#APS-C Vs Full Frame

[picsera]

APS-C Vs Full Frame

Full frame has historically been considered the better format for professional photography. The reason for this is purely because of the physics and science behind a bigger sensor. Photographers, however, need to be mindful of the type of photographs they are taking, as well as the type of lenses and gear they already have, before making a decision analyse aps-c vs full frame camera sensor and then choose what is best for them.

[visual-saga-photography]

Unlocking the Secrets to Selecting the Ultimate Wedding Photography Camera

Capturing the magic of a wedding day relies heavily on the choice of camera wielded by the photographer. With countless options flooding the market, each boasting its own set of features and capabilities, the decision can be daunting. However, by understanding the crucial factors and options available, you can navigate this terrain with confidence and select the perfect tool to preserve those precious moments for a lifetime.

At the core of any camera lies its sensor, dictating the quality and clarity of the captured images. When it comes to wedding photography, opting for a camera with a larger sensor is paramount. Larger sensors excel in low light conditions, crucial for the dimly lit venues often encountered during weddings. Look for full-frame sensors or APS-C sensors for optimal image quality, ensuring every moment is captured in stunning detail.

Autofocus Performance: Seizing the Fleeting Moments

Weddings are filled with fleeting moments — a stolen glance, a joyous tear, a loving embrace. To immortalize these instances, fast and accurate autofocus is indispensable. A camera with reliable autofocus tracking ensures that no moment is missed, allowing the photographer to focus on capturing the emotion and essence of the day without hesitation.

Low Light Performance: Illuminating the Shadows

From candlelit ceremonies to starlit receptions, weddings often unfold in environments with challenging lighting conditions. Therefore, selecting a camera with exceptional low light performance is essential. Cameras with high ISO capabilities and efficient noise reduction algorithms excel in these settings, delivering crisp and vibrant images even in the darkest of venues.

Lens Selection: The Window to Creativity

A camera is only as good as the lenses paired with it. When choosing a camera system for wedding photography, consider the availability and quality of lenses offered. Look for a versatile range of lenses suited to various shooting scenarios, from wide-angle for capturing expansive scenes to telephoto for intimate portraits. Investing in a robust lens ecosystem ensures that you have the tools to unleash your creativity and capture every moment from every angle.

Click here for more information: https://www.parthaviyadav.com/amour-blog/2024/choosing-the-best-camera-for-wedding-photography

Ergonomics and Handling: Endurance for the Long Haul

Wedding days are marathon events, often stretching into the wee hours of the morning. A camera that feels comfortable and intuitive to use is essential for navigating these lengthy sessions with ease. Consider factors such as grip comfort, button placement, and overall ergonomics when selecting a camera, ensuring that you can focus on your craft without succumbing to fatigue.

Budget-Friendly Options: Quality Without Compromise

Contrary to popular belief, you don’t need to break the bank to capture stunning wedding photos. Several budget-friendly options offer excellent image quality and performance without sacrificing your savings. Cameras like the Canon EOS Rebel series and the Nikon D3500 deliver exceptional results at an accessible price point, proving that quality photography is within reach for every budget.

DSLR vs. Mirrorless: The Debate Unveiled

The debate between DSLR and mirrorless cameras rages on, each offering its own set of advantages and disadvantages for wedding photography. DSLRs boast longer battery life and a vast selection of lenses, making them a reliable choice for traditionalists. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras are more compact and feature advanced autofocus systems, catering to those who prioritize innovation and portability. Ultimately, the choice between the two boils down to personal preference and shooting style.

Conclusion: Capturing Forever in a Single Frame

Selecting the perfect camera for wedding photography is a deeply personal and consequential decision. By considering factors such as sensor size, autofocus performance, low light capabilities, lens selection, ergonomics, and budget, you can pinpoint the ideal tool to immortalize the love and joy of a couple’s special day. Whether you opt for a DSLR or mirrorless, invest in top-tier lenses or budget-friendly alternatives, the ultimate goal remains the same — to encapsulate the beauty and emotion of a wedding in timeless photographs that will be cherished for generations to come.

Contact Us:

Visual Saga Photography & Productions EMAIL: Info@visualsaga.in PHONE: +91 76764 28553

LOCATION: #701, 60 Feet Rd, BEML Layout, 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560098

[rodsager]

50mm vs. 35mm: Which is the Best All Rounder?

