How badly did I fuck up?
On Friday I purchased a d70,and since then I have been reading photography books I borrowed from the local library, almost every author has nothing good to say about crop sensors and talks about how you should go for full frame.
I spent €900 in total on the camera and kit lens, and there are eos 6d's/5d mark ii for around 200 more on eBay.
You didn't. A camera is as good as how you use it. Full frame is better no doubt, but it's heavier, lenses are 3 times more expensive at the very least , and if you can't shoot good photos then full frame won't fix it.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a crop sensor just like there's nothing inherently wrong with an old smartphone. They did the job fine then and they still do it now, and using them to the maximum depends on how much of a gear-stroking faggot you are, since gear is improving to serve a good photographer in making the photograpy experience more convenient, not to make a bad photographer a good one.
tl;dr a good photographer with a D3300 will fuck up a shite photographer with a D810
Size (including lenses)
Cost (including lenses)
Potential speed (burst rates and buffer sizes)
Worse performance in low light (problem gets more dramatic, the older the sensor)
Less opportunity for BOKEH
Harder to find quality wide angle lenses for cheap
You can take good photos with nearly any camera, and unless you're pursuing an especially demanding field (Astro, sports, etc) you won't have issues.
All that being said;
>€900 in total on the camera and kit lens
The FUCK do you live that you can spend nearly $1000 USD on a D70? I can buy that for literally $125 USD. You paid WAY too much for it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 762 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 210 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:08 19:00:37 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Fine Weather Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 140.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
depends on the FF cameras you're looking at
same thing goes for the a6000, but the same tech (and also more advanced tech) is being applied to FF stuff, see the sony a7 range, so by this rate FF will always be a step forward
well then you done good enough
same things as before tho, and canon sensors are among the worse stuff that can be found even tho you're paying some premium price for the name
you have a camera more than good enough for starters tho, have fun taking pictures
it's more than fucking adequate, who gives a fuck if it's not as good as the latest most expensive shit
it can make good photos that's what really matters, maybe in a year you'll actually have some need to upgrade once you're more experienced and actually experienced the shortcomings of your camera. I've seen great photos taken with APS-C sensor cameras from 10 years ago.
FF (full frame) and APS-C are sensor sizes.
CMOS and CCD are sensor technologies. They are different.
APS-C is just a smaller sensor than full frame. Imagine taking a full frame sensor, and then taking a knife and cutting off a little bit of the sensor from each side. That's literally it.
The difference comes from trying to squeeze more megapixels into the smaller size. The photo sites have to get smaller, and packed tighter together, so there's less room for all the support structure and wiring and such, so you get (slightly) worse image quality potential. But cameras have gotten so amazing in the past couple of years that if you're below ISO 1600, it's really difficult to tell the difference between full frame and APS-C. And in some of the better sensors (like the Sony sensors in a lot of cameras) you have to go much much higher to see the differences.
isn't aps-c basically just the same crop as 35mm?
i never heard anyone say 35mm was shit.
>you seen them photos by that pleb bresson that stupid nigger uses 35mm
said nobody ever
It's primarily cost. APS-C sensor bodies and lenses are cheaper. The sensor is literally just made smaller, so are the lenses, and this makes everything a bit cheaper.
In the case of DSLR specifically, they're also usually on smaller bodies.
For MILC, the difference in size is trivial to nonexistent with current bodies. A RX1R II has a FF sensor and you wouldn't be able to tell it's not some other enthusiast P&S from its size.
> isn't aps-c basically just the same crop as 35mm?
No, don't confuse lens focal lengths with sensor sizes.
For most brands, APS-C is just 1.5-1.6 times smaller than their FF sensor.
This smaller sensor is centered, so it literally is like cutting the center out of a FF camera + lens image.
If you had a 35mm lens on a FF camera, and then put it on a camera with 1.5 crop ratio on their APS-C sensor size, then the resulting image on that APS-C camera as though you had a (narrower) FoV like on a 50mm lens on the FF camera.
I've read a couple places that aps-c has tighter vanishing points and the image has more tension because everything is more compressed, whereas FF is more neutral and presents things as more spacious. Does anyone know anything about that? It could be total bullshit for all I know.
Most of that is just nebulous meaningless terminology, but from what I'm assuming it's talking about, it's total bullshit.
Closest think I can think of is the crop factor on the focal lenght, so that if you put a 50mm lens on both, the full frame image will be a wider field of view, therefore leaving more space around the edges of the frame, but that's easily compensated for with an equivalent focal length.
back in the days FF was called small format..
the difference between FF and APS-C in OP photo is actually two steps back with the APS-C to get the same FOV as in FF (or of course an equivalent lens).
Are you lazy enough to justify buying a FF camera?
OP, you did good. Now go and have some fun with your new toy.
>back in the days FF was called small format..
The full frame of today is not comparable to the full frame of those days. You couldn't get clean 36mp images from 35mm film at ISO 3200 like you can now.
