Did anyone switch to Sony FF but ended back to crop sensor?

[saledolce]

One year ago I added a Sony A7ii to my kit (24-105+35mm f3.8+50mm f1.8), but looking at my statistics one year later I kept shooting m43 (I have two bodies) more frequently than my Sony kit. Size, weight, overall ability to pack a lot of photo stuff in a little space seems to play a key role in my photography. Even if I'm 100% happy of the upgrade in terms of IQ, I'm wondering if I should just go back to one system or if I should give Sony FF another year, and maybe invest in making the kit more comprehensive.

Is anyone else in a similar position, evaluating to going back to a smaller size sensor as the only system?

 

[JonathanF2]

What do you feel is lacking in your Sony gear if you expand on it? Your M43 kit looks fairly comprehensive, is there anything you feel your Sony A7II can handle better?

I feel the difference between the two systems though is that FF raws are much more malleable. Subjects like portraiture, you can see the difference in DR and the subtleties in foreground to background blur.

Though Sony telephoto lenses are much more expensive and their 24-240mm doesn't hold a candle to the Olympus 12-100mm Pro. So it's not entirely clear cut when it comes to glass.

 

[saledolce]

What do you feel is lacking in your Sony gear if you expand on it? Your M43 kit looks fairly comprehensive, is there anything you feel your Sony A7II can handle better?

I use very often the EM10 (my smaller body) with 17mm & 45mm as my most portable kit, I think I would first try to replicate this scenario by adding an 85mm and see if this makes me use the better sensor more often.

In general Sony wins hands down on IQ, noise, dynamic range, easy workability of the raw file and has and advantage on C-AF.

The tiny sharp primes, the excellent pro zooms, Super Control Panel, and the general tactile feeling (ergonomics, but also perceived quality and materials) are the strong points of the Olympus kit.

 

[Richard Crowe]

I have three Sony bodies: two APSC (A6500 and A6400) and one full frame (A7iii).
If I need to do a lot of walking around during a shoot, I tend to carry an APSC camera or two but, when my shooting is somewhat static (like studio work) I tend to use the A7iii...
As far as quality goes; IMO, the APSC format has plenty of quality for my uses.

ILCE-6400    E 28-75mm F2.8-2.8    64mm    f/5.6    1/800s    ISO 100

However, I will usually choose the A7iii and Tamron 28-75mm lens for a female model studio shoot
NOTE: I have shot with a pair of bodies all my time as a photographer. It is the easiest way to have variety in focal lengths without the bother of switching lenses in the field. My a APSC cameras weigh about 15 ounces each or, about seven ounces more for the pair of them than the A7iii weighs. The two of them cost me less than what an A7iii costs (I purchased the A6500 used and the A6400 new).

 

[Petrochemist]

I use Sony FF & APSC bodies as well as MFT, much more rarely my APSC DSLR gets an outing too. The Sony system is fairly new to me, I don't have any native lenses (both bodies are good for adapting).

Which camera I'll pick on a particular day depends on what I'm doing, the lens options I have & what's handy - sometimes my choice proves to be a bad one.
High burst rates proved an advantage for bursting water bombs recently (MFT wins), but on Monday night I'd not anticipated how low the light levels were going to be, wrongly choosing the convenience of AF over low light performance (the A7ii would have been better).

 

[tino84]

I think you should ask your self “why I bought an FF camera, even if I have 2 bodies yet”?

If you have a task that only the A7 can take, here’s your answer.
If you can do all that you want with m4/3..well maybe it was only Gas

PS: to me, the only way-until now- to keep A7 as small as possible, it’s to go with m39 or voigtlander lenses, or if you want AF, with samyang. 18, 24, 35 and 45mm and you’re m4/3-like

 

[JonathanF2]

I think you should ask your self “why I bought an FF camera, even if I have 2 bodies yet”?

If you have a task that only the A7 can take, here’s your answer.
If you can do all that you want with m4/3..well maybe it was only Gas

PS: to me, the only way-until now- to keep A7 as small as possible, it’s to go with m39 or voigtlander lenses, or if you want AF, with samyang. 18, 24, 35 and 45mm and you’re m4/3-like

Agreed, the small Samyang primes really keep Sony FF compact. Where Sony gets expensive though is in the telephoto range. Their telephoto lenses are so expensive it makes more sense keeping my DSLR kit just to have longer lenses versus buying native for Sony.

