[Closed] Full frame or cropped

toby1
but you do say what type of photography you want the FF for?

Well yeah, [b]mostly product in-situ at shops and restaurants[/b] so weight is not the biggest factor. But it is helpful that it doesn't way too much, my wife isn't all muscle!

Right so based on that, a decent support and light enhancers should be first. A (decent) tripod is a total no brainer photographic item imo. If you haven't got any flash equipment then that's where you can buy some shiny. I'd personally start with some small reflectors.

[quote'you know what, I don't think there's much of a difference'.

You know what I don't think there's any difference.
But I don't have to lug about a DSLR, and I get far more enjoyment composing my image and setting the camera than i did on my fully auto SLR.
I know more people will knock the Leica system than praise it. Yes, it was expensive, but I didn't work shifts for 30 years without rewarding myself at the end. I like my camera, it gives me enormous satisfaction, as does my moderately expensive bike, which doesn't let me ride as fast as Chris Froome, nor does my camera allow me to take pictures like Cartier Bresson. Its a choice I made it, you don't have to like it.

But I also got a used Fujifilm X-Pro 1. Which, frankly, makes me wonder whether (apart from for fast action) I will ever need a DSLR again. You have been warned...

Can confirm, the x-pro 1 is great. The only downside is the focusing speed, it's only adequate with the firmware updates.

Takes great pics though, I want a Pro 2 now - but its a lot of money. For an APS-C cameria, the Pro 1s iso performance is superb.

I want a rugged, elementaly sealed, tough camera that can withstand a lot of abuse. My camera got a lot of mud splashed on it at the weekend, yet a quick wipe with a damp cloth and it's fine. Lighter, smaller cameras tend not to be so well protected. Adding in space for dust/water seals, and manufacturing chassis out of metal, means extra bulk and weight. Having seen cheaper cameras fall apart, I am happy to pay the weight and size penalty.

The Pro-2 is weather sealed.

"I like my camera, it gives me enormous satisfaction, as does my moderately expensive bike, which doesn't let me ride as fast as Chris Froome, nor does my camera allow me to take pictures like Cartier Bresson. Its a choice I made it, you don't have to like it."

Calm down dear! 😆 I wasn't making judgments about you or your choices.

The Leicas are undeniably lovely pieces of equipment. I'd love to try one out. I've used Leicas in the past, and there's no comparison in terms of how well made they are, and many of their lenses are truly excellent. And I'm sure it's a joy to own, just like many other nice things. But I suspect for most people, Leicas are simply too expensive for what they need. Believe me, I've looked into a Leica system, but I don't believe it will give me a significant return in terms of investment, over the equipment I already have. I think with film, you at least knew you were buying something that would probably long outlast other brands, but with digtal, I'm unwilling to invest so much money in something that will be technically inferior to something a lot cheaper, in just a short space of time. In that sense, I don't believe Leicas offer good value for money for my own needs. I really do get the point about size though; the M-series is truly pocketable.

The Pro-2 is weather sealed.

It's APS-C though.

Clodhopper...........ok chill pills taken.

I can justify the Leica system, because I look at it not as an investment nor a camera that will improve my photography, but as a piece of equipment that is for me a joy to own.

Yes, I know it will loose value, most things do, though I have to say I recently sold a lens that I'd owned for a couple of years and had been used a lot, for 1 penny more than I'd bought it for. I don't consider that a bad buy!

I don't know what size pockets you have, but there is no way my camera and lens would fit in any of my pockets!

On the Leica front, I think they are lovely looking devices and I'm sure they take excellent shots, I couldn't justify the cost, but it doesn't stop me being envious of those who have/can 🙂

I'm all for buying things you use, if those things are more or less expensive just enjoy them, which it sounds like you do.

I can justify the Leica system, because I look at it not as an investment nor a camera that will improve my photography, but as a piece of equipment that is for me a joy to own.

I think the point is that you really don't need to justify it to anyone. As with bikes, life is too short to own crappy (camera) products that aren't enjoyable to use.

The Leica SL is an interesting proposition though. At first the commentary was 'why so big, what's the point of a mirrorless camera that is as big as a DSLR?' but that opinion seems to have softened and now people see it as being a professional level body, capable of performing to the high levels that a Pro photographer would need but with the other advantages of mirrorless. Not sure what they are apart from the live view/EVF that is.