That doesn't change the fact that APS-C is a small compromise for a lot of potential benefits.
crop will ALWAYS be behind in ISO you fucking retard.
Do you even understand what you're talking about?
There is literally no crop sensor on earth that wouldn't be better as full frame
For me it is weight. I recently sold my crop sensor camera and bought a full frame. Went on vacation and was constantly reminded how heavy a full frame is compared to a crop. Also the lenses for a FF are bigger and heavier too. On the plus side I was able to take some cool low light pics I couldn't with a crop. Also the FF is weather sealed but I paid a lot more for it.
>On Friday I purchased a d70
>I spent €900 in total on the camera and kit lens
>aps-c has tighter vanishing points
this changes in relation of the focal length, so the lens
it's just a fancy and misleading way of saying on an APS-C sensor you get a narrower field of view than on a FF sensor
>the difference between FF and APS-C in OP photo is actually two steps back
of course you can't really take two steps back if you're back against a wall or in a river, with your back facing a waterfall
>That's what he just said
he seemed to imply that with tech advancements an APS-C sensor could have better low light performance than the "same" sensor with bigger pixels
I agree tho, why do you have to be so rude anon?
you can just explain things in a civil way eh
>For me it is weight.
that's more like DSLR vs mirrorless
for the lenses, more weight it's generally due to different/higher quality materials
>crop will ALWAYS be behind in ISO
maybe, but from a certain point on ISO just becomes ridiculous. I mean come one.. it's a camera and no night vision.
>of course you can't really take two steps back if you're back against a wall or in a river, with your back facing a waterfall
True, but you always got the chance of using an equivalent focal length that works. If your focal length on crop doesn't work in a certain situation, you're fucked with the equivalent on FF either.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:01:05 01:32:49 Exposure Time 1/90 sec F-Number f/1.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 25600 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Brightness -4.3 EV Exposure Bias 0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
> but from a certain point on ISO just becomes ridiculous. I mean come one.. it's a camera and no night vision.
It's good to have rather than ridiculous.
And I'm hoping for even more color vision night vision goodness to be out soon.
conversely, you can't really take two steps forward if you're standing at the edge of a volcano, with the edge slowly crumbling away into the red hot lava lingering below you, can you?
What the fuck are you on about?
That's NOT what he said at all... Anyone trying to say that FF is deprecated because 'hurr muh crop advancements' are idiots.
Crop will never catch up to FF.
yo bro you can get a used 5d for cheap just check the SHUTTER COUNT, make sure it's low compared to the others you check
also the 50mm 1.8 is like $80 - that would put you in a good position. any other money left you can spend on whatever you want
I got a 7dmkii the DAY it was released. After a trip to hawaii and it RUINING some would be great shots I traded it in for a 5dmk iii
holy shit - there IS a difference. Of course light and technique plays a large role but I can spot a crop pretty easy which means a lot of other people can as well
return ur camera
i didn't read any one elses responses
good luck OP!
checked. also, it's not all rainbows and blowjobs. Zack forced me to switch from nikon FF to Fuji X similarly. The handling really is great. Hybrid OVF is heavenly manual controls....except focus...which i can't even begin to explain the hurt that is my butt because of that. shot fuji for about 2 years, rented an A7II, saw that it blew the shit out of my fuji in DR, and bought it with a loxia. i'll miss the manual controls but i'm stoked for manual focus and ziess' artwork
>saw that it blew the shit out of my fuji in DR
Can you do a comparison post? I'm considering this jump and would love to see it. I don't have the ability to rent, and I don't know anyone who has one.
>True, but you always got the chance of using an equivalent focal length that works.
>conversely, you can't really take two steps forward if you're standing at the edge of a volcano
that was my point
the first quote anon wrote that the only difference between FF and APS-C is two steps and I was jokingly pointing out what he said wasn't to be taken seriously
let me retry in a clearer manner
with FF you can have bigger pixel or more pixels of the same size which means less noise or higher resolution
that can be a quite a difference
>I mean come one.. it's a camera and no night vision.
>not wanting to take clear, sharp photos of a bird 20m away using your 600mm lens at 1/200s, among things
where you see ridiculousness, I see possibilities
>Full Frame is a meme.
you halved the size of the pictures and there's still quite some visible noise, particularly in dust.jpeg for example
it's not like you can't take good pictures not like APS-C doesn't have any advantage, tho there's a long way from there to being a meme
>cherrypicking like this
canon makes the worse quality sensors among all of the big companies
try a nikon, try a sony, try a samsung even, and stop pretending like all sensors suck that much
I usually don't shoot birds, but in this case something around 400mm would be easier to carry and gives the same FOV. I can easily go up to ISO 3200, so 1/200s wouldn't be a problem either.
Anyway, FF, as well as APS-C have their advantages and disadvantages, as well as their purpose.
I don't see any sense in the great debate. A good/bad photo is a good/bad photo, no matter what camera/sensor was used to take it.