Trading up from APSC: thinking out loud

[FowlersFreeTime]

My APSC gear is in my signature, but in case I [ever] upgrade, here's what I currently have:
A6400 + 18-135 "kit" lens
Sony 30mm macro
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sony 10-18mm f4
Tamron 17-70 f2.8
Sigma 16mm f1.4
Sigma 56mm f1.4
and a ton of accessories.

Over the weekend I got a recurring thought, "if I'm trading my camera in for the a6700, why not make the leap to full frame?"

Well, here's the cold hard truth: If I trade in all my gear to keh.com, I was quoted $1614 for the lot using Excellent and Excellent Plus ratings. On B&H its lower ($1585) but they do give you a few percentage points towards trading in for new gear purchased from them. This is the slap in the face I expected, but its still quite sobering to see it in print.

If I were to trade-up, the A7C-II makes the most sense since it is the same format as the a6XXX line, and fits my preference for compact camera body. $2200. Of course, now I need a lens, because I've traded everything in, so if I make it a decent lens like the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 that's another $900, bringing my total to $3100 + tax. Even with $1600 in trade-in value, I'm out of pocket $1500. I could save myself $200 and get the Tamron 28-200mm all-in-one lens, but I still can't shake the feeling of "starting over". Oh and forget about native $ony lenses...

The APSC route, would be to trade the A6400 + 18-135 "kit" lens for $495 and get the A6700 for $1400. I'd be out of pocket $900 but retain most of my lenses.

So there it is, my past choices have come back to haunt me because APSC gear and G.A.S. resulted in short-sighted choices. So should I "man-up" and start over, or stay the course with APSC?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Question:

Which of those lenses are FF? Why not keep one of the FF primes and an APS-C zoom to get started, for what little they're going to give you for them, then add lenses as you go forward? Remember the camera will switch over to APS-C as soon as it sees an APS-C lens. Maybe hold on to the 17-70 (24-105) and a fast prime. That would probably equalize your cost some.

As to whether you should make the change, that's up to you. Nothing wrong with a good APS-C system. But if you're thinking seriously about it, then may as well get the pain over with now.

I currently do not own any full frame lenses. So If I bought the A7CII, I'd at least want to buy a used prime lens, but the 17-70 is worth almost as much so it would be a wash.

What do you think about renting to "try before I buy?"
The A6700 would only cost around $100 to rent for a week.
The A7C-II is not available for rent, but for $250 I could rent an A7IV and a lens to see what kind of images I could expect out of a full frame setup. Of course, this now eats into my upgrade budget, but if I were 100% sold on trading out of the APSC ecosystem, I might wait longer to save more $.

 

[iamdlewis]

What is it about the APS-C that is not working for you?

From the collection of lens you have I assume you do landscape/walking around type stuff. I don't know how much of a benefit there will be in switching.

I moved from APS-C to FF because at the time the APS-C line was kind of old and not really getting the updates that work for wildlife. That has changed more recently and I am not sure if I would make the switch today.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

What is it about the APS-C that is not working for you?

From the collection of lens you have I assume you do landscape/walking around type stuff. I don't know how much of a benefit there will be in switching.

I moved from APS-C to FF because at the time the APS-C line was kind of old and not really getting the updates that work for wildlife. That has changed more recently and I am not sure if I would make the switch today.

I pixel peep when I edit and I get this feeling that FF would be sharper and less noise and maybe it would give me more confidence in my final product. Could just be mind over matter.

You are correct about my general preferences: walk around, landscape, flowers, pictures of family. (Side note, I have discovered how fast toddlers can be LOL! Faster AF and IBIS are welcome in either upgrade path).

 

[Landshark99]

I will be the devil on your shoulder and say switch, for personal cameras once I left film I went M4/3, then APS-C and then Full Frame, I have lost money each time and gained resolution each time. Even though I enjoyed those formats when I had them, once I went full frame I have no regrets to switching. I just find that full frame images just hold up better in post. Then again when my girls were little I did fine shooting film with a manual focus camera, but I will admit now that they are now 40 and 37 with toddlers of their own, fast and accurate AF in a modern digital full frame camera is a lot easier.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I did the upgrade-to-FF thing very recently. a6500 to a7iv.

On the negative side, I would say this. I have a selection of lenses from 30 to 180, several primes and a couple of zooms. Just three of them are FE lenses, the rest APS-C. The range of lenses I had fitted very well to the (mostly Indian-classical concert) pics I take, from wider view to headshot. Now I find myself challenged, with FE choices of 85, 135, 70-180. Filling out the wider end, sticking with the lower-cost options, is not going to be too bad; the higher end to 270-equiv would be super expensive. And large.

