As my photographic career has evolved, so has my appreciation of image quality. I now spend a huge amount of time on the road and would love a lighter, smaller system, and yet I can't bring myself to let go of my full-frame sensor.
Until recently, shooting on a full-frame DSLR made sense to me; I traveled only occasionally, didn't mind the weight of the body and the lens, and having that full frame made me feel like a "proper" photographer. Two years ago, my life became much more nomadic and hauling my DSLR and two L-series lenses has become a chore. Given my desire for minimalism and the fact that photography is only one part of my profession, I can't justify the cost and space of owning two different systems. As a result, I find myself caught between a full-frame camera that feels too big, and the prospect of a cropped-sensor system that, despite the amazing technology, feels like a step backwards.
When I made my last purchase, a full-frame DSLR felt like the best fit and, as a long-time Canon shooter, the Canon 6D was a nice compromise of quality, size, and that magical full frame. Despite shooting sports, I don't rely on a high framerate, deciding five years ago that the size, weight, and cost savings justified the 6D's 3.5 fps over the 5D Mark III's 6 fps. A cropped sensor mirrorless camera might have been a much better option, giving me the small, lightweight, and affordable system that I craved. However, switching systems was daunting and mirrorless sensors seemed to attract dirt and kill batteries like nothing else, so I never considered it seriously as an option.
Two of my very occasional efforts at portraits alongside something more typical of what I shoot.
An upgrade is now overdue. I spend most of my life at wide angles and not-massive apertures, and it's only for the occasional portrait (an area of my photography that could do with a lot of practice) that I open up to f/2.8 to take advantage of some nice separation of subject and background, typically at the longest end of my 24-70mm (or my beloved 40mm prime).
That said, the thought of not having two dials — one under my finger and the other under my thumb — is not something that I can contemplate. I always shoot in manual mode, often adjusting my exposure without looking at the numbers. The thought of not being able to respond instantly to changing conditions, whether that's passing clouds or sudden movement, is an unpleasant thought.
But there is one other factor that, I realize now, is even more decisive: my ego. In a way, my sensor has tracked my photography career. I started out shooting cheap color film, scanning soft negatives, before landing an advert for Canon and being paid with my first DSLR. From there, the step to full frame felt natural, giving me the width that I wanted with the lenses that I already owned. And one more crucial element: the sensor quality made me feel like a "proper" photographer.
One of the most successful images of my early career. I can't bring myself to stare at the high res scan at 100% because the grain and softness are too upsetting.
I've gone from being an incompetent amateur shooting blurry film to a (relatively) tech-savvy photo geek with a professional-looking camera dangling around my neck. The camera itself feels like a passport to this world of accomplishment and prestige. Even now, watching people shoot photos looking at their screen rather than through the viewfinder makes me cringe. Of course, that cringe is ridiculous, but I'm also conscious of what my commercial clients expect: photographers should hold big expensive cameras and look through the viewfinder. They shouldn't be holding a small, toy-like piece of plastic, framing shots by staring at an LCD at arm's length.
Photography has changed and maybe I'm resisting. If Nikon and Canon's reluctance to embrace mirrorless has proven one thing, it's that a unwillingness to embrace change can come at a cost. I need a system that suits me, my lifestyle, and my photography, not my ego and some precious idea of what "a photographer" is supposed to look like. As so many articles point out, these expensive lumps of metal and plastic are not representative of our capacity to produce images. But, at the same time, how we feel when we're holding the camera can influence how we shoot, so, whatever my biases are, they're still factors that are difficult to ignore when making this decision.
Have you ditched full frame for a cropped sensor? I'm keen to hear about other people's experiences. If you have any regrets, wish you had made the move sooner, or have any thoughts on how it affected your photography, please leave a comment below.
Yes!! I’m currently doing a similar set up with Olympus m4/3 and a Nikon system at weddings. They compliment each other perfectly.