Well that’s been a question for a very long while in the world of 35mm photography. In today’s modern world of digital it still translates but depending on sensor size the focal lengths will be different. Obviously full frame is 50 v 35 but for APS-C Sony/Nikon it’s 34mm vs. 23mm for Canon APS-C it’s 32mm vs. 22mm. For M 4/3 it’s 25mm vs. 18mm. For the sake of discussion I’ll stick to full frame…

[photosworthseeing]

It has been a bit, hasn’t it? But now it’s time for...

InConversation 27 // January 25th, 2020

… with Pete @tvoom admin of @photosworthseeing and Fern @allthingsfern admin of @luxlit  

In this episode we will talk about:

Photography burnout, creative blocks, and all that jazz. Nasty stuff, right? How to overcome? We might have some thoughts.

We also might talk about gear. Mirrrorless (because Fern shoots mirrorless) vs. DSLR (because Pete still shoots DSLR). And maybe even Full Frame (because that is what Fern fancies) vs. Crop-Sensor (because Pete is still going the APS-C route). We will not be talking about Sony vs Canon. Who are we kidding? Of course, we will. (Btw. this video is not sponsored by anyone)  

As usual: We plan to talk for about one hour but (also as usual) we will probably not manage to only talk for one hour.

During the stream, you can live-chat with us on YouTube.

WHEN will this be: Saturday, January 25th, 2020 at 19:00 UTC. For Pete in Germany this means 20:00 CET or 8pm (UTC+1), for Fern in California this means 11PST or 11am (UTC-8). If you don’t know WHEN this will be for you, please simply follow the link and let the site convert 19 UTC to your time zone:

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20200125T190000&p1=1440

We’re excited!

[courtneyblight-cgcphotography]

capture and output task 1

1) What type of sensor does your camera have?

I have a Canon 750D and it has a 24.0MP APS-C (22.3 x 14.9 mm) sized CMOS sensor, sensor resolution is 6026 x 4017, 

2) is it a full-frame or cropped?

The Canon 750D is a cropped sensor, crop factor is 1.61.

3) Find out as much as information as you can about your DSLR camera:

Effective megapixels is 24.20, total megapixels is 24.70, maximum image resolution is 6000 x 4000, has multi, centre weighted, spot, and partial metering, screen resolution is 1,040,000 dots, exposure compensation is ±5 EV (in 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV steps).

4) Based on your research on sensors, what do you notice?

That they're all quite similar, showing peaks in performance in different places with versus each other.

Nikon Z50 incorporates an APS-C sensor vs the (then) flagship for the Canon DX series cameras with a 20.9-megapixel sensor and a 10 fps burst mode. Nikon offers solid image quality whilst Canon offers colour quality.

Sony has some of the best mirrorless cameras out there. The A99 II has a 42.4-megapixel sensor, 12 fps shooting, and a strong autofocus system.

Also, BSI sensors produce better results at the higher ISO sensitivities.

[laurafruitfairy]

MY CAMERAS I USE 📸⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ I get this question a lot so here's a quick camera guided based on my experience:⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ 📲 Start with what you have. Until I had ~6k followers here I always used my iPhone. A few of my recent posts are phone shots too.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ 📸 APS-C vs full frame: I started with a crop-sensor (APS-C) camera in 2016. Only about a year ago I invested in a full frame camera to be able to take smoother shots in low light. Inform yourself about the difference to full frame and whether you really need it before you make a purchase decision.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ I love my Sony a7iii (full frame) because the quality is insane. I use it with a 55mm 1.8 Zeiss lens. But I love my Sony a5100 just as much because it’s light and handy, and shoots amazing quality portraits (with a 30mm 1.4f lens).👌🏼 I have both cameras with me here in Bali.🌴 One for home/hotel shoots and one for hikes/trips/restaurant shoots. At home in Germany I always use my a7iii.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ 📸 LENSES - even more important than the camera body. I love fixed focal lengths as they absorb a lot of light and perform well in low-light situations (aka every day in winter). 💡 Plus you’ll get amazingly sharp images and a nice soft background blur. All of my food pictures are shot with a 55mm lens.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ ❓ Any questions left? Ask them below! ♥️⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ The recipe for this cherry smoothie bowl is on my blog! 🍒⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ (at Milky Way Galaxy) https://www.instagram.com/p/B5sEYb7pf1s/?igshid=12ecuwe41qsk9

[buzzdixonwriter]

Sci-Fi And The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

I know many of you prefer “science fiction” or “science fantasy” or “speculative fiction” or “sf” or even “stf” for short, but I ain’t that guy…

I’m a sci-fi kinda guy.

