Full Frame - body, lenses, mounts and more questions when going FF

5) And a closing summary:

Praise flying spaghetti monster as i am cured... @TimG aka "The Voice of Reason" (this should be your new official title) wins

After a week of digging around and crunching numbers, I came to the conclusion that for now, any upgrade to FF is simply not worth it. Any image quality increase comes with huge cost and weight increase. And the only way to have significant quality increase is to go for not-so-entry-anymore bodies where costs skyrocket.
At this point this stops making sense and might as well go for dSLR - seem to have both better quality, much bigger lenses ecosystem (including fisheye) and on occasion even weight less, not to mention can cost half of what a corresponding FF system (with top tier body).
In other words, FF might or might not be the future, time will tell, but its not there yet technologically it seems. And once we factor in the cost, it becomes a rather questionable choice. The only exception could be Canon - the R5 seems to be getting real praise and their lens ecosystem is also huge (only FF with fisheye it seems). But that is nowhere near an entry level camera, with a significant price tag.

And yes, weight does play a huge role for me - while it might be less relevant in the US/Canada, as it seems luggage is both cheaper and often operated on the piece (rather than weight) concept, Europe is going to hell. So to give you an example based on Singapore Airlines - extra 1x 23kg  in Economy class in long haul costs 280 USD in piece concept. Or 42 USD per kg in weight concept. So 23 x 42 = 966 USD for any non US/Canadian route.
Before we had high prices but great service. Then crappy service but low prices. Now we have the worst of both worlds - high prices and crappy service. And this translates to luggage - (from recent experience trying to book a flight to Indonesia from mainland Europe) more and more airlines think that 25 (or even 23) kg is enough for long haul, or remove checked luggage altogether in some idiotic "economy light" classes. Similarly hand luggage is often limited to 1 piece/7kg. And i am talking about major airlines here. So good luck stuffing your dive gear and camera, not to mention such silly things like clothes. And those few extra kilos will often cost you few hundred EUR extra minimum, sometimes so much that it is cheaper to book another ticket than pay for the extra weight. And it is only going to get worse I fear.

Also another interesting discussion  has developed, with some very interesting comments on the subject so linking it here purely due to a related subject:
https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/69437-mirrorless-cameras-opportunity-or-necessary-evil/

There are also new lenses coming for M4/3 system, possibly including 100-150mm macro. I have been also looking into the Olympus side following the feedback of @ChrisRoss , @hyp and @Davide DB (somehow ended up on Panasonic one without any particular reason), and perhaps this could be something to try instead of the whole FF thing - grab a EM1 M2/M3 body and see how it goes. OM1 looks amazing, but as its "latest and greatest" there is rather little chance of getting body or housing 2nd hand, meaning a significanly higher cost at this point.  But lets see how it goes, I am not in any rush

On a side note i just hate Olympus naming, all those Olympus O-MD E-M1 Mark III like names literally make half of search engines barf. All those lovely dashes, marks, numerals, and then lets name a newest camera the same as our 50 year old one that litters half of internets

Thank you all for the feedback though and sorry for the wall of text

1 hour ago, makar0n said:

Praise flying spaghetti monster as i am cured... @TimG aka "The Voice of Reason" (this should be your new official title) wins

After a week of digging around and crunching numbers, I came to the conclusion that for now, any upgrade to FF is simply not worth it. Any image quality increase comes with huge cost and weight increase. And the only way to have significant quality increase is to go for not-so-entry-anymore bodies where costs skyrocket.

The Voice of Reason: saving one photographer at a time..... 

1 minute ago, TimG said:

The Voice of Reason: saving one photographer at a time..... 

!!!!

IQ alone is insufficient rationale for up-sizing one's sensor size IMHO. One needs to be rather specific such as a desire to make really large prints that have been unsatisfactory with current gear.

I use FF. My main bodies are the Nikon D4S and Canon IDX that are used mostly in auto ISO mode with max ISO set, respectively, at 16000 and 12800 for available light shooting (spring to very early autumn). These cameras have resolution in the same ballpark as micro four thirds cameras but have about a 3-stop high ISO edge. With direct sunlight I typically get from ISO 5000 to my max (when a cloud blocks the sun). Use mainly fisheye lenses (so no real small lens apertures except with micro-dome). Need short exposures due to fish movement. Shallow water but at 60.5 degrees north latitude. The big batteries also help a lot because the mean water temp in my streams is 5C (actually measured by a graduate student).