Of course, I knew all of this before buying the most expensive non-car thing I ever remember buying!

I wanted less noise in higher-ISO pics: Mostly I am getting it. I do like the a7iv a lot (and my a6500 is not going anywhere anyway. Except when I really want a light small (less valuable) camera for outings, when it will continue to go places). Furthermore, the APS-C crop from a FF lens is just a button-press away and I am still seeing very nice pictures. The eye-AF of my a6500 was almost always good enough: a7iv face/eye/tracking stuff is even better.

 

[Landshark99]

Chris, one more thing to consider. The size of Sony's full size mirrorless bodies is almost irrelevant, what gets you is the lens size. Everything is going to be bigger, and you can't escape that even with the smaller body. The compacts will be an advantage with the wider 2.8 lenses, but there comes a point where it doesn't matter much.

View attachment 49461

That was my thought as well. I was on the fence for awhile about getting a A7CR but at the end of the day unless you only use very small primes on it, the size with everything else was not much different than the A7RV

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Chris, one more thing to consider. The size of Sony's full size mirrorless bodies is almost irrelevant, what gets you is the lens size. ... ... ...

That comparison would be even fairer without the eyepiece on the a7iv. The a7cII is not as slim as it looks.

BTW, that eyepiece is silly, and I really want a bigger, deeper one. However silly it is, though, it is better than none at all on the a7Cii!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Plus, the full size bodies are a LOT more comfortable, at least to me.

The grip is better. The only problem is for people with noses.

 

[iamdlewis]

I pixel peep when I edit and I get this feeling that FF would be sharper and less noise and maybe it would give me more confidence in my final product. Could just be mind over matter.

You are correct about my general preferences: walk around, landscape, flowers, pictures of family. (Side note, I have discovered how fast toddlers can be LOL! Faster AF and IBIS are welcome in either upgrade path).

The thing about the noise, yes an A7 series will be better with noise than any a6xxx series but you would not see much of a difference between the a6xxx and A7Riv/v since the pixel density is about the same.

Noticing sharpness differences between an A6xxx and A7 will have a lot to do with the quality of the lens. For me I can generally tell which of my A7Riv images were taken with my 100-400GM when compared to the 200-600G. It isn't that the 200-600 is not a sharp lens it is that the 100-400GM is just sharper. When I had an A6000 I did notice a sharpness improvement when I started to use the 70-300G lens vs the 55-210 kit lens.

You already know that switching will be pricey. I just want you to be aware that switching on its own may not get you to where you think it will. Switching and going cheap on lens will most certainly not get you to where you think you are going.

I know nothing about the Tamron 28-200 and my going cheap was just a generalization of the lens market. Basically don't expect to get the same results when using a Sony FE 50mm F1.8 (~$200) vs Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM (~$2000) even of your settings are all the same.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I thank you all for not immediately ridiculing my thought process.
Tim and Bob, good points on the size of full frame lenses in particular.
David, really good reminder on the "switching and going cheap on lens" approach being misguided.

Thad, you sound like you are very happy with the switch, but you also sound like you can understand the need for smaller gear sometimes eh?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

you also sound like you can understand the need for smaller gear sometimes eh?

I think that the a6nn rangefinder bodies will always be my ideal.

Part of my reasoning for not following the current a6700/a7c path was that Sony have given even more facilities in this latest generation of camera software, but fewer physical controls to operate them with. I might have been able to fit my wishes into the a7c, but I think I'd have been frustrated. I liked the idea of the joystick, and, when my muscle memory is not reaching to "touch-pad" the lcd, I think I like the actuality too.

I have a button for touch controls toggle. Actually, I currently only turn it on for menu diving, and off for photography!

After a6500 came the a6400/a6600 always-on eye-AF; then came additional stuff in the a7iv. I've advanced two generations, even if not to the current a6700-plus AI generation. I don't think I've short-changed myself on technology too much. a6400 was already available when I got my a6500. I wanted IBIS more than the newest eye-AF.

About Low Light And Higher ISO performance...

I am the proud owner of a fancy FF camera which is said by many to have great high-ISO performance. And I still think it is better to stick to 1600 where possible. But even on the a6500, mounting a 2.8 zoom meant trusting to 3200 and luck. I really do think that I need a lot less luck now. In fact, I might even get away with 6400 sometimes. And sometimes not.