I made the switch completely to Panasonic's MFT system about three years ago. It started as a Lark with their interchangeable lens camera the Lumix GF1. It was small but I still had the option of changing lenses. At the time I was using a Nikon Coolpix 5000 to shoot photos of our NE Explorers, photography tour guests, while they were enjoying themselves on our Natural Exposures Invitational Photo Tours. The GF1 produced such amazing results I started experimenting with other lenses. When Lumix finally released a telephoto zoom the Leica 100-400mm I started shooting the Lumix system fulltime about three years ago. I sold my last piece of Nikon glass nine months ago, the 600mm F/4, having held onto it until I was certain these smaller cameras could do the job. Now we have the Leica 200mm F/2.8 (400mm equivalent) and the new 50-200mm (100-400mm equivalent) and I'm like a pig in mud. Could not be happier with this major change.
I found the title of this post to be very appropriate. The EGO thing is what keeps many of my students shooting the big glass and bodies. When they haul the big glass out amongst the other travelers they get a lot of attention. Me on the other hand, with the smaller gear, not so much. But I'm starting to see a shift where the people showing up with the monster lenses are now starting to feel out of place. They're starting to rethink their need for spending the massive amount of money and carrying all the big hear to far-flung destinations. There is no doubt that the full frame cameras are still superior in some ways but the smaller cameras are equally superior in other ways. I tell people, it all depends on what you are shooting and how you use your pictures. Unless you are producing 30x40 inch Fine Art Prints, you're over buying if you use the full frame cameras. Just my two cents. I'm sure there will be those who disagree. But for me, it's been a godsend.
Ego is a damn hard thing to shake.
I got used to shooting street with a crop-sensor Canon and a 70-200/f2.8 with lens hood - Hardly unobtrusive. I eventually purchased a 24-105/f4 and that quickly became my "go to" lens.
I've only had the Panasonic a month or two and occasionally do street photography meetups. Even just a few months ago, most were using SLRs. Now the amount who've moved to M43 or Sony FF is amazing. I remember feeling a twinge from my ego when I first used my Panasonic on a meetup, only for that to evaporate when I noticed that people paid attention to the SLR shooters and ignored me and other mirrorless shooters.
I shoot on a 6D for all my contract work but I have since bought a APSC mirrorless to have something smaller. It's great but in lowlight it doesn't even compare to my FF 6D.
I got serious about this stuff about 5 years or so ago. I started with a used 7D, but switched to a 6D and never looked back at APS-C class cameras. Since then, I sold the 6D, got a 5DIII, recently sold it and now have a 5DIV with a grip. I'm sitting in Toronto at the moment. My wife and I are enjoying the Rogers Cup ATP tennis tournament. I'm having an absolute blast shooting with my 70-200 f2.8L. It handles nicely and the results are terrific.
I can't see me ever going back to a smaller sensor. Further, if I had the money, I'd probably get myself a Fuji GFX 50 to shoot landscape and portraits.
Fullframe or crop sensor is more about bokeh, larger file size and also noice on high ISO.
For a portrait the needs are different then landscape. I don’t shoot landscape but I suppose to get everything sharp is more important then shallow dof. I would think fullframe is not the best option for travel photography, I suppose the smaller lenses and cameras of smaller sensors as well as wider depth of field is good reasons to get something smaller.
The latest up scaling in Photoshop makes file size less important.
I think a photographer don’t need to use these huge cameras to get payed. That is more about lack of self confidence - most likely.
"Even now, watching people shoot photos looking at their screen rather than through the viewfinder makes me cringe."
For about 8 years, I only shot a 4x5. I've since given up the film and darkcloth, but still prefer to compose on the screen rather than through the viewfinder. Is there a legitimate reason why someone else's preferences - e.g., viewfinder vs screen - should make one cringe?
I think that the author meant hand held via live view. The implication is that unless there's enough light for a fast shutter, you massively increase the risk of unintentional camera movement when you fire the shutter.
Of course, if you're on a tripod or shooting at > 1/250 and a shortish lens this is irrelevant.