Fair points, Tom. You’ve got very specialist needs which FF meets. That was a point I made - but for the average Joe, not so much. 

28 minutes ago, TimG said:

Fair points, Tom. You’ve got very specialist needs which FF meets. That was a point I made - but for the average Joe, not so much. 

Yes!!!

I think examples are needed! Many seem to want to upgrade without articulating a good rationale or two, etc. The average Joe might do well with something even less than what the OP has. I see a lot of Sealife and Go Pros when diving in Hawaii. The only local (to me) that has given an UW presentation used a Sony 100 model with wet lenses - the results wowed most people in the audience although the pix were not all that sharp. The projector may have been dodgy as well (I used a different venue when called).

13 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

Yes!!!

I think examples are needed! Many seem to want to upgrade without articulating a good rationale or two, etc. The average Joe might do well with something even less than what the OP has. I see a lot of Sealife and Go Pros when diving in Hawaii. The only local (to me) that has given an UW presentation used a Sony 100 model with wet lenses - the results wowed most people in the audience although the pix were not all that sharp. The projector may have been dodgy as well (I used a different venue when called).

The one problem we average Joe's have is articulating those rationales. since we do not have access to multiple bodies nor, living in cold, dark places, buddies with housings, to test things in the wet way...sometimes we get carried out with the "ooooo shiny shiny new toys" rationale, which then requires numbers therapy

On 6/22/2022 at 12:20 AM, makar0n said:

The one problem we average Joe's have is articulating those rationales. since we do not have access to multiple bodies nor, living in cold, dark places, buddies with housings, to test things in the wet way...sometimes we get carried out with the "ooooo shiny shiny new toys" rationale, which then requires numbers therapy

Yup - have to spend quite a bit of time on line. Zero people near to me with the same interests as well. No dive shops. No camera stores....

Nonetheless I have had to make the instant decision. This was the case when I ordered the Z6 - within the hour of its introduction. The live stream from Tokyo was at a good time for Alaska - in the evening of the previous day here. I had been in the market for a "sidekick" to my FF housed Nikons which I wanted to take on trips due to the Nikonos lenses (rather than the Canons that I had use up to then and had the 7D2 as my sidekick). I was challenged to decide between the 7200, 7500 and 500 as they each had pros and cons. With the Z6 there was no hesitation.

On 6/23/2022 at 8:22 PM, Tom_Kline said:

Yup - have to spend quite a bit of time on line. Zero people near to me with the same interests as well. No dive shops. No camera stores....

Nonetheless I have had to make the instant decision. This was the case when I ordered the Z6 - within the hour of its introduction. The live stream from Tokyo was at a good time for Alaska - in the evening of the previous day here. I had been in the market for a "sidekick" to my FF housed Nikons which I wanted to take on trips due to the Nikonos lenses (rather than the Canons that I had use up to then and had the 7D2 as my sidekick). I was challenged to decide between the 7200, 7500 and 500 as they each had pros and cons. With the Z6 there was no hesitation.

Just when i thought that it is Belgium that is in the middle of nowhere...well fair enough, Alaska wins in that category, your distances are multiple times of Belgium as a whole

Well was looking at Z6 but the housing, at least Nauticam one is one heavy piece (albeit allows for a "free" upgrade to Z7 as it accepts both). Luckily we Euros are safe from all those live stream temptations being usually soundly asleep.

I'll add my two cents as a current D850/Nauticam shooter.   I've been shooting this rig since 2019, and I shot a D810/Nauticam rig for 4 years before that.  Before that was 1 year with RX100 II (Nauticam) and a series of Canon point-n-shoots in Canon housings (SD630 through s120).

Each bigger camera has been harder to carry, and much more specialized once I got to DSLR's.  My latest iteration is even more specialized - D850 with snooted strobe on 105mm macro.  With the snoot, I'm very limited even in macro, and non-macro use of the lens in that configuration is almost eliminated.  I don't like fisheye, so my other option is 16-35 behind a 230mm dome.