I'm not very scientific about either my testing or my knowledge. Sometimes I get some pics which are noise-fests at 3200 or even 1600. But I have taken pics at 6400 and even 12800 and some of them have been amazingly good. I don't think I can do that on a6500. So I am not sure that I would agree with

an A7 series will be better with noise than any a6xxx series but you would not see much of a difference between the a6xxx and A7Riv/v since the pixel density is about the same.

But no, I have not done side-by-side testing at all.

People are beginning to shrug at noise. Hey, they say, who cares, now we have AI noise reduction.

Well, I care. I care because I don't use Windows or Mac so don't have easy access to any of that miracle-ware. I post-process in darktable and GIMP*.



*I do have Neat Image, a piece of commercial software which is available for Linux and amazes me at its noise reduction. But I'lljust make this a foot note as I have waffled enough in this post. But... the thread title does say thinking out loud

 

[Clix Pix]

The thing about the noise, yes an A7 series will be better with noise than any a6xxx series but you would not see much of a difference between the a6xxx and A7Riv/v since the pixel density is about the same.

Noticing sharpness differences between an A6xxx and A7 will have a lot to do with the quality of the lens. For me I can generally tell which of my A7Riv images were taken with my 100-400GM when compared to the 200-600G. It isn't that the 200-600 is not a sharp lens it is that the 100-400GM is just sharper. When I had an A6000 I did notice a sharpness improvement when I started to use the 70-300G lens vs the 55-210 kit lens.

You already know that switching will be pricey. I just want you to be aware that switching on its own may not get you to where you think it will. Switching and going cheap on lens will most certainly not get you to where you think you are going.

I know nothing about the Tamron 28-200 and my going cheap was just a generalization of the lens market. Basically don't expect to get the same results when using a Sony FE 50mm F1.8 (~$200) vs Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM (~$2000) even of your settings are all the same.

I agree with this. The thing which always puzzles me is when someone announces that they're switching to Sony and then they buy a Sony body and stick third-party lenses on it rather than actual, genuine Sony lenses. Sure, the third-party ones may be less expensive, but.....why bother buying Sony or any other brand if one is simply to slap third-party lenses on the body anyway? Sony has developed a system of camera bodies and lenses, a system where everything is meant to work together. Why buy into the system if one isn't even going to actually utilize it, take advantage of its specific unique characteristics, its ability to work well with the lenses designed to work with its bodies? Why ignore the system's true value that is inherent in its synchronicity, its carefully developed bodies and lenses?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I agree with this. The thing which always puzzles me is when someone announces that they're switching to Sony and then they buy a Sony body and stick third-party lenses on it rather than actual, genuine Sony lenses. Sure, the third-party ones may be less expensive, but.....why bother buying Sony or any other brand if one is simply to slap third-party lenses on the body anyway? Sony has developed a system of camera bodies and lenses, a system where everything is meant to work together. Why buy into the system if one isn't even going to actually utilize it, take advantage of its specific unique characteristics, its ability to work well with the lenses designed to work with its bodies? Why ignore the system's true value that is inherent in its synchronicity, its carefully developed bodies and lenses?

Actually, I'll take that one on. The core of my dilemma is this: if the full-frame sensor is so much better than APSC, then whether I use Sony or a halfway decent third party lens (like Tamron or Sigma) I should in theory still see an improvement. Its not like I'm advocating slapping on a cheap piece of crap manual focus bargain-basement lens on a new camera here.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I like a lot of the responses here. There's some great advice there.

I was on the A6400 early on with the Sigma, Tamron lenses etc. At the time I had been doing my head in over getting full frame. Anyway, the way it went was that I done a sunrise landscape shoot with the A6400 and Tamron 11-20mm, then went straight to the camera shop and bought an A7III with Tamron 17-28mm and 28-75mm. I then went out with the new A7III for the afternoon. The first thing I remember was looking at images from both cameras and wondering why the hell I'd all but lost sleep over this predicament for a few weeks because I couldn't see a difference for the life of me. Other factors on IQ come into play rather than simply comparing landscape shots at ISO100, but in these standard circumstances you will not see a difference. Even then under more demanding circumstances, you have AI denoise and what not now so it takes a huge load off needing the camera to pull all the weight.

