Downgrade from Full Frame to Crop?

Dael_Pix

Dael_Pix

Messages
1,678
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I currently own the camera and lenses that are in my signature.

If I were to downgrade, and use a camera for product photography (my own products), macro, landscape and wildlife, which camera (system) could I look at without the intention of owning a full frame.

But I do want a HDR function and the option to change shutter to electronic for faster speeds in wildlife photography.
 
Why would you want to downgrade for product photography?

I see no mention of lighting equipment in your signature, which is where I'd be looking if I wanted to go into product photography seriously.
 
product photography - lighting - good tripod and head - FF - good "macro" lens - F8 unless you want bokeh - low ISO - RAW files - PS and LR, etc.

control of the lighting on the subject
 
LCPete said:
I moved to full frame a few years ago no way I’d go back to crop
Click to expand...
Having owned a FF for a number of years, I used to think like that! There's no regrets with getting a mirrorless crop camera and with the correct lenses you can do exactly the same as with a FF. And some things you can do better than a FF.
 
Haych said:
Having owned a FF for a number of years, I used to think like that! There's no regrets with getting a mirrorless crop camera and with the correct lenses you can do exactly the same as with a FF. And some things you can do better than a FF.
Click to expand...

works both ways, low light astro stuff, FF Yes, sports, crop extra reach, yes

Back to the original point, I thought you only just got your current equipment and want to change again? not sure that constantly changing is the answer
 
Dael_Pix said:
I currently own the camera and lenses that are in my signature.

If I were to downgrade, and use a camera for product photography (my own products), macro, landscape and wildlife, which camera (system) could I look at without the intention of owning a full frame.

But I do want a HDR function and the option to change shutter to electronic for faster speeds in wildlife photography.
Click to expand...
Sidestep not downgrade.
 
Sell the r5 and the 5d
Buy a r6 and r7.

Or just sell the r5 and buy the r7 for wildlife. If you feel you need the resolution. Might also free some cash for lighting.
Also buy @Garry Edwards lighting books if you’re thinking of learning product photography

And have a pop over to the lighting section and have a go at the challenges, it’s a great learning strategy with a small but perfectly formed support network.
 
No doubt I'm about to start a war but in my opinion, there are two types of photographer: those who want to get the image, regardless of perceived image quality, and those who will ignore a hundred good images, because they think there may be something not quite sharp enough in the extreme corners.

I'd recommend asking yourself which kind of photographer you really are and then moving on from there.
 
Why change from the R5? Down you want to 'downscale' ie go to a smaller and lighter system? I don't see the point of just changing the camera body.
 
I’ve been thinking.
If you still have the 5d IV then use that for landscape and product photography
Trade the R5 for an R7 and some lighting gear, that completes the set for all your needs R7 for wildlife, 5d for everything else.

If you really want in camera HDR (can’t think why you would) keep the R5 and sell the 5d to find the R7.

None of it is a ‘downgrade’ though, it’s about playing to the cameras strengths.

Some people never embrace the mindset that they’re tools not toys.

I could ‘do’ everything you want to do with a 40d, I use an R6 because it makes my life easier. And I’ve stopped using my 6d because the R6 is too much easier.

Re ‘in camera hdr’ your previous question gave you answers that ‘should’ have given you pause for thought.

In camera, the camera shoots and merges as it sees fit, it’s for people who understand challenging light but don’t want to faff with their pictures at home.

Auto exposure bracketing is for photographers who see challenging light and know that they can wring every ounce of quality out of the situation by starting with a bunch of raw files.

The use of ‘people’ and ‘photographer’ was done on purpose there.
 
A_S said:
works both ways, low light astro stuff, FF Yes, sports, crop extra reach, yes
Click to expand...

I utilise the best of both worlds now! The FF is better in low light for sure, that doesn't mean you will get cr@p images with a mirrorless crop.

Phil V said:
I could ‘do’ everything you want to do with a 40d, I use an R6 because it makes my life easier. And I’ve stopped using my 6d because the R6 is too much easier.
Click to expand...

I still sometimes use the 60D. I still use the 6dmk2 - it's a great camera and I doubt it will be redundant for a few more years, unless I can procure a R62 which isn't on my priority list of life. The R7 however is always first choice for almost everything now. I will not stop using the 6Dmk2 though when using it in tandem with the R7, I use the 6Dmk2 in situations where I am pushing the ISO for a fast shutter.

