time?

Does it really matter if the horizon is truly straight and the highlights aren't blown out? Wouldn't it be far better if the people in the photo actually mean something to you?

 

[The_Traveler]

I headed towards m4/3 because the images are all I need most of the time.
I use FF when I can work out of the car.

Too many people graviate towards FF, imo, because of the mistaken belief that more expensive stuff will make them better.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Size doesn't matter to me, but I'm not someone who carries a camera around everywhere either. My phone is fine for those moments.

 

[fmw]

I am not gravitating at all. I settled on DX or APS-C years ago and never looked back. The image quality of modern DX sensors is more than enough for me. If I were starting today, I would choose an APS-C mirroless system.

 

[SquarePeg37]

Also not gravitating. Upgraded from a 5100 to a 7100 for the better AF system when shooting my daughter's games and added a few lenses but don't feel any need for full frame as I'm strictly in it for my own pleasure. The only smaller/lighter mirrorless systems that appeal to me are way out of my price range so this is it for me for quite a while. If I change bodies anytime soon it will be to get an articulating live view screen again. I do miss that from my 5100...

 

[goodguy]

I own 2 cameras FX and DX, the move from my D7100 to the D750 was for me huge.
Image quality in any situation but especially above 800iso is very noticeable.
I took my D3300 for a day instead my D750, it was a work gathering fun day and then a baseball game so I want max reach from my lenses.
Was sorry I did, the image quality again was very good for them but not for me, I saw in most pictures that the quality was just far less then the D750.
Don't get me wrong the modern DX is great but sorry it doesn't hold candle to FX, mind you I use same lenses on both.
I will choose any day in any lighting condition FX over DX.
More weight ?
Well if I would seriously use only DX I would own either the D7200 or D500 so he D750 is about same weight so no advantage there.
For those who are happy with MFT then that's great, for me its FX all day long!
I go on full days trips and carry on me my camera and heavy lenses and I am happy when I see the results, I don't like naturally the weight but I gladly schlep it on me, to me its worth it.

 

[bratkinson]

If you're happy with the results from the G5X, then go with it. As oft said...no one size (or model) fits all. And if the G5X family of cameras is sufficient, there's no need to spend more money.

For me, though, as my work was leaning more and more indoor work without a flash, I needed high ISO capabilities with little noise and dead-on auto focusing. A 5D mark iii completely satisfies my needs. I've shot at ISO 25,600 and the JPEG that it produces is better than I can do from the RAW with Lightroom and Photoshop Elements from the same shot! Go figure! But when I want a small camera, my G15 is a nice pocket size.

 

[PaulWog]

I only have enough money to invest in one camera system.

 

[chuasam]

If you're happy with the results from the G5X, then go with it. As oft said...no one size (or model) fits all. And if the G5X family of cameras is sufficient, there's no need to spend more money.

For me, though, as my work was leaning more and more indoor work without a flash, I needed high ISO capabilities with little noise and dead-on auto focusing. A 5D mark iii completely satisfies my needs. I've shot at ISO 25,600 and the JPEG that it produces is better than I can do from the RAW with Lightroom and Photoshop Elements from the same shot! Go figure! But when I want a small camera, my G15 is a nice pocket size.

Not sure how you're using Lightroom but I've been able to eke more out from RAW because I can work the extended tonal range.
I'm utterly chuffed with the G5x. It would never replace my D810 when it comes to work but the G5x is a perfect vacation or party camera.

 

[robbins.photo]

I noticed a lot of members going towards FullFrame Cameras as if it was the holy grail of photography.
But why?

Because I really like full frame, I need the lowlight capability.

Why sacrifice the ease of carrying a camera everywhere for the sake of "better" image quality? Quality that won't be realised if all you're doing is sharing the images online. Sacrificing the ability to capture memories for the sake of getting clearer nothing.

My D600 is pretty much the same size and weight as my D7100 was so I didn't give up anything. I don't carry a camera "everywhere" nor would I really want too - it's not the style of shooting I do. See, not everyone does exactly the same thing you do with a camera and therefore many of us have different requirements and different things we like about a particular system. For me portability is very, very low on my priority list.. in fact it almost doesn't make the list at all - because I shoot mostly telephoto and I have large hands. A small camera is not a benefit to me, if anything it's a detriment. I'm probably not alone in this.

Which direction do you find yourself heading? I use a D810 for work but when I'm on my own time, I find myself gravitating towards Micro43 or smaller. Recently, Canon handed me a G5x to play with.
Holy smokes! I really like it...a lot. I might buy one later in the year (or the G7x II).

Any of the smaller options I wouldn't consider for myself a this point. See I'm more about investing in a system, not about an individual camera. For now the Nikon system has proven to be an excellent choice for me, has the features I want in the camera bodies and lenses that will do what I need them to do.

If I were to consider a smaller, mirrorless option I'd be looking at spending a ton on glass and I'd be limiting my options in that regard severely compared to what I have available now. Yes it is possible to use another manufacturers glass on some system with an adapter but the good adapters that maintain AF are usually really expensive and from the reading I've done even those have a dubious track record for reliability in getting the shot.

If I went that route I'd have issues balancing my heavier telephoto lenses with a tiny weighs nothing camera body that would be difficult for me to hold and use... so no, pretty much zero interest in mirrorless myself. I get that some folks seem to be attracted to a smaller form factor. I'm not one of them.

 

[table1349]

I think if a two pound camera is too much for you to carry around and use perhaps you need to think about taking up something a little easier like knitting. I understand wanting smaller/lighter for those with physical disabilities. But when did this world decide that smaller and lighter was the answer to everything.

The passenger ship is leaving from landing platform #4 in an hour.

 

[Scatterbrained]

BTW, a full frame sensor doesn't necessitate a larger camera. My A7RII is much smaller than my 1Dx. They both have the same size sensor.

 

[Overread17 5]

I want more.

I actually do want to get hold of a micro4/3rds camera because I see them as an ideal "pocket" dslr type system between bridge cameras and larger DSLRs.

I also wouldn't mind getting into fullframe, but its not a burning desire but more a "I wonder what that's like" kind of thing. Otherwise my crop sensor camera (7D at present) does all that I want it to do. I've no doubt that tasting a fullframe camera might make me want one all the more and with Canon now putting serious AF systems into the 5D line it might tempt me one day to get one as a main body.

 

[chuasam]

BTW, a full frame sensor doesn't necessitate a larger camera. My A7RII is much smaller than my 1Dx. They both have the same size sensor.

I see your A7R II and raise you a RX1R II.
A7 series lenses are not much smaller than EF lenses.

 

[Scatterbrained]

BTW, a full frame sensor doesn't necessitate a larger camera. My A7RII is much smaller than my 1Dx. They both have the same size sensor.

I see your A7R II and raise you a RX1R II.
A7 series lenses are not much smaller than EF lenses.

I actually shoot my A7RII with my EF lenses. I didn't buy the camera because of it's size, I bought it because of the sensor. 42mp, back side illuminated; the thing is a beast. I use the A7RII primarily from my BAT (big @$$ tripod), while the 1Dx is my event and general walk about camera. Camera size doesn't matter to me, because I only bring a real camera with me when I intent to shoot. Otherwise the camera in my Note5 is plenty.