I think if you are taking wildlife, events and other images which demand more from the equipment then you are better off to have FF on Sony E Mount, but if you are taking floral, landscape, portraits, travel images only then you may very well be better to just grab the A6700. I can't see you buying an A7CII and the Tamron 28-200mm and being done with it, you will want to buy other lenses relatively early on I think. Do you start building a new system or do you just upgrade to the A6700 and pretty much have no more expense? I'd be getting full frame if were you Chrisso as I believe in having the best equipment possible so then I have no excuses apart from blaming myself if my results aren't good enough, but I think you need to come to terms that it means you'll probably be pouring a bit of cash into over the coming year or so until you build the lens selection you are happy with.

 

[alexpler]

Sometimes when I see the prices of FF lenses (and here in Europe they are sensibly more expensive) I think that I should have taken the APS-C path. It's too large an investment.

Given the great lens kit you already got, if I were you I would update the camera to the 6700 if you really feel like it, but jumping on to the FF path would probably feel a step back until you could have equivalent lenses.

You're doing more than great with what you have now, mate.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

My 2 penneth, without reading all of the above.
Given your shooting preferences FF will most definitely suit you, and the higher the resolution the better. I am not a fan of trading in though, convenient, yes, but often times they knock you money off for the slightest mark, and find fault where there is none, but also, trade in prices are so low I'd not take the hit. Selling privately is hassle, but you get much more for the gear.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Clint, Alex, Kev, Thanks for the additional insight.
What I like about the gear I have now is, I can try a little of every genre and satisfy my curiosity. Well, except wildlife, so the Sony 70-350mm is still tempting me! You see, I cannot seem to learn my lesson

Jokes aside, maybe full frame is not something I move on to until I am ready to put my money where my mouth is. When I can drop a couple thousand dollars and not agonize over it, I will be ready for that move.

 

[alexpler]

Clint, Alex, Kev, Thanks for the additional insight.
What I like about the gear I have now is, I can try a little of every genre and satisfy my curiosity. Well, except wildlife, so the Sony 70-350mm is still tempting me! You see, I cannot seem to learn my lesson

Jokes aside, maybe full frame is not something I move on to until I am ready to put my money where my mouth is. When I can drop a couple thousand dollars and not agonize over it, I will be ready for that move.

For your type(s) of photography I'd say that's more than enough. Remember that only you're pixel peeping your own pictures, for most uses they will look amazing. Maybe the 6700 features will be helpful, if you feel like it go for that.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

For your type(s) of photography I'd say that's more than enough. Remember that only you're pixel peeping your own pictures, for most uses they will look amazing. Maybe the 6700 features will be helpful, if you feel like it go for that.

Very true, most other people will simply compare my photos to what they take on their smartphones

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

To further the point...

20MP Micro Four Thirds:
P1050294 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

42MP FF:
DSC02829 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

See any issues with that teeny tiny sensor in the top image?

Enjoy your A6700!


Now, go tell your wife how much money we saved her so you can get the 6700 right now. Tell her it's like buying shoes she doesn't need when they're on sale, to save money!

well, that just seals the deal for me

 

[iamdlewis]

When I can drop a couple thousand dollars and not agonize over it, I will be ready for that move.

No truer words have been shared in this thread.

Just to also back Brownie some more. This is one of my favorite images taken with the A6000 and kit 55-210 lens. It is not super sharp but it works.

• ILCE-6000
• E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS
• 210.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 1000

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The thing which always puzzles me is when someone announces that they're switching to Sony and then they buy a Sony body and stick third-party lenses on it rather than actual, genuine Sony lenses.

No, I don't think it is necessary to go the whole exclusive bundle. I don't think it is even necessary to go top-price. I have one Samyang so far, and I think my a7iv is going to be seeing several more.

Its not like I'm advocating slapping on a cheap piece of crap manual focus bargain-basement lens on a new camera here.

Well... Some people slap all kinds of lenses on their cameras, and indeed take super pictures with them. What I don't understand is the Only-Fully-Manual crowd buying the most technologically-advanced-auto bodies for those lenses that use none of that.

The first thing I remember was looking at images from both cameras and wondering why the hell I'd all but lost sleep over this predicament for a few weeks because I couldn't see a difference for the life of me.

There is no doubt that I was/am a long way from outgrowing my a6500. Another route to simply enjoy more bells and whistles might have been the a6700: I had long been set on the mythical "a7000" whenever it eventually got issued.

There are a6700 features I'm not keen on. There are a7iv features I am keen on. Sony have not even released a6700 in this country yet: in fact they are talking about a7c/a7Rc as coming soon. There was money in the bank... My wife was away...

