Is full frame over rated?
Depends what you use it for. I shoot a lot of low light stuff so FF makes sense for me
>>2868262
Compared against the most modern APS-C? Yeah, for the most part, though there are exceptions.
For instance, according to some testing, the XPro2 is only about a half stop behind the A7II at high ISO performance. Though it's nowhere near the A7sII, most full frame isn't either.
If you're not a gearfag, then yes, it's overrated.
>>2868299
Gearfaggotry has nothing to do with the supposed benefits of full frame.
>>2868262
is this movie good?
>>2868300
It really does. Other than mostly "on paper" benefits that don't do much for most people shooting in the real world, what is there? Especially considering all the really great really wide lenses available on APS-C now (as well as the fact that almost nobody will ever use an ultra mega stuper wide like something 8mm on full frame, for instance)
>>2868300
Keep telling this to yourself mate.
>>2868316
comfy af.
>>2868262
For portraits and low light capabilities its not overrated. For everything else, it shouldn't be better then APS-C, but the problem is that companies mostly don't make good lenses designed specifically for crop sensor bodies.
Crop is superior for wildlife, many pros use it for that and sports, but Canikon refuses to make pro lenses for those cameras, because it is in their interest to sell more expensive full frame glass. It's understandable why Canikon avoids making them, but I don't understand why there isn't more third party high quality telephotos for aps-c and mft cameras.
>>2868365
>for portraits where you can't be bothered to find a background, and merely want to bokeh-whore as hard as possible, or for shitty light situations where your shot is most likely going to look like sweaty fuck anyways, it's not overrated
You forgot some words.
>>2868365
Why would they make superior quality glass for crop cameras when the full frame stuff fits into crops natively?
Crop sensor cameras are for consumer market. Not pro. Why would they make more expensive glass exclusively for less expensive cameras which can never be used again when upgrading camera body?
>>2868375
>Why would they make superior quality glass for crop cameras when the full frame stuff fits into crops natively?
Because it's a waste of money, glass, size, and weight.
>>2868375
>Crop sensor cameras are for consumer market. Not pro.
That is a completely artificial construct. Smaller sensors have an advantage in reach and should be taken more seriously by manufacturers for wildilfe and sports, but its not in their interest because their most expensive full frame lenses are made for these purposes.
>>2868369
>for portraits where you can't be bothered to find a background
You forgot a slight advantage in color depth.
>shitty light situations where your shot is most likely going to look like sweaty fuck anyways
Crop sensor shooting image quality snob, lol at them sour grapes. Most iconic war photos ever taken look sweaty as fuck.
>>2868387
>You forgot a slight advantage in color depth.
Can you express that advantage with a single pair of sample photos?
>>2868376
I doubt a 500 f/4 for APS-C would be significantly cheaper than a 500 f/4 for full frame.
The smaller image circle doesn't reduce the size of the front element.
I think at the most a few elements towards the rear could be made smaller.
>>2868432
>500 f/4
??? Because THAT's a lens that most people are buying, right?
Compare the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 against the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Compare the Fuji 23mm against the canon 35. Compare the Fuji 56 against the Canon 85. Compare the Fuji 16-55 against the Canon 24-70.
>>2868460
We were discussing sports and wildlife.
>>2868473
Fuji 100-400 compared against a competitor? I genuinely don't know on that one.
Also, you can shoot wildlife, but then you can also shoot other things with it...
>>2868479
Why do you keep mentioning Fuji?
The question was why Canon/Nikon doesn't make sports and wildlife lenses for crop cameras.
And my answer is: because they would be just as heavy and expensive as a full frame version.
Not even sure that Fuji 100-400 is full frame or not, but it's not cheaper than the Canon and Nikon versions anyways.
Mannequin was filmed at Woolworths.
>>2868365
What? Full frame lenses fit on crop bodies m80. You want someone to design a new design, limited only to crop bodies, for what reason?
>>2868460
What the fuck are you talking about. Fucking Fuji shills everywhere.
>i love shitty cropped fov and being cucked out of many types of photography
>i love garbage dof
>I FUCKING LOVE NOISE IN MY IMAGES!!!
???
dumb cropcucks
>>2868694
Retarded. If you are too weak to hold a crop DSLR and a full frame lens, perhaps consider a bridge camera, or mft. I like that if I ever want to go to ff, I don't need to buy lenses again. If I want to sell lenses, they are also worth more, as I'm not restricted to selling them only to crop owners. You can buy ef-s lenses if thats what really floats your boat, but the limited number of them should tell you that the market is limited, otherwise the manufacturer would offer more crop only lenses, as they could make money.
Stop being a whiney little bitch, and use ff glass. It's not hard.
>>2868270
Sensors the same in the a7 and the fuji doesnt have ibis so makes for a better comparison.
So a camera that costs nearly twice as much, weighs more, is physically larger, has no tilting screen and hit the shelves almost 3 years later nearly compares on specs?
This is why crop is a joke
Also the fuji 35mm sucks dicks compared to sonys 55mm, look at the bokeh rendering in pic related https://photosbyjohnathan.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/dscf5188-copy.jpg
>>2868835
Holy fuck the fuji looks disgusting in comparison, why is everyone raving about these lenses and bodies?
>>2868835
That's the worst comparison image I've seen this year. I really hope that's not your website senpai.
>>2868854
>shows bokeh in foreground and background
>shows sharpness
>shows chromabs
>shows you're a sour fuji user
kthxbi
>>2868835
Really like 50 mm from canon
>>2868858
The anon was right though. The test sucks balls. I don't give a fuck which of the lenses is best, but that test is pathetic.
>>2868882
bitter fuji anon is bitter.
They're all focused on the bin, sorry if your fuji was processed in LR so it's soft as shit
the perspective is matched
the subject is irrelevant, what's relevant is it shows sharpness, CA, bokeh front & back, vignette and colour.
It was in response to >>2868270 I clarified why the x-pro 2 is an awful buy in comparison to what Sony is offering, both with regards to bodies and lenses.
If image quality isn't important to you, then sure be happy with your Fuji, but that wasn't the question at hand.
>>2868865
another salty Fuji owner
>>2868804
You are dumb.
>>2868316
I grew up in the 80's and we had this, Police Academy and few others on VHS rotation during the weekends. Wanted to fuq that 'Roxie' bitch
>>2868300
>supposed
>>2868835
WHY THE FUCK DID THIS STUPID WEBSITE TELL ME FUJI WAS BETTER THAN SONY.
$3'000 down, too late to return, shoulda listened to my heart and got the sony, the 55mm looks gorgeous.
:'(
If it's within your budget I have no idea why someone would choose non-FF over FD. ESPECIALLY if the non-FF camera in question is of comparable size to a FF mirrorless camera.
>>2871769
That should read *non-FF over FF*
>>2871769
And if a second hand kit lens for said crop camera costs £200+, and if their expensive standard lens looks so shit, and if their autofocus is literally the worst available.