I prefer sci-fi because to me it evokes the nerdy playfulness the genre should embrace at some level (and, no we’re not gonna debate geek vs nerd as a descriptor; “geeky” implies biting heads off chickens no matter how benign and respectable the root has become).

. . .

A brief history of sci-fi films -- a very brief history.

Georges Melies’ 1898 short A Trip to The Moon is one of the earliest examples of the genre, and it arrived full blown at the dawn of cinema via its literary predecessors in Verne and Wells.

There were a lot of bona fide sci-fi films before WWII -- the Danes made a surprisingly large number in the silent era, Fritz Lang gave us Metropolis and Frau Im Mond, we saw the goofiness of Just Imagine and the spectacle of Things To Come and the space opera appeal of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

And that’s not counting hundreds of other productions -- comedies and contemporary thrillers and westerns -- where a super-science mcguffin played a key part.

That came to a screeching halt in WWII primarily due to budget considerations and real world science easily overtaking screen fantasy.  Still, there were a few bona fide sci-fi films and serials during the war and immediately thereafter, but it wasn’t until the flying saucer scare of the late forties that sci-fi became a popular movie genre again (and on TV as well).

Ground zero for 1950s sci-fi was George Pal’s Destination Moon, which was an attempt to show a plausible flight to the moon (it was actually beaten to the screens by a couple of other low budget movies that rushed into production to catch Pal’s PR wave for his film).

This led to the first 1950s sci-fi boom that lasted from 1949 to 1954, followed by a brief fallow period, then a larger but far less innovative second boom in the late 1950s to early 1960s.

BTW, let me heartily recommend the late Bill Warren’s magnificent overview of sci-fi films of that era, Keep Watching The Skies, a must have in any sci-fi film fan’s library.

Seriously, go get it.

Bill and I frequently discussed films of that and subsequent eras, and Bill agreed with my assessment of the difference between 1950s sci-fi and 1960s sci-fi:  1950s sci-fi most typically ends with the old order restored, while 1960s sci-fi typically ends with the realization things have changed irrevocably.

In other words, “What now, puny human?”

I judge the 1960s sci-fi boom to have started in 1963 (at least for the US and western Europe; behind the Iron Curtain they were already ahead of us) with the Outer Limits TV show, followed in 1964 by the films The Last Man On Earth (based on Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend), Robinson Crusoe On Mars, and The Time Travelers.

But what really triggered the 1960s sci-fi boom was Planet Of The Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey.  The former was shopped around every major Hollywood studio starting in 1963 until it finally found a home at 20th Century Fox (whose market research indicated there was an audience for well-made serious sci-fi film and hence put Fantastic Voyage into production).  Kubrick, fresh off Lolita and Dr. Srangelove (another sci-fi film tho not presented as such), carried an enormous cache in Hollywood of that era, and if MGM was going to bankroll his big budget space movie, hey, maybe there was something to this genre after all.

From 1965 forward, the cinematic space race was on, with 1968 being a banner year for groundbreaking sci-fi movies:  2001: A Space Odyssey, Barbarella, Charly, Planet Of The Apes, The Power, Project X, and Wild In The Streets.  (Star Trek premiering on TV in 1967 didn’t hurt, either.)

And, yeah, there were a number of duds and more than a few old school throwbacks during this era, but the point is the most interesting films were the most innovative ones.

Here’s a partial list of the most innovative sci-fi films from 1969 to 1977, nine-year period with some of the most original ideas ever presented in sci-fi films.  Not all of these were box office successes, but damn, they got people’s attention in both the film making and sci-fi fandom communities.

=1969=

The Bed Sitting Room

Doppelganger (US title:  Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun)

The Gladiators

The Monitors 

Stereo 

=1970=

Beneath The Planet Of The Apes [a]

Colossus: The Forbin Project 

Crimes Of The Future 

Gas-s-s-s

The Mind Of Mr. Soames 

No Blade Of Grass 

=1971= 

The Andromeda Strain 

A Clockwork Orange 

Glen And Randa 

The Hellstrom Chronicle 

THX 1138 

=1972=

Silent Running 

Slaughterhouse Five 

Solaris [b] 

Z.P.G.