Another thing - I've seen a lot of people who appear to have purchased slr cameras because of the expectation that would allow them to create better photos. I say this because the people I refer to generally don't hold a camera properly and on the few occasions that I do see the results, they're not good. Perhaps it's snobishness, perhaps it's an expectation based upon experience...
Thanks, Jon. That's helpful.
I shoot action with a D750. 6.5fps and using a Tamron G1 , always at f2.8. Ive though many a time about moving to the D500 system with its better AF , but the image quality on the D750 awesome and the dynamic range is insane. I'll probbaly plump for a used d4s if anything.
I hab two FF Nikon bodies and several lenses. As a second System I had (have) a Fuji X-T2, some lenses and a Fuji X100F. I sold all my Nikon stuff, because I thought I'll don't need it anymore. Now I'm thinking about to rebuy one FF Camera an 2-3 lenses. I do miss some FF benefits (low light focusing, AF-C focus that works, compression of the lenses, nice glas like the new sigma 105 1.4...)!
Earlier this year I had to buy 3 new lenses and a proper camera. Thought it was a good time to buy Sony over Nikon and start the switch, mainly because of weight and size. After extensive research I bought a Nikon D850, 16-35/4, 28-300/3.5-5.6 & 50/1.4 (for with my D750 & 20/1.4 as a travel kit), which turned out cheaper, lighter and smaller than Sony alternatives.
Buying a smaller & lighter Sony A7 model to save +/- 300gr and some space, but having to buy a converter and extra batteries defeats the purpose. And in this case Nikon had better lens options for me.
That’s for my specific needs of course (many timelapses and need for battery power for example), but the benefits of mirrorless might not be what it seems.
How do you like your 28-300 on the D850? I have one and, while it's okay on my D810, I never feel inspired by the results whereas the photos from my 24-70, 70-200, 85, etc... make me smile!
not the best of combinations I admit, but when I travel I simply can't carry both my 24-70 and 70-200 and am happy enough to have the flexibility of the 28-300
In my case, it depends on the company. My wife will wait for me to change lenses. My adult children/siblings/in-laws/friends will not! ;-)
I shoot with Pentax APS-C gear. I have a couple of AF lenses (17-50 and 70-200) and with those, I can do all that I need to do with those. I find myself shooting film 90% of the time though. If you want to bust your ego, take that step backwards. You can get great resolution out of a 35mm frame but you need to nail everything. It is not easy. It is not quick. It is not convenient. And, add to that that the gear will be lighter and smaller...win- win.
This article has me rethinking myself, I have shot film both 35mm and medium format since the mid 80s, over 5 years ago I decided to 'try out' Digital. I started with a Kodak 10.1 MP fixed lens camera. Shortly thereafter I bought (2) Nikon D3100, one first but liked it so much I bought the 2nd one because it was a deal and came with the same kit lens plus a telephoto zoom lens, so now I had 2 cameras and 3 lenses. Even though these are entry-level ‘amateur’ camera I have had many successful shoots and even had clients start paying me to take their photos.
I found a few more deals bought 2 more Nikon D3300 (red) because I liked that they were different color than the standard black/gray plus the MP upgrade. Along the way I acquired a few more lenses, most notably an 85mm, 105mm, 120mm, 135mm and 140mm; all great portrait lenses. I also discovered BBF (Back Button Focus) how anyone is not shooting with BBF or why is beyond me; it literally changed my Life!
A friend from church was having issues with his Nikon and asked me if I could look at it because he knew I was a pro photographer and must know something more than him. We chatted and he showed me photos he’d taken and I quickly discovered: 1) He had a better camera than me, a Nikon D5300. 2) He wasn’t taking full advantage of the camera’s internal Focus Grid System. 3) he was using the center focus point only and not placing it directly on his subject which meant most time the camera on Auto-focus was focusing on the background and his subject wasn’t in focus. 4) I showed him about the BBF and he tried all these out, told me about a week later that he was still getting used to the BBF but that his photo were vastly improved and it was so much easier to not get blur from hitting the focus/shutter button and having the camera try to refocus as he was taking the photo. I sent him a few video links on YouTube and he watched them and told him to read his manual, which he was glad he did. He didn’t know all the capabilities his camera had that he wasn’t taking advantage of.
