Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

New to the forum here, but not to photography. I'm thinking about trying out Sony, ie. full frame mirrorless for my landscape needs. A bit of background first: I currently use a Fuji x100F (35mm FOV) for my versatile everyday and travel photography that includes many landscapes. I use m4/3 for wildlife and some landscape telephoto because I like the crop factor and size/weight combination. Of course, with these crop factors, the sacrifice is that wide angles and low light situations are more difficult. I'm perfectly satisfied with the 'image quality' from these sensors though. I first got into photography with APS-C canon/nikon but have left them because I like the EVF of the mirrorless world as well because they were too bulky for me.

 

So I'm wondering, for people that have gone from crop factors to FF sony, what differences have you noticed with regards to image quality for landscapes and/or increased size of your kit? I don't care too much about DoF advantages of full frame when it comes to portraits, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FF live view makes excellent use of my 

flock of decades-old FF lenses and I've 

been enjoying that for a few years now. 

  

Other than that aspect, I've not found 

any significant advantages of FF. I've 

really found more useful advantages in 

the APS and 4/3 format ... phenomenal  

DoF, fast lenses, 50MP stills, etc etc. 

   

Beware the "placebo effect" of FF. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FF live view makes excellent use of my 

flock of decades-old FF lenses and I've 

been enjoying that for a few years now. 

  

Other than that aspect, I've not found 

any significant advantages of FF. I've 

really found more useful advantages in 

the APS and 4/3 format ... phenomenal  

DoF, fast lenses, 50MP stills, etc etc. 

   

Beware the "placebo effect" of FF. 

Good to know, I've actually heard of that reason from others as well. I'm from a younger generation, so those manual legacy lenses are mysterious and unfamiliar to me. As of now, there isn't any native glass that would make me want to jump into the system, especially at the high cost of entry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Make sure camera and lens is updated to latest firmware. 
    • ISO 320 is the A7R5's second base ISO setting. You will find at ISO 320 you will get better results than even ISO 200. I normally take a set of shots at 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO. I am taking 60 light frames and 10 dark frames. I don't do any adjustments to the files before stacking. I really need to get organised and do some bias frames now. Here is pretty much my first successful Milky Way shot from a few months ago. I was combatting a bit of ambient light and quite a lot of cloud but I'm pretty happy with this. It was shot using my Sigma 16-28 f2.8 which is better at astro than I had anticipated, at ISO 1600.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • Thanks for the information. Since my original post, I did some "experiments" at different iso settings. Best results were obtained at iso 320, and then increasing the exposure by four stops in Lightroom. The biggest difference compared to using a higher iso was that there was detail in dark foreground areas, while at high iso the dark areas were blocked. This is consistent with articles I've read about ISO invariance.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...