=1973=

Day Of The Dolphin

Fantastic Planet 

The Final Programme (US title: The Last Days Of Man On Earth)

Idaho Transfer 

=1974=

Dark Star 

Phase IV 

Space Is The Place 

Zardoz 

=1975= 

A Boy And His Dog 

Black Moon 

Death Race 2000

Rollerball

Shivers (a.k.a. They Came From Within and The Parasite Murders)  [c]

The Stepford Wives 

=1976= 

God Told Me To [a.k.a. Demon]

The Man Who Fell To Earth 

=1977=

Wizards

[a]  I include Beneath The Planet Of The Apes because it is the single most nihilistic major studio film released, a movie that posits Charlton Heston blowing up the entire planet is A Damn Good Idea; follow up films in the series took a far more conventional approach to the material.  While successful, neither the studio nor mainstream audiences knew what to make of this film, so 20th Century Fox re-released it in a double bill with another problematic production, Russ Meyer’s Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, and holy cow, if ever there was a more bugfuck double feature from a major studio I challenge you to name it.

[b]  Other than Karel Zemen’s delightful animated films, Iron Curtain sci-fi films rarely screened in the US, with the exception of special effects stock shots strip mined to add production values to cheapjack American productions (looking at you, Roger Corman).  Solaris is the exception.

[c]  David Cronenberg made several other films in this time frame, but most of them were variations on the themes he used in Shivers, including his big break out, Scanners.  Realizing he was repeating himself, Cronenberg reevaluated his goals and started making films with greater variety of theme and subject matter.

. . .

The astute reader will notice I bring my list to an end in 1977, a mere nine-year span instead of a full decade.

That’s because 1977 also saw the release of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and Star Wars.

The effect was immediate, with knock-off films being released the same year.

1978 saw Dawn Of The Dead, a sequel to 1968’s Night Of The Living Dead, and Superman, the first non-campy superhero movie aimed at non-juvenile audiences.  

1979 gave us Alien, Mad Max, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

These films were not just successful, they were blockbusters.

And none of them were original.

Close Encounters served as an excuse to do a Kubrick-style light show; plot and theme are about as deep as a Dixie cup, and of all the blockbusters of that era, it’s the one with no legs.

Alien’s pedigree can be traced back to It! Terror From Beyond Space (and It’s pedigree goes back to A.E. van Vogt’s “Black Destroyer” and “Discord In Scarlet” in the old Astounding Stories) and Demon Planet (US title: Planet Of The Vampires) by way of Dark Star (Dan O’Bannon writing the original screenplays for that film and Alien as well).

Mad Max, like 1981’s Escape From New York, differs from earlier post-apocalypse movies only insofar as their apocalypses of a social / cultural / political nature, not nuclear or biological weapons.  Mad Max, in fact, can trace its lineage back to No Blade Of Grass, which featured it own caravan of refugees attacked by modern day visigoths on motorcycles, and the original Death Race 2000, as well as an odd little Australian non-sci-fi film, The Cars That Ate Paris.

Not only was Dawn Of The Dead a sequel, but it kickstarted a worldwide tsunami of zombie movies that continues to this day (no surprise as zombie films are easy to produce compared to other films listed here, and while there are a few big budget examples of the genre, the typical zombie movie is just actors in ragged clothes and crappy make-up).

Superman was…well…Superman.  And Star Trek was Star Trek.

And the granddaddy of them all, Star Wars, was a cinematic throwback that threw so far back it made the old seem new again.

Not begrudging any of those films their success: They were well made and entertaining.

But while there had been plenty of sequels and remakes and plain ol’ knockoffs of successful sci-fi movies in the past, after these seven there was precious little room for anything really different or innovative.

1982’s E.T. was Spielberg’s unofficial follow-up to Close Encounters.

1984’s Terminator consciously harkened back to Harlan Elison’s Outer Limits episodes “Demon With A Glass Hand” and “Soldier” (not to mention 1966’s Cyborg 2087 which looks like a first draft of Cameron’s film)

All innovative movies are risky, and the mammoth success of the films cited above did little to encourage new ideas in sci-fi films but rather attempts to shoehorn material into one of several pre-existing genres.

Star Wars = space opera of the splashy Flash Gordon variety

Star Trek = crew on a mission (Star Trek: The Next Generation [+ 5 other series], Andromeda, Battlestar: Galactica [4 series], Buck Rogers In The 25th Century, Farscape, Firefly [+ movie], The Orville, Space Academy, Space Rangers, Space: Above And Beyond, plus more anime and syndicated shows than you can shake a stick at)

Superman = superheroes (nuff’ sed!)