Phil V said:
Re ‘in camera hdr’ your previous question gave you answers that ‘should’ have given you pause for thought.

In camera, the camera shoots and merges as it sees fit, it’s for people who understand challenging light but don’t want to faff with their pictures at home.

Auto exposure bracketing is for photographers who see challenging light and know that they can wring every ounce of quality out of the situation by starting with a bunch of raw files.
Click to expand...

In camera HDR is for people that are too lazy to employ filters on the end of their camera and lens. And no amount of post process will replace a circular polariser filter!
 
David you mentioned that apart from product photography you will be doing Macro , landscape and wildlife
I can’t advise on product or landscape as I don’t have experience there
For macro though the camera you already have the R5 is fantastic for macro, I’ve been shooting macro since 2006 with Canon cameras and the R5 is the best camera I’ve ever used for macro , the detail that you can get from this camera is incredible and the focus stacking feature is so useful and easy to use
For wildlife the autofocus is excellent as well also image quality at even high ISO is excellent
 
Haych said:
In camera HDR is for people that are too lazy to employ filters on the end of their camera and lens. And no amount of post process will replace a circular polariser filter!
Click to expand...
I’m not a landscape shooter, but what filter helps with high dynamic range situations better than simply bracketing?
Genuine question, I fear I’m missing something.
 
I'm struggling to see reasons for going from FF to crop. I have RF style MFT and SLR style FF and although bulk and weight are body and lens dependant for me there really isn't any great bulk or weight saving with the bodies and lenses I have as none of them are pocketable and so have to go in a bag and the wights differences really are not (for me) significant. Cost can be pretty similar too, again depending on the specific kit choices.

All in all I'm just struggling to see why anyone with FF would sell up and go to APS-C or MFT.

As for the comment above about crop being able to do exactly the same as FF that just isn't the case for me as if I go looking for the differences I do see a distinct advantage in image quality for FF and it gets more obvious if you start pushing the envelope of what's possible.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I’m not a landscape shooter, but what filter helps with high dynamic range situations better than simply bracketing?
Genuine question, I fear I’m missing something.
Click to expand...

easier to use an ND grad than blending 2 images in my book, although less of an issue these days now bending is much easier - still with tree lines against a sky it is still better to use a filter for me.
 
In the beginning, full frame digital wasn't a thing. Then it became one. Some years later (I'm always behind the times), I caught up with it, dived in & was hooked. I can't imagine ever stepping back.

I know that the tech advances all the time, seeming to overcome the distance - but some image qualities are not strictly technical, and are about feel. Which has little to do with size, weight, or frames per second. People have different priorities. So the choice is personal.

Just do what you fancy. At least, hopefully, you'll find something out.

When Joseph Nicéphore Niépce was asked whether he'd like a bigger or smaller sensor, he replied 'Don't bother me now, mate, I'm busy'. In French, of course.
 
Last edited:
A_S said:
easier to use an ND grad than blending 2 images in my book, although less of an issue these days now bending is much easier - still with tree lines against a sky it is still better to use a filter for me.
Click to expand...
Again I’m no expert but an nd grad has a fixed line, and most of my images that have brighter and darker areas are irregular shapes.
It may be ‘easy’ to use an nd grad, but it’s not going to do the job IMHO
 
woof woof said:
All in all I'm just struggling to see why anyone with FF would sell up and go to APS-C or MFT.

As for the comment above about crop being able to do exactly the same as FF that just isn't the case for me as if I go looking for the differences I do see a distinct advantage in image quality for FF and it gets more obvious if you start pushing the envelope of what's possible.
Click to expand...

I still keep an Oly EM10ii - it's tiny. I could see a justification for downsizing sensor based on size/practicality for some. I kept it because it was small and I could carry it in a tiny pouch with a couple of primes.

APS-C is different - any size advantage is over FF is rather more marginal. So I can't see the point of sensor downsizing unless there's a specific feature in the APS-C system that provides an advantage for the OP.

As for performance? Well I'm an APS-C user and I don't feel I'm at a "distinct" disadvantage. I think there is a small advantage for FF. I think for most situations it's not tangible. Internet forums tend to exaggerate the importance some performance details - whether it be cars or computers or cameras. A car that can do 5.6s vs one that can do 7.3s on a 0-60 drag makes for a good youtube video or review and forum discussions - but in practical terms it likely won't get me from A to B on UK roads any quicker.
 
droj said:
In the beginning, full frame digital wasn't a thing. Then it became one. Some years later (I'm always behind the times), I caught up with it, dived in & was hooked. I can't imagine ever stepping back.

