# another "please help me decide" thread



## mapgirl (Dec 8, 2016)

Sorry, but I'm making myself nuts looking at all the specs, sites, comparisons, etc.  
I shoot a Canon 60D and find that I only carry it with me when I'm traveling or when I have a specific project to shoot.  It's just too bulky, heavy, etc.  Not an unusual story.  So I rented a Sony a6300 to see what that experience would be like.  Loved how small and light it is.  Loved the live EVF.  LOVED how I could shoot at slower shutter speeds and still get sharp images (I imagine this was due to the reduced weight of the camera?).  Hated the menu learning curve, but got used to most of it in a day.  
All good, right?  However I'm not liking what I read about lossey RAW from Sony.  So now I'm wondering if I should look into Fujifilm (though they are more expensive).  Also, I haven't shot full-frame since my film days.  So now I'm wondering if I should rent a Sony A7ii.  But it looks like it would be bulkier than I wanted.  And though I understand the bokeh with full-frame is better and that the sensors pull in more light, if the MPs are the same, can't I just stand further back or use a wider lens to get a wider view?  If anyone can help me sort this all out without my having to spend several hundred dollars renting cameras and lenses (since I'll be shelling out quite a lot whatever I end up buying) I will be very grateful.  I'm just stuck.


----------



## weepete (Dec 9, 2016)

mapgirl said:


> can't I just stand further back or use a wider lens to get a wider view?



Yup, you can just use a wider lens to get a similar field of view, thats why manufacurers make lenses for crop sensor cameras. Standing further back might be possible but it can change perspective so is not always an option.

With the raw files you've obviously shot some of these before so if they are ok for your needs I wouldn't worry about it, unless you are pairing the body with excellent glass and are determined to squeeze out every bit of quality you can.

One of the down sides for Sony is that their lens range is limited, so make sure you can get the lenses you want before you purchace and that the battery life will hold up to what you expect.


----------



## Frank F. (Dec 9, 2016)

Sony paired with Minolta and Zeiss and Third Party offerings have a great selection of lenses for their Alpha system and their DSLR system too. But. The good ones are really expensive and a lot of them are bulky too. So if you want to use the pixel power you have a bulky lens on a tiny body. Not nice. Another downside is battery life and interface design.

Corrections:

Bokeh is a property of the lens. Period.
Perspective is camera position. Period.

What to do?

I decided for full frame lenses on half frame bodies to start with.

Which lenses do you use on the 60D?

I would recommend fast light weight primes like the 1.4/50 EF ... neat small package as short tele offering plus a 20mm lens for light wide angle shooting. This should provide you with a very serious Canon setup to carry everywhere


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 9, 2016)

mapgirl said:


> Sorry, but I'm making myself nuts looking at all the specs, sites, comparisons, etc.
> I shoot a Canon 60D and find that I only carry it with me when I'm traveling or when I have a specific project to shoot.  It's just too bulky, heavy, etc.  Not an unusual story.  So I rented a Sony a6300 to see what that experience would be like.  Loved how small and light it is.  Loved the live EVF.  LOVED how I could shoot at slower shutter speeds and still get sharp images (I imagine this was due to the reduced weight of the camera?).



As a general rule the heavier the camera the better for slow shutter speeds (mass and inertia). The a6300 advantage you likely experienced was the OIS system in the Sony lens.



mapgirl said:


> Hated the menu learning curve, but got used to most of it in a day.
> All good, right?  However I'm not liking what I read about lossey RAW from Sony.



Yep, to the great disappointment of Sony nerds everywhere who wrote a bazillion emails and forum posts begging Sony to fix it, the a6300 raw format is still lossy compressed. It does suck but it's not really that bad if you aren't a Sony nerd.



mapgirl said:


> So now I'm wondering if I should look into Fujifilm (though they are more expensive).



Yes, Fuji is quite a bit more $$$$. The fundamental difference between Fuji and Sony is this: Fuji is a photo company and Sony is an electronics company. Over 30 years ago I was shooting magnificent Fuji glass on my old Linhof while listening to these things called cassette tapes in a Sony Walkman. From my perspective as a photographer I don't see that much has changed. Sony still doesn't "get" photography. Disclaimer: I have a Fuji.