Tends to be very specialized in what I shoot, and even when in terms in wide angle (sunny).  The weight and cost and logistics are horrendous.  My rig with 16-35 and 230mm dome with dual strobes is 32 pounds to carry to the water.  Same rig for macro is 20 pounds.

Why is this acceptable?

Because I've already got all the pics I can stand from point-n-shoots with no strobes, point-n-shoots with strobes (RX100), and standard and easy shots with D810 and D850.  I want something different, and that means different shots (or different locations too).  Hence my foray into snooted macro, which is high-risk, high-reward.  May not get many shots from it, simply due to having to be so close to subjects, but when I get something, it might be spectacular.

2 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

Hence my foray into snooted macro, which is high-risk, high-reward.  May not get many shots from it, simply due to having to be so close to subjects, but when I get something, it might be spectacular.

Amen to that!

For "might", I'm sure there's a fair few "is"!

11 hours ago, phxazcraig said:

I'll add my two cents as a current D850/Nauticam shooter.   I've been shooting this rig since 2019, and I shot a D810/Nauticam rig for 4 years before that.  Before that was 1 year with RX100 II (Nauticam) and a series of Canon point-n-shoots in Canon housings (SD630 through s120).

Each bigger camera has been harder to carry, and much more specialized once I got to DSLR's.  My latest iteration is even more specialized - D850 with snooted strobe on 105mm macro.  With the snoot, I'm very limited even in macro, and non-macro use of the lens in that configuration is almost eliminated.  I don't like fisheye, so my other option is 16-35 behind a 230mm dome.

Tends to be very specialized in what I shoot, and even when in terms in wide angle (sunny).  The weight and cost and logistics are horrendous.  My rig with 16-35 and 230mm dome with dual strobes is 32 pounds to carry to the water.  Same rig for macro is 20 pounds.

Why is this acceptable?

Because I've already got all the pics I can stand from point-n-shoots with no strobes, point-n-shoots with strobes (RX100), and standard and easy shots with D810 and D850.  I want something different, and that means different shots (or different locations too).  Hence my foray into snooted macro, which is high-risk, high-reward.  May not get many shots from it, simply due to having to be so close to subjects, but when I get something, it might be spectacular.

Hi Craig,

Just out of curiosity: when once Nikon will have mirrorless bodies, both for DX and FX, that offer better IQ and AF compared to the present D500/D850 and you will be at the stage of upgrading - would you switch to DX (because of the immense stuff to carry) or remain with FX (because you prefer the ultimate IQ)?

Wolfgang

On 6/25/2022 at 11:43 PM, Architeuthis said:

Hi Craig,

Just out of curiosity: when once Nikon will have mirrorless bodies, both for DX and FX, that offer better IQ and AF compared to the present D500/D850 and you will be at the stage of upgrading - would you switch to DX (because of the immense stuff to carry) or remain with FX (because you prefer the ultimate IQ)?

 

Wolfgang

Hah!   Far from it - I've got a Z9 on order, with the aim of getting it into a Nauticam housing.  Even more bulk than I carry now.  I've already got the 105s macro and the 50F1.8s lenses sitting here, plus an FTZ II.  Waiting for Nikon to ship me the Z9.

Now as for this being better IQ and AF, I'm figuring marginal differences there.   Shooting the D850 at ISO 64 is ... about as good as it gets for IQ, given good lens and lighting.   Z9 is still only 45mp, which I already have.   And I've got no complaints about the D850 autofocus.  I started using 3D while at the Digital Shootout in Bonaire and was quite happy with it.  I see the Z9 as being at least that good, which is all I need.

Where I see a BIG difference coming is in video, and live view still shooting.   This will help me walk a snooted focus beam onto a subject whereas the D850 was just useless in that situation when it came to autofocus.

Mostly this is just gear acquisition syndrome, probably coupled with last camera syndrome.  If I don't treat myself now, it will never happen.  The cost difference is completely unjustifiable - but then so were all the previous cameras and lenses!