I know that the tech advances all the time, seeming to overcome the distance - but some image qualities are not strictly technical, and are about feel. Which has little to do with size, weight, or frames per second. People have different priorities. So the choice is personal.

Just do what you fancy. At least, hopefully, you'll find something out.

When Joseph Nicéphore Niépce was asked whether he'd like a bigger or smaller sensor, he replied 'Don't bother me now, mate, I'm busy'. In French, of course.
Click to expand...

Agree it’s personal preference, I used Canon crop cameras for years and happy with the results
About 4 years ago I got an ex demonstration 6D 2 full frame body and loved it as you say it’s personal preference
 
Phil V said:
Again I’m no expert but an nd grad has a fixed line, and most of my images that have brighter and darker areas are irregular shapes.
It may be ‘easy’ to use an nd grad, but it’s not going to do the job IMHO
Click to expand...
Reading the previous posts, I have to agree with you 100%.
No filter is going to have the same effect on DR (unless you have a straight separation, like a sea horizon) as bracketing, and bracketing will have the same effect over the whole image.
I use it probably most of the time, a 5 shot bracket is stored in my C1, so just a quick dial turn away., and so easy to process these days.

I have spent ages comparing the G9 with a 5Diii, and in "normal" use, there isn't much to choose between them, but each has the edge over the over in particular circumstances, but the worst one in any situation isn't terrible, just not quite as good.
 
droj said:
In the beginning, full frame digital wasn't a thing. Then it became one. Some years later (I'm always behind the times), I caught up with it, dived in & was hooked. I can't imagine ever stepping back.

I know that the tech advances all the time, seeming to overcome the distance - but some image qualities are not strictly technical, and are about feel. Which has little to do with size, weight, or frames per second. People have different priorities. So the choice is personal.

Just do what you fancy. At least, hopefully, you'll find something out.

When Joseph Nicéphore Niépce was asked whether he'd like a bigger or smaller sensor, he replied 'Don't bother me now, mate, I'm busy'. In French, of course.
Click to expand...
Ne me dérange pas maintenant, mon pote, je suis occupé.

Obviously ;)
 
Phil V said:
Again I’m no expert but an nd grad has a fixed line, and most of my images that have brighter and darker areas are irregular shapes.
It may be ‘easy’ to use an nd grad, but it’s not going to do the job IMHO
Click to expand...

Yes but you have soft grads and hard grads. Soft grads smooth the transition so in a fairly typical landscape scene, lets say at dusk where the shadows are long but the sky still bright and with many colours, a soft grad allows you to expose for the shaddows and darker areas and compensate for the sky ensuring you don't blow the highlights. The advantage of the soft being that the graduation is just that, graduated rather than a hard stop on the point where the glass/plastic becomes totally translucent.

Of course yes you could bracket whatever increments you like to solve that, but its still work in photoshop to mask and layer and combine the images etc - The grad acheives it in camera and saves on the processing time significantly.

Really helpful when shooting into a setting sun.
 
Last edited:
A_S said:
but its still work in photoshop to mask and layer and combine the images etc - The grad acheives it in camera and saves on the processing time significantly.

Really helpful when shooting into a setting sun.
Click to expand...


I don't use Photoshop, but in Affinity, you just select the images that form parts of the bracket, be that 3, 5 or 7 normally, and open them as a merge and job done.
No layers or masks (surprised Photoshop hasn't caught up)

You can then make adjustments if you wish, and it is quite likely that you may want to make some adjustments anyway even if you used a filter.

Hardly a significant amount of work.
 
A_S said:
Yes but you have soft grads and hard grads. Soft grads smooth the transition so in a fairly typical landscape scene, lets say at dusk where the shadows are long but the sky still bright and with many colours, a soft grad allows you to expose for the shaddows and darker areas and compensate for the sky ensuring you don't blow the highlights. The advantage of the soft being that the graduation is just that, graduated rather than a hard stop on the point where the glass/plastic becomes totally translucent.

Of course yes you could bracket whatever increments you like to solve that, but its still work in photoshop to mask and layer and combine the images etc - The grad acheives it in camera and saves on the processing time significantly.

Really helpful when shooting into a setting sun.
Click to expand...
I fully understand what grads are.
And IMHO evening out a high dynamic range is much more successful in post. It’s easier and better.