You like the a6300 EVF. You should see the EVF on a XT-2.



mapgirl said:


> Also, I haven't shot full-frame since my film days.  So now I'm wondering if I should rent a Sony A7ii.  But it looks like it would be bulkier than I wanted.



Yep, you're just working back up to the size of the 60D. Same problem to a lesser degree with the Fuji. You're not going to beat the size weight advantage of the a6300 in another APS class camera and certainly not in a FF even if mirrorless. If your dilemma is ultimately about size and weight and you want APS with interchangeable lenses then you found your answer in the a6300 -- live with it's warts otherwise.



mapgirl said:


> And though I understand the bokeh with full-frame is better and that the sensors pull in more light, if the MPs are the same, can't I just stand further back or use a wider lens to get a wider view?



Yikes!! You've been watching Tony Northrup videos. They're not going to make you nuts they're going to rot holes in your brain.
As Frank noted, bokeh is not background blur it's the visual characteristics of the background blur as a result of the physical design of the lens. It is not related to format size. You used the term bokeh to mean background blur.
Background blur with FF is not better. More or less of something is not necessarily better. There is a difference in DOF (and background blur) relative to sensor size. A larger format camera, all else equal, will produce shallower DOF (background blurrier) than a smaller format camera. This can be worse or better depending on what you're photographing (see note below).
FF sensors do not pull in more light. Exposure X on a FF camera is the same as exposure X on a APS camera. The photosites on a larger sensor tend to be larger, as you noted same MP over a larger area, and provide a dynamic range advantage over smaller photosites on a smaller sensor. This equates to better low light performance for the larger sensor. Between FF and APS the difference is slight enough such that other factors can make it moot.



mapgirl said:


> If anyone can help me sort this all out without my having to spend several hundred dollars renting cameras and lenses (since I'll be shelling out quite a lot whatever I end up buying) I will be very grateful.  I'm just stuck.



NOTE: How about a smaller sensor? I looked at the blog you have linked in your OP. We have a lot in common as I spend a lot of time in the garden with my camera. Given your penchant for photographing closeups of plants and flowers you may want to consider keeping the 60D and supplementing that with a much more portable compact or even trading the 60D for a m4/3 format camera (Olympus). Size and weight will notch down again and you will find there are distinct advantages to the smaller format for closeup photography. With a smaller sensor you'll be able to take hand-held flower and plant photos that you can't otherwise take with a larger sensor.

I'm retired now. I used to shoot FF Canon. Some years ago I upgraded that to APS Fuji, BUT (big BUT) I keep a small compact that I use for much of the flower and plant closeups I shoot because it allows me to do that without the tripod (or higher ISO) that I'd need using the bigger camera.

Joe


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 9, 2016)

when me and the wife got out of the photography biz, we sold all of our Nikon FX cameras and lenses. 
we eventually picked up a fuji e-x2 and have been very pleased with it. 
one of my biggest concerns was going from full frame back to crop frame and dealing with noisy images, but the fuji really handles low light surprisingly well.  my last few ferret pictures were taken at ISO 3200 and cleaned up nicely with just a little noise reduction. 
I use adobe CC, and do most of my editing with LR. (although some people say there are other programs that handle fuji's raw files better)
but ive been OK with Lightroom. 
if you have more money to spend, there are upgraded bodies from the e-x2 now. 

this was shot at ISO 3200 with LR noise reduction at 40, and sharpening at 25. 
not too bad for a crop sensor, all things considered. this was AFTER bumping the exposure up half a stop in LR. (because i have terrible lighting in my living room)
this was also exported with a max file size of 3mb for forum upload.


----------



## cherylynne1 (Dec 9, 2016)

Honestly, I think you're overthinking things. Your main problem is that you want to rediscover your excitement for photography, and have found that you just aren't excited about carrying around the 60d, right? So you found a camera that you love, and it's amazing and exciting to you...then you started reading all of the criticism. From what I can tell, none of the things you mentioned are problems you actually found when shooting or when reviewing your shots, they're just things that people in some studio somewhere are complaining about to get more people clicking onto their site. But none of those people will be taking pictures for you. 