(And I do like my new toy a lot )

 

[iamdlewis]

What I don't understand is the Only-Fully-Manual crowd buying the most technologically-advanced-auto bodies for those lenses that use none of that.

Well then you are obviously not a REAL photographer.

I don't know why those people ever left film.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Clint, Alex, Kev, Thanks for the additional insight.
What I like about the gear I have now is, I can try a little of every genre and satisfy my curiosity. Well, except wildlife, so the Sony 70-350mm is still tempting me! You see, I cannot seem to learn my lesson

Jokes aside, maybe full frame is not something I move on to until I am ready to put my money where my mouth is. When I can drop a couple thousand dollars and not agonize over it, I will be ready for that move.

That's the thing, would someone be able to buy an A7CII with a Tamron 28-200mm and be happy with that alone? Of course, but people like us don't fall into that category...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

There is no doubt that I was/am a long way from outgrowing my a6500. Another route to simply enjoy more bells and whistles might have been the a6700: I had long been set on the mythical "a7000" whenever it eventually got issued.

There are a6700 features I'm not keen on. There are a7iv features I am keen on. Sony have not even released a6700 in this country yet: in fact they are talking about a7c/a7Rc as coming soon. There was money in the bank... My wife was away...

(And I do like my new toy a lot )

I don't really agree with a hobbyist 'outgrowing' a camera unless it's just super old. Buying new gear is simply just a matter of want and if you love it then why not buy it. Professional's yes, why not have the best equipment possible to make your job easier. Either way, why not..! ️

Your wife should go away more...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I agree with this. The thing which always puzzles me is when someone announces that they're switching to Sony and then they buy a Sony body and stick third-party lenses on it rather than actual, genuine Sony lenses. Sure, the third-party ones may be less expensive, but.....why bother buying Sony or any other brand if one is simply to slap third-party lenses on the body anyway? Sony has developed a system of camera bodies and lenses, a system where everything is meant to work together. Why buy into the system if one isn't even going to actually utilize it, take advantage of its specific unique characteristics, its ability to work well with the lenses designed to work with its bodies? Why ignore the system's true value that is inherent in its synchronicity, its carefully developed bodies and lenses?

I only have Sony lenses because their size and workman type build really appeals to me, and being relatively OCD I like uniformity too. I would have no issue owning Tamron, Sigma or Samyang if it wasn't for this. Let's remember that Sony release their algorithms to these companies, and Tamron pretty much actually is Sony. I think if someone wants to save a few dollars then they definitely aren't falling short in the IQ or connectivity department.

I understand your point and mostly agree because in a lot of ways Sony lenses are the best in my eyes, but that's certainly debatable and I wouldn't object or see a problem with someone only owning third party lenses either.

 

[Landshark99]

One of the main reasons I went with full frame over APS-C was our last trip to Italy, I was mostly shooting with Fuji Xt2 APS-C cameras and a Sony RX1rII full frame. I will admit that was very happy with the size of the Fuji outfit, especially the lens size and the images were great. But as we were driving up the hill from one of the small Cinque Terre towns the weather cleared and with smallest of pull outs, stop the car to take an image of the town. My Fujis were packed away and the Rx1rII was next to me so with not much time I shot an image that normally I would have thought this lens was to wide and I was too far away. Well when I got back to our room dumped the card on to my computer, at first glance I thought had been right the image of the town was too small in the frame, but as I blew it up i was amazed at the resolution and detail it retained. It was there that I decided when I got home I was selling the Fuji stuff and buying Sony for my personal work. The only thing I miss about M 4/3 and APS-C is the size of the lenses other wise no regrets. with the switch. Last point i never felt comfortable using any of the M4/3 or APS-C gear for work, that was all Canon or Nikon DSLRs and Hasselblad msdium format digital.

 

[iamdlewis]

I don't really agree with a hobbyist 'outgrowing' a camera unless it's just super old.

I switched from the A6000 because it was clear that the capabilities of the camera were keeping me from getting the shots. This was right around the release of the A7iii so the A6000 wasn't that old at the time.

 

[pointreyes]

Just do like I did.
I switched out my APSC system for micro four thirds. My full frame system can compensate for APSC. But now I have 4:3 and 3:2 full sensor images with two formats. You just need to add a medium format sensor camera to your system. Or if you want to keep only 3:2 sensor format, Leica medium format has you covered.

See? Easy.