I've yet to use the SL properly, I've messed around with one but there's not yet enough around to borrow one.
What I do like is the ability via adapters to change lens systems. You can if you want fit M lenses and they don't look out of place, and obviously you have superb lenses, albeit they require manual focussing which isn't quite so easy with Live View.

I personally wouldn't want the SL, it goes back to being a big camera, a route I'd already gone down via the Canon system, I think I've moved on; I don't want to carry all that equipment. I now like the portability of the smaller FF systems.

which isn't quite so easy with Live View.

Interesting; I presume it has focus peaking and magnified view, both of which can be set to work automatically when an M lens is sttached? Still, while I've never really properly used and certainly not even closely mastered the art of manual focusing a range finder, I have been told by those that have that it is very quick and easy to do once you've built the muscle memory to the extent that it can be as quick in the real world as AF.

As for the size, that is the thing I don't quite get. Yes the SL will be much more manageable with M lenses (and aesthetically it works really well I think), but then I guess you do wonder what the advantage is of that set up over an M240.

Have you seen the images of the 90-200 that's coming? I honestly thought it was an early April fools it's so big. It's like a bazooka and that's even compared to the monster lens the SL was launched with.

Still, while I've never really properly used and certainly not even closely mastered the art of manual focusing a range finder, I have been told by those that have that it is very quick and easy to do once you've built the muscle memory to the extent that it can be as quick in the real world as AF.

"Clodhopper...........ok chill pills taken."

🙂

Re Leica etc: I used to be somewhat of a traditionalist; you don't need autofocus, manual exposure is best, motordrives are pointless, and digital? Work of Satan! But the reality for me is that many advances and innovations have in fact helped improve my photography, to the point where I now depend on them quite a lot. My eyesight isn't what it was, and manual focusing is becoming increasingly difficult, so autofocus is an absolute boon. Complex light metering systems take the guesswork out of exposure, and all sorts of technology enables me to think less about the machine, and more about the image. Gone are the days of processing rolls of film to discover I'd set the wrong ISO...

Would modern technology have made Henri Cartier-Bresson a 'better' photographer? Or would it simply have enabled him to take 'different' pictures? I think some of the images we see now are on another level, because people are able to exploit the technology to their advantage, to capture the image they want. It's all good though, and I'm happy to have an Ansel Adams or H C-B print up in my home.

"I think the point is that you really don't need to justify it to anyone."

Definitely. The justification comes in the pleasure in using it, and the images it produces. Absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Life suddenly becomes so much more enjoyable when you realise this. It's not unlike finally sloughinh off the last vestiges of Catholic guilt about sex! I know, I'm talking from experience.

Yes the SL does have focus peaking and yes it does have a magnified view; its a personal thing, but i find the Live View takes away some of the clarity, and I'm not that confident in me being totally accurate with the focus when using the LV.
I too have older eyes and don't find the Leica at all difficult to focus via the rangefinder. No, its not easy at first, you have to get in a fair amount of practice before you feel confident, especially if the lens is fully open at 1.2 or the like. Having said that, you get the subject you want in focus. I sometimes found on my DSLR it made a decision for me, and sometimes it focussed on something I didn't want it to.
Using a Leica rangefinder is somewhat different to a DSLR, I feel you have to think a bit more about what and how you are taking that picture. I like that process, I don't just reel off a load of digital images, I stop ,look, think and compose before taking the photograph. The camera doesn't make me a better photographer, but slowing down the capture process I think does.

I too have older eyes and don't find the Leica at all difficult to focus via the rangefinder.

Having said that, you get the subject you want in focus. I sometimes found on my DSLR it made a decision for me, and sometimes it focussed on something I didn't want it to.

Yeah I've read that a few times in a few places but there is something I've never really understood. I always shoot with a specified focus point in the frame, usually on the right vertical line of thirds and the top third line intersect or in slap bang in the centre, where I use focus and recompose. I never get the focus point wrong (ok sometimes I do but it's usually marginal).

Do people with DSLRs really use rely on the camera making the decision on the focal point?

Do people with DSLRs really use rely on the camera making the decision on the focal point.

Probably those who know what they are doing don't rely on the camera other than by mistake, but many who buy DSLR's have no idea on the cameras capabilities or their abilities.

I do try and compose and focus in thirds, but like your idea of focus on the intersection. Its should give the picture some order.

I do try and compose and focus in thirds, but like your idea of focus on the intersection. Its should give the picture some order.

It works really well for portraits. I use that point to place the closest eye as the focal point.