Close Encounters / E.T. = cute aliens

Alien = not-so-cute aliens

Terminator = robots vs humans (and, yes, The Matrix movies fall into this category)

Escape From New York = urban post-apocalypse

Mad Max = vehicular post-apocalypse 

Dawn Of The Dead = zombies

Mix and match ‘em and you’ve got a nearly limitless number of variations you know are based on proven popular concepts, none of that risky original stuff.

Small wonder that despite the huge number of new sci-fi films and programs available, little of it is memorable.

. . .

It shouldn’t be like this.

With ultra-cheap film making tools (there are theatrically released films shot on iPhones so there’s literally no barrier to entry) and copious venues for ultra-low / no-budget film makers to show their work (YouTube, Vimeo, Amazon Prime, etc.), there’s no excuse for there not to be a near limitless number of innovative films in all genres.

But there isn’t.

I watch a lot of independent features and short films on various channels and streaming services.

They’re either direct knock-offs of current big budget blockbusters (because often the film makers are hoping to impress the big studios into giving them lots of money to make one of their movies), or worse still, deliberately “bad” imitations of 1950s B-movies (and I get why there’s an appeal to do a bad version of a B-movie; if you screw up you can always say you did it deliberately).

Look, I understand the appeal of fan fic, written or filmed.

And I get it that sometimes it’s easier to do a knock-off where the conventions of the genre help with the final execution.

But let’s not make deliberate crap, okay?

Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” but he was quoting somebody else, and that wasn’t the whole original quote.

Wilde was quoting Charles Caleb Colton, a dissolute English clergyman with a passion for gambling and a talent for bon mots.

Colton’s full quote:   “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

Don’t be mediocre.

Be great.

   © Buzz Dixon

[fahrhaus]

The Price of Performance:  Do You Really Get What You Pay For?

WARNING: EXTREMELY LONG POST AHEAD.  SKIP IF YOU DON'T HAVE ABOUT EIGHTEEN HOURS TO READ IT.  

:)

For those of you who shoot Fuji or Nikon in addition to your Leicas, you may find this very unscientific or unfair and very practical (some say amateurish) rendering comparison to be of interest.  

It just so happens that I ...umm, just happened...to find my old Nikon D80, with a Nikon 35/1.8 G lens.  With a crop sensor and a CCD chip, it's a pretty interesting camera.  I bought it new in 2008 and used it solidly for 5 years before getting my first digital M (rarely shot my M3s those days, and I regret it now that I can't get film easily).

I had been planning to compare the  Fuji X-E2 output with the Fujinon 35/1.4 vs. my Leica TL2 with Summilux-M 35/1.4.  When I found the Nikon, I figured I'd add it to the list for giggles.  I mean, what could a decade-old camera possibly do better than a current one?To make it all more confusing, I decided to try the Leica Summilux lens on the X-E2 (Fotodiox adapter) as a way to get some clue into the sensor and software differences between a (when new) $700 camera and a $3,250 camera.

The results may or may not speak for themselves, depending on your aesthetic senses or ocular abilities.

The full-res image files (or at least the maximum Facebook allows) are attached, with corresponding watermarks describing the lens manufacturer and body (Fuji Fuji = Fuji lens and Fuj body, Fuji 35 Lux = Leica M lens used with an adapter for X-to-M).  The Nikon was used only with the Nikkor lens because I didn't have an adapter for that camera.

Now this is by no means a scientific comparison. But I promise I tried.  I kept the environment the same, and the shots were taken within a span of about 10 minutes, so lighting is roughly the same.ISO ranged from 320 at the lowests (on the Leica) to 1600 at the highest (I set that as the max for all 3 cameras, set it at ISO Auto, and limited shutter speed to a max of 1/60th).  Funnily, the Nikon's highest setting IS 1600 - the CCD sensor, I'm guessing.I'm sure others would have used tripods, and perfected focus, and flash (I have no idea how, or why, to use those things) but I was shooting manual lenses on the Fuji and Leica.

At my age, I probably missed tack-focus a few times, but it doesn't really matter - something, somewhere in each image is in focus.  I was most interested in the color rendering, bokeh, clipping, and flaring.

