APS-C oder doch Vollformat?
Hey,
ich will mir eine neue richtige Kamera kaufen. Sie soll eine Allrounder sein also geeignet für Landschafts Fotografie, Tierfotografie, Portrait, usw.
Nach langer Recherche und YT Videos kommen zwei in Frage: Sony a6600 oder lumix s5. Beide kosten genau gleich viel, jedoch ist die lumxi ja FF aber die Objektive sind richtig teuer und es gibt nur wenige.
Langsam verzweifle ich und verliere den Durchblick.
Hat jemand Erfahrung oder irgendwelche Tipps. Würde mich sehr freuen 🙂
Danke schonmal !
(1 votes)
Loading...
I can only tell you that I am very happy with APS-C.
Full Frame is not always better. But you usually have a better dynamic range, less noise and more possibilities for Bokeh.
At Bokeh or low depth of field, it is so, you must also include the Crop factor on the aperture. For a Full Frame 50mm f2 lens, you need 33mm f1.3 on APS-C (at 1.5 crop factor). If Bokeh is important to you, then compare the lenses even after equvivalent aperture, often people compare it only with the full frame equivalent focal length.
At APS-C, of course, you have the advantage that you need a smaller focal length for a smaller image cut (more zoom) than with Full Frame. The Crop factor could be an advantage.
As I said, with dynamic volume and low light performance, Full Frame is usually better. If you compare that to the cameras and consider it important to you?
I’ve solved it so much, I didn’t really think about sensor size, but I’d just think about this low light performance I’ve seen from reviews, I’d like the bokeh with the lens that I’d probably buy and how well I like the body. Only in the dynamic range, I might want a tick more at my APS-C camera.
You also get to apsc crazy bokehs.
Have explained what you need to achieve the same effect on APS-C with the same perspective as on Full Frame.
The larger sensor is of advantage if you want such an effect.
Do you have any experiences with Stabis, do you need them for photography?
I am a big fan of Ibis (in body stabilisations, lenses can also have stabilisations, just teleobjectives).
As a result, I can be relatively careless if an objective has stabilization and low light shots without movement or if you want to consciously float movement is much easier.
However, you can also use a tripod.
with Ibis at the x t5 I get partly hand hero shots that are usable up to a second exposure. I don’t have any more pictures because I don’t have a calm hand either. With good light you don’t really need Ibis unless you want to consciously blur movement.
The longer you want to expose, the more you need a staff.
The heavier camera and lens, the more you need a rod.
Yes, of course, this also depends on the focal length, higher focal length = more bokeh and therefore Fullframe has an advantage
but of course this goes to aps-c, especially if you have good lenses or use high focal lengths 🙂
That’s what I mean.
I had to take my 60 f2.4 to APS-C portraits (head breast area). For example, I could not use the 2.4 because the sharpening area was too small.
But I have “only” 50mm with f1.8. And everything else is f 2.8 . I sometimes get more bokeh than I want 🙂
For a beginner, an APS-C is enough, you don’t even need an overcrowded A6600 but a favorable A6400 does it too. Now you’ll probably say, “But it doesn’t have a picture stabilizer,” to what I’m telling you, picture sticks are totally overrated.
I’ve been photographing for over 20 years, and I haven’t had any of this time and never missed it. For about half a year, I have a camera with Stabi and it’s honestly not an insane difference for photography. With videos, he helps bite, but also not stabilized to the extent of a gimbal.
Better put your money in good lenses, it’ll bring you more. In addition, there are some lenses that have also integrated an optical bar, such as the Sony 18-105mm f/4 G OSS, which I would advise you for the beginning.
Full format is not only more expensive but also requires more expensive lenses. At Lumix you are already at 1600€ with the 20-60mm kit objective and a 50mm 1.8.
At the Sony A6400 + 18-105mm + 50mm at only 1367€ and with the lens have far more range (equivalent to full format 27-157.5mm)
You have much more experience than I do, I understand how to think.
But for me, IBIS was actually a huge point, so I definitely have more photos that are usable, especially if you want to take such street photography and don’t always want to photograph wide open or with high iso, it doesn’t have a tripod, then it’s really practical.
Especially in street photography, where much movement is in the game, a slow closing time does little. Then you just have a stabilized background and unsharp people.
Thank you. Question: The LUMIX also costs exactly 1000€ as the Sony but the lumix is much better with its full-format sensor and with the kit lens 1500, is not so light-proof. At the Sony I would take the Tamron 17 70 2.8. There we would be at the same price but stop APSC, get worse iso behavior, in practice less strong bokeh, smaller FOV,… Whether the kit lens is not enough..? I want to get the most out of the money.
The one with the Stabi, the Panasonic has one of the best Stabis, so you can take longer out of your hand. Speaking decision!
A 17-70 f/2.8 corresponds to a 24-105mm f/4 on full format. The low noise on full format equals the higher aperture value. Both theoretically have the same Bokeh. The VF lens costs you an extra fee of 1200€.
The 20-60mm you can’t really compare it has only very limited range (to APS-C it comes at the long end about 40mm f/4) and is cheaper installed.
As I said, Stabi is good and beautiful, but it only brings you something with static motives, because as soon as something moves you can forget long exposure times. I don’t miss him at my EOS R10.
Well, sometimes it is very useful to be able to use this effect consciously.
I often find it good if you can’t recognize people on a picture when it’s not about these people. Zb is a portrait of a person who stands still and passersby are somewhat blurred as they are not still.
You have to look a little closer.
Landscape to blue hour goes with APS-C as well as with full format. In animal photography one has the advantage of Crop. Clearing is also easy. Here and there you might have to plan something, but it is actually easily feasible. Besides, a picture doesn’t always have to be completely soft. It also looks good with minimal structure when it is suitable. I don’t think there’s a better or worse flat. Portrait goes without problems with APS-C, except for whole body portraits. It’s getting a little more difficult with the release.
Everything has its authorization, but a full format is not automatically better or more professional (the sensor size is not a “professional”, but if you) is a balancing.
I think it comes to the brand. Fuji, for example, has been relying on APSC for a long time and I think they’re doing really good things. I have full format for many years, on Nikon-F. The decision at that time was: larger seekers, and better offer of fixed focal lengths. Tele is more expensive on VF, for that it is of course easier. For Nikon F there are many good Occasion lenses.
Hello again, for anyone interested: I got the s5 with the sigma 28 70 f2.8 for 1700. I’m looking forward to seeing her. Thanks again to all the answers! You really helped me!
I have an APSC and I love teleobjectives. I don’t have it that way. But it’s also my motives.
So it depends on what you want to photograph.
I don’t use my APS camera anymore. The films have become expensive, and many laboratories no longer develop the pictures.
This is about digital photography.
APS-C refers to the sensor size in digital cameras (but actually comes from the APS size as far as I know).