With that out of the way I'd try out the different brands and see what feels comfortable and what works best for your use case. I can't speak to video since I only do stills. If you don't need anything special, GREAT! Entry level cameras are fantastic these days. I would identify what are the critical features you need, if any, because those may drive you to an up-market camera. More importantly, none of your concerns are what you should be worried about as a first timer.
#FULL FRAME VS MIRRORLESS FULL#
A full frame lens may or may not show greater loss of sharpness at the edges, especially if it's pro glass. The degree of the fall-off in sharpness depends on the lens. The edges of every lens are not as sharp as the center. You can always stop down to increase your depth of field, light and low light performance depending. Smaller depth of field isn't really a problem unless you're opening extremely wide open and aren't placing your plane of focus correctly. You get used to it fairly quickly, and it only matters when comparing full frame glass. Calculating equivalent focal length (really, equivalent field of view for a focal length) is a simple multiplication.
Yes, sometimes wider angle lenses are available for full frame, but they're also frequently much heavier and more expensive-and do you care about an extra mm? Turns out, for the most part, I don't. Your concerns are misplaced when starting out.Ībility to capture larger shots is a function of the focal length of the lens you attach. In short, if you want to jump on the FF wagon and have money yo do it properly, treat yourself. One point to consider is that adapting vintage lenses could work better with FF due to sensor size matching the film frame size. Shallow depth of field it's also worse for handheld macro. As for the depth of field, it's fun for some time, might be great if you are really going for the portraits, but for most of day to day or trip photos you will be f/4 and above. Larger shots is vague statement, if you mean megapickles then A7R is your camera, but it might be worse for video, it's more photo-centric than A7 jack of all trades and more expensive. Numbers are of course not exact, but you get the feeling. The focal length calculations is roughly: 24 is 35, 35 is 50, 50 is 80 and it is only useful to imagine your field of view better. Search if there is a dedicated APS-C lens that would fit your needs, if not, then it might trigger your FF purchase but might also require multiple lenses down the road. I also chose to go for Sony because I plan to take a lot of video as well and from what I understand Sony does video better than Cannon and Nikon.Ī lot of mobility from the APS-.C comes from the lens, FF simply needs a bigger glass to cover bigger sensor area. I will invest in getting a tripod but I want a camera that I can also just carry around with me and take shots like that on the go and from what I'm researching that may be more difficult with a full frame. I plan to take various styles of photography but just for a hobby. Because you're getting an image that isn't cropped like an APS-C would do, the edges of the image can come out warped or blurred and will more likely show camera shake etc.
It has a smaller depth of field which is great for portraiture but also means that it can be difficult with certain lenses since you have to be so accurate with your focus.
the ability to capture larger shots and not have to calculate what equivalent focal lengths lenses would be. I'm looking to get back into photography and I've narrowed down my choices to an APS-C camera vs A full frame on the entry level side.įrom what I've been researching full frame will give me
0 kommentar(er)