I liked his camera so much I went out and bought myself a D5300. I was at a shootout a few weeks after I had setup my camera and shot a whole bunch of photos that day switched out a few cards and when I got home found out one of my cards was corrupted and the images irretrievable. That upset me. I did some research because I was glad it happened when I was ‘playing’ with my cameras and not getting paid because that would really have sucked to say the least. I bought a Nikon D7200 (dual cards), now I was good and covered for doing photography and safer against a corrupted card and loss of all those photos.
I had people still telling me and all this talk everywhere about Full-frame cameras, not really a truly professional photographer until you are using a Full-Frame Camera, Full-Frame this and Full-Frame that. So finally I went out and bought a Nikon D810 36 MP Camera. First impression Bigger, Bulkier, hellaciously more expensive but I can use all my DX lenses on it so that was a plus. I’ve used it quite a lot the first few months mostly on paid shoots and in studio. I don’t like taking it out in public (Fear of getting robbed) or out in the field (fear of getting it wet, dropped, damaged and the bulkiness and weight of it is prohibitive).
So now I truly am a ‘True Professional Photographer’ because I own and if I so choose to shoot with it a proper Full-Frame Camera. To tell the truth I mostly still shoot with the D3300s and my D7200 just because it has the dual cards; even in the Studio I like my D3300s an my D5300 because my arm won’t get tired before the day is even half over. When I do use the D810 its usually mounted on a tripod or on a body rig system I got so I carry the weight on my body and just use my hands to ‘use’ the camera not actually carry it.
As for the quality of my photos when people look at them, they can’t tell which photos were taken with which cameras but because I have a D810 Full-Frame Camera I’m a ‘True Professional Photographer’ now.
Ego is not in the way its money simple. Camera shops need us to spend money on kit to keep going so thy tell us the next best thing is better and we must have it. £3000, and a few more thousand on a lens because the kit lens is "crap" and the cost keeps rising, so I will remain with what I can afford and just keep away from unnecessary dept.
I'm a huge believer in the "use the right tool for the job". And for me the right tool isn't limited to image quality. How dare I say that!!! Easily, if most of my images are going to be web based or printed at poster size a modern crop sensor is going to give me the quality I need. Now comes the real part of the "right tool for the job". Most of my work is photographing professional motocross and supercross motorcycle racing. A typical day for a Monster Energy Supercross race is to arrive at the stadium around 8:30 AM and start photographing around 9:00 AM. I hit the pits, walk the track, get environmental shots of the stadium and then start shooting the qualifying action around noon. Last race finishes around 10:00 PM, hit the press conference and then to the photo den to upload my photos to my client. I walk out around 12;30 AM. I end up walking around 8 miles for each race. Shooting with a crop sensor and a 70-200 and another crop sensor with a 24-70 provides me the reach I need and keeps the weight down. If I shot with a full frame I would need that 300 mm F/2.8 which after shooting all day is a killer. My kit weighs less and cost less. I save cash and save wear and tear on my body and at 52 this becomes more important every year. So for me the right tool for the job is a crop sensor. I currently use the D500 and have to say I love it. No limitations of that body that are holding me back at this time. Of course a full frame may be the correct tool for someone else. Let the right tool decide what you shoot and not your ego.
I had a double whammy ego about full frame and RAW. Pro's shoot big cameras and shoot RAW right? But then I bought a fuji x100s (used) and that changed a lot for me! All of a sudden I was shooting a "point and shoot" in JPEG and I was LOVING photography again. I still shoot on a crop now, and none of my clients even notice and I shoot portraits a lot, (so that shallow depth of field is what everyone loves). Hope you find a system that works!
I enjoy the look that comes with larger sensors. Full frame small format is a good size where you have a great lens and accessory variety. You get better tones and a better look with larger sensors.