Feel free to disagree, but don’t assume I don’t understand.

With digital, there’s a small case to be made to use an ND filter, a ‘protection’ filter for adverse conditions and there’s sometimes a need for a CPL.

But every other filter can be done better in post. That’s just a fact.
 
Last edited:
A_S said:
Yes but you have soft grads and hard grads.
Click to expand...

There are circumstances where a grad may be better to get the shot in a single exposure.

My personal preference is for doing a bracket and then a merge in post. I don't carry grads any more.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I currently own the camera and lenses that are in my signature.

If I were to downgrade, and use a camera for product photography (my own products), macro, landscape and wildlife, which camera (system) could I look at without the intention of owning a full frame.

But I do want a HDR function and the option to change shutter to electronic for faster speeds in wildlife photography.
Click to expand...
I'd first ask why you want to do this, your current kit is able to do everything you want to do?
 
Speaking about product photography ONLY, there's no downside to having a larger, heavier camera and it makes no sense to go for something smaller. I don't like to generalise, but would say that most serious product photographers regard "full frame" to be a minimum, medium format digital is better, and some of us still shoot on large format.

But, and again for product photography only, camera equipment is fairly unimportant. My own order of importance is
1. Thought
2. Knowledge
3. Lighting
4. Post-processing skills
5. Camera body
6. Lenses
 
Phil V said:
I fully understand what grads are.
And IMHO evening out a high dynamic range is much more successful in post. It’s easier and better.

Feel free to disagree, but don’t assume I don’t understand.

With digital, there’s a small case to be made to use an ND filter, a ‘protection’ filter for adverse conditions and there’s sometimes a need for a CPL.

But every other filter can be done better in post. That’s just a fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry phil - the implication of this line suggested you might not be fully aware:

Again I’m no expert but an nd grad has a fixed line, and most of my images that have brighter and darker areas are irregular shapes.
Click to expand...
 
A_S said:
Sorry phil - the implication of this line suggested you might not be fully aware:
Click to expand...
Yeah that’d be an easy mistake to make due to my wording :). I try to phrase my answers acknowledging I’m not the most knowledgeable on any subject.

So whilst saying I’m not ‘the expert’ I don’t mean I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, I’m inviting others with more knowledge to add from their experience.

Whether the grad is hard or soft, it’s still at a fixed point; and in my images, the transition is generally irregular.

But again, there’s no right or wrong. Grads work for some, and their opinion is valid, but for others merging in post (or even using exposure latitude and a single file) is a better method.
 
I agree with @Phil V on this.

Back in the days of film, when most keen photographers did their own printing, we could create the graduated effect with our enlargers, but digital photography (and digitising negatives via scanning) has made all filters redundant, although polarisers cannot be supplanted by Photoshop.

It's simply so much better, and so much easier, as well as being far more controllable, in post-processing. Not everyone likes to use Photoshop and that's fair enough, but it's still the best tool for the job. See https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/should-you-use-a-filter-on-your-lens.162/
 
Garry Edwards said:
I agree with @Phil V on this.

Back in the days of film, when most keen photographers did their own printing, we could create the graduated effect with our enlargers, but digital photography (and digitising negatives via scanning) has made all filters redundant, although polarisers cannot be supplanted by Photoshop.

It's simply so much better, and so much easier, as well as being far more controllable, in post-processing. Not everyone likes to use Photoshop and that's fair enough, but it's still the best tool for the job. See https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/should-you-use-a-filter-on-your-lens.162/
Click to expand...
I think ND grads still have a place such as a scene with movement in it where it might change between shots making HDR not a viable option, but on the whole I've been finding grad filters cause more problems that they solve.
 
Sangoma said:
I don't use Photoshop, but in Affinity, you just select the images that form parts of the bracket, be that 3, 5 or 7 normally, and open them as a merge and job done.
No layers or masks (surprised Photoshop hasn't caught up)

You can then make adjustments if you wish, and it is quite likely that you may want to make some adjustments anyway even if you used a filter.

Hardly a significant amount of work.
Click to expand...
You can do this in LR / PS it's merge to HDR
 
snerkler said:
I think ND grads still have a place such as a scene with movement in it where it might change between shots making HDR not a viable option, but on the whole I've been finding grad filters cause more problems that they solve.
Click to expand...
This is the only situation I use ND grads now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top