 

[WNG]

I think it depends on what you primarily shoot. I have two different sized sensors, but same mount. An a6000, and added an A7II for the full-frame adaptation of manual focus lenses. I use the A7II nearly 100% except when I want a field of view advantage when shooting lunar captures. My 1000mm becomes 1500mm when paired with APS-C. I do select the a6000 whenever size, weight are factors. It has a full compliment of AF lenses when I need AF. For hand-held low light conditions, A7II always.

 

[Ziggy99]

Cameras are tools and some you make friends with, some you don't.

Don't overthink it. If you're not using one you have your answer.

 

[unlo]

Me. I have the a7ii and take my a6500 out way more .... that said. after renting the a7r4.... i have been toying with selling both my bodies and just living with the a7r4... yes its that good. all my aps-c lenses would still have 36mp home ....

 

[Ziggy99]

Despite the auto-everything there are so many choices and controls with modern cameras that the learning curve is steep. There's a lot to master to get the best out of them. How many of us are fully across what each of our tools can do? I'm not with the A9 and I only work in one field. If I multiply the relevant setting combinations I reckon there'd be hundreds.

 

[Petrochemist]

Despite the auto-everything there are so many choices and controls with modern cameras that the learning curve is steep. There's a lot to master to get the best out of them. How many of us are fully across what each of our tools can do? I'm not with the A9 and I only work in one field. If I multiply the relevant setting combinations I reckon there'd be hundreds.

Even restricting it to one field I'm pretty sure you'll be well into the thousands or even millions. After all settings include focal length, aperture, iso, shutter speed, white balance, focus distance...
Some of them are perhaps interdependent, and some might be limited by your field (eg Flash portraiture will tend to restrict white balance, iso & focus distance) but even so adding variables makes the number combinations grows exponentially.

However the number of combinations has no relevance for the learning curve. If there were only two controls each with 100 steps between two extremes that makes 10,000 combinations, but only two things you need to know the effect off. There's no need to have experience of each combination, just that increasing A does this, with that side effect. It might quickly become apparent that only the lower 10% of the range for A is relevant for anything but extreme shooting.
Controls like the mode are different, where the effect of each setting might be distinct, but you add each one as an individual thing to learn rather than learning it again for each aperture setting...

 

[Ziggy99]

AF on the A9 offers multiple options and while the factory publishes recommendations for varied subjects, it doesn't explain why.

The factory says nothing about how CDAF and PDAF interact.

As bird shooter, this is what I'm looking at ...

Focus/Release priority: 3 settings.
Tracking Sensitivity: 5 settings, with many shooters ignoring the factory rec'n.
AF area: multiple, with and without Tracking, and the factory suggests a setting for birds which is counter to the camera mythology and implied advertising promise.
Animal eye tracking, on or off: may or may not work depending on the subject.

So it's left up to the user to learn which settings to use for contexts like a BIF in midground against foliage or a perched bird in foliage or whether de facto there's nearest-subject priority, or what tracking recognition prioritises. The number of possible settings has a big impact on the time need to understand and master how the tool works - not least also because there's been 3 firmware versions in the last 12 months.

 

[bdbits]

Imagine what it is like for the test engineers, who probably don't get to decide what gets tested or not, or in which combinations. And document it for the users (or not).
Oh wait... test engineers... that would be us, right?

 

[Kiwi Paul]

I used to have both. ff and crop but I sold my A6300 and crop lenses and stayed with full frame, I use my excellent RX100 MK6 if I can't be bothered taking the FF kit out.
The crop kit just didn't do it for me, I prefer full frame.

 

[Ziggy99]

It's like getting a taste for Premier Cru - it's hard to go back to two-buck-chuck.
Applies to sensor size and to glass.
A major reason I'm investing in Sony is the pop that the A9 adds to images cp the APS-C and M43 cameras I've used.

 

[mnhoj]

With current used A7ii pricing and the Samyang AF lenses it makes for a pretty easy and affordable switch imo. Shoot with it until the A7iii prices drop and I don't think there's much of a reason to switch back.

 

[Zenith]

I like having both. APS-C and FF. Still have 3 Canon lenses with 6D and adapting those on A6400.

 

[Drd1135]

I have two Fuji bodies (XE3 and XH1) and the Sony A7R3. I have more Fuji lenses and it will probably stay that way.