That being said a pro was hired to photograph a family gathering. He took most shots wide open with a D800 and a 2.8 zoom. Most of his photos had people badly out of focus. I would have been happier if he had shot with a crop camera, which would have meant more people in focus which is what we care about more than a bit higher image quality.
I too have left full frame for both APS-C and MF. I took the Fuji train and couldn't be more pleased. Like others, I've never had a client ask what camera I used or it's resolution. It's up to me to decide if the job is best done with either APS-C or MF. It's working.
Standard head, Phillips or Torx? Right tool for the job. The rest is NOISE!
I have a Fujifilm X-T2 and a Sony A7III and was doing some comparisons, but really the best judge of the issue is my girlfriend. She doesn't know what a sensor is and cannot tell the 2 cameras apart (I actually hid one in plain view this way for a while), but when I show her the pictures she unmistakably and always picks the Sony versions with comments about how the Fuji ones look flat and stale in comparison, and how the Sony ones look spacious and vivid. If you look at the subtelties of light and shadow, the difference is noticable right away.
I've switched from my Nikon D700 full frame and all those lenses, However, since I did, I changed career. Went from advertising in NYC to fine art and... I retired ! Starting a new career in art and publishing photo books (although I'm just finishing material for my 1st book but more books lined up). I shoot with an all-in-one, first with a Fuji HS10 and now wi a Leica V-Lux114 which has a 1" sensor. I'm happy with my results.
Sounds like your prayers are about to be answered, with Caniikon joining Sony in flogging mirrorless to everyone. Except then you'll have backlit screens, problems finding screens that tilt in enough directions to suit you, ELV's and other substitutes for TTL viewfinders.
The day some dude produces a "perfect camera" he'll be trampled to death in the rush/stampede to buy one!
Age requires change. I was shooting stills with 5DM2, 7D, broadcast video via ENG -- and about the same time when the business went south so did my arthritis. I switched 100% to 3 separate sensors. All Sony ... FF, APS and 1". Never looked back. Right tool right job. Carry half the weight now in gear. KISS. Still having a blast. Make a little sell a little. And of course its not the camera anyway.
Why stop at APS-C.. Just sell everything and shoot with your iPhone. I heard it's as good as DSLRs now. Lol!
You're right iPhone is good for normal to wide angle, I doubt that add-on lenses will do a great job.
Went from 35mm film, to 2-1/4, to 4x5, to 8x10, back to 4x5, then 2- 1/4, then back to 35mm ( Nikon D700), and finally M4/3 ( Olympus}. No change in my sales!
I'm a Realtor and love my crop sensor mirrorless. The photos I get work as well for what I need as what I get when I use the Canon 5D MK III. The weight savings is priceless. But, I'm saving my pennies for a full frame mirrorless. Still a great weight savings with the full frame functionality!
You are aware that some mirrorless cropped sensor cameras have two dials (or even three), right?
Check out the Panasonic Lumix G9, it the Olympus OM-D E-M1 III/EM-1X. They are professional cameras, with ergonomics to match. Just with a smaller sensor. I think you'd be surprised by the image quality, as well.
I'm certain its an excellent camera. I'm just used to Canon and have built everything around it. I recently partially killed my M6 and had to move up sooner than expected. So far the little canon RP is doing the trick. I'm planning to fix the M6 at some point because I think its an excellent set up for someone down the road.
Swapped my full frame 1D series Canons for an APS-C equipped 7D mark II (same twin cards, weather sealing, high frame rate and amazing AF in a smaller, lighter, less costly body) and have never enjoyed photography more. The IQ is excellent and capable of making enormous prints. And for all the hype on the internet about modern zooms being as good as primes I find the two least costly lenses in my outfit give me much more detailed and generally better lookig images than any of Caanon's 24-something zooms. The lenses in question are the 24mm f/2.8 STM and 50mm f/1.8 version 1 ... a 1980's vintage lens!