I remember when I was first choosing a camera, my choice was down to the Nikon d3200, the Rebel T4, and the Sony NEX-6. The Nikon and Canon were cool, but they just felt wrong to me. As soon as I picked up the Sony, I was in love. I honestly don't think I would have stuck with photography if I had chosen another camera. 

My point is, photography is art as well as science. You have to feel that passion for it. It sounds like you had that, and now you're second guessing yourself because of technicalities on the technology. You will create the best pictures with the set-up that you like best, regardless of the specs. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 9, 2016)

Ok, so a couple of thoughts here.  Getting background separation is easier on a full frame camera than it is on a smaller sensor size, such as APS-C.  However that doesn't mean you can't get background separation using a smaller sensor.  Just means it might require a bit more effort or setup on your part.  

First question I guess I would ask is, does the RAW file problem really make a big difference to you, personally?  I haven't done any research into it since I don't shoot Sony, however from all accounts you were pretty happy with the setup overall until you went online and read about this problem.  But truthfully how much of an impact do you think it's having on what you do?  If you take a shot with the sony and process the RAW file, are you really seeing any impact on the final IQ you find unacceptable?  

I don't shoot Sony, or Fuji - neither would be a good choice for me or for the kind of photography I do most often.  However the important question to ask is, does the Sony system work for you?


----------



## mapgirl (Dec 10, 2016)

Thank you ALL so much!  Your feedback hit all the right points, answered my questions, and settled my nerves   I'm someone who researches the hell out of the next saute pan I'm going to buy.  All those videos, reviews, best-of's can be helpful until they're not.  Cherylynne1 hit the nail on the head when she said I was "overthinking things."  And several others of you noted that I'd liked the A6300 in the first place, so why let other opinions change my response.  The Full-Frame intrigues me, but I need something I can have with me all the time much more.  I'll certainly keep my Canon, but it's no walk-around camera.  Coupled with my 100mm macro lens it's perfect for my botanical work.  But it's time to branch out and find my enthusiasm again.  The price of the A6300 will allow me to buy the best glass for the camera.  Thank you so much for your help.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 10, 2016)

mapgirl said:


> Thank you ALL so much!  Your feedback hit all the right points, answered my questions, and settled my nerves   I'm someone who researches the hell out of the next saute pan I'm going to buy.  All those videos, reviews, best-of's can be helpful until they're not.  Cherylynne1 hit the nail on the head when she said I was "overthinking things."  And several others of you noted that I'd liked the A6300 in the first place, so why let other opinions change my response.  The Full-Frame intrigues me, but I need something I can have with me all the time much more.  I'll certainly keep my Canon, but it's no walk-around camera.  Coupled with my 100mm macro lens it's perfect for my botanical work.  But it's time to branch out and find my enthusiasm again.  The price of the A6300 will allow me to buy the best glass for the camera.  Thank you so much for your help.



Well sure.. I can see that for a really important purchase like a saute pan.. but a camera?  Lol

I shot APS-C for quite a while and I shoot full frame now, granted of the two I prefer full frame but for me at least it's a lot more about low light than it is about background separation.   You can still get very good background separation with APS-C.


----------



## Frank F. (Dec 11, 2016)

mapgirl said:


> Thank you ALL so much!  Your feedback hit all the right points, answered my questions, and settled my nerves   I'm someone who researches the hell out of the next saute pan I'm going to buy.  All those videos, reviews, best-of's can be helpful until they're not.  Cherylynne1 hit the nail on the head when she said I was "overthinking things."  And several others of you noted that I'd liked the A6300 in the first place, so why let other opinions change my response.  The Full-Frame intrigues me, but I need something I can have with me all the time much more.  I'll certainly keep my Canon, but it's no walk-around camera.  Coupled with my 100mm macro lens it's perfect for my botanical work.  But it's time to branch out and find my enthusiasm again.  The price of the A6300 will allow me to buy the best glass for the camera.  Thank you so much for your help.



I have three big Nikon DSLRs. Two full frame one half frame. I do not like to change batteries often so I use them with vertical grips. Each of them is rougly 1.5 Kilos and the lenses are not light and small either.

Most of the time I am pretty serious about my photography and take the big ones but sometimes I just grab the X100T which weighs less than most of my optics.

I bought the X100T because I did not want to buy into another system.

Could the X100T be something for you to consider?


----------