ALL PICTURES were shot in their RAW equivalents, and converted to JPG via Exposure 3.5 with NO ADJUSTMENTS made to any of the sliders other than White Balance because the Fuji was rendering very dark blue.  The Leica was perfect, and the Nikon a tad too warm.  I left everything else, including exposure and contrast, alone, as I really wanted to see what out-of-camera RAW looks like.

My thoughts:

The CCD sensor, as dated as it is (2007ish) has spectacular color rendering and pop.  To me, it's arguably better than the CMOS sensors on the Leica or the Fuji, but the Leica does come pretty close.  I saw similar differences in the M9 vs M 240, but some post production sorts it all out.

The dynamic range of the Leica is significantly better than the Nikon (14 stops vs 10 stops), and somewhat better than the Fuji (12 stops).  This is clearly seen when you examine the images in Lightroom or Exposure.  The TL2 uses almost the entire Histogram range, whereas the Nikon skews to the right-side highlights and the Fuji skews to the left (heavily)

The Fujinon glass is spectacular, and is noticeably sharper than the Leica but nowhere near as creamy.  Lovely bokeh, but not Leica boke.  I prefer the Leica by a large margin, because for street photography sharpness is meaningless (at least to me) and "attitude" is more important.

The Leica Summilux still holds its own against the Fuji and Nikon in terms of light gathering and overall rendering/color.  The lens I use is  47 years old (!) and is neither aspherical nor apochromatically corrected.  It has some haze and scratches, and its coating is probably deteriorated. The Nikon lens is 11 years old, and the Fuji lens is 4 years old.  And yet the Summilux kills it every time.  It was also once the smallest fast lens made by anyone.  

The X-E2 is a damn good clicker, even though mine is 5 years old and there's newer tech.  I'm pleasantly surprised by that.  This is a camera I bought as a stop gap whilst waiting for my M-P 240 to arrive, and I've rarely shot it since.  Given its light weight, good autofocus, and great X Trans sensor, I may start taking it out again.

The combination of the Fuji sensor and Fujinon lens is more pleasing to me than the Fuji with the adapted Leica lens.  The Nikon with Nikon lens is similarly great.  But the Leica with Leica lens is certainly more interesting and more "3D" than the others.  Seems like the OEM lenses work best on the respective bodies.  That makes sense, given that the sensors/software are optimized to OEM lenses rather than 3rd party ones.

Conclusions?  Very few, actually.  As I said, OEM Bodies with OEM Lenses seem to work best and/or make the best out-of-camera images.   I'm guessing this has something to do with tweaking sensors and software to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the related glass.  The TL2 is spectacularly good.  High ISO performance is better than my M.  The Fuji is a great buy for the money.  The X-E3 and 35/1.4 Fujinon lens will set you back about 1400 bucks.  The TL2 with the equivalent Leica lens would be about 7500.  

The Nikon D80 has no skin in this game.  Firstly, it's out of production, as is pretty much anything with a CCD sensor.  That's a shame, because studio work with decent lighting where you don't need to go above 1000 or so ISO is a great place to take advantage of a CCD's incredible depth and vibrance of color.  Secondly, I used it simply because I was curious about how it looked next to [the CMOS] Fuji and Leica images.  I am so pleasantly surprised that I think i may start carrying it around (in the daytime, of course) once in a while.

And so the chapter ends.  Next time I want to throw my M-P into the mix to see how the APS-C and Full Frame compete.

Hope this will be of interest to a few folks.  As I said, not a scientific comparison by any means, but rather, a real-world side-by-side that the pixel-peeper types will probably hate.  In which case, please keep scrolling

:)

[mycompactclick-blog]

Understanding DSLR vs. Mirrorless Cameras

Mirrorless cameras are the new wave of photography. Mirrorless cameras are smaller than DSLRs because, as the name suggests, there’s no mirror inside. Mirrorless cameras and DSLRs are both several notches above point-and-shoot cameras. Professional photographers have long opted for DSLRs, but entry level mirrorless cameras are making it easier than ever to experiment with photography, novice or not.

Learn more about the key differences between mirrorless cameras and DSLRs, as well as the pros and cons of using both.

A mirrorless camera, or compact system camera (CSC), is a high-end camera with a removable, interchangeable lens. Mirrorless cameras lack a reflex mirror (hence the name); light passes through the camera directly to the sensor. The camera body is slim and lightweight, and feature a digital display instead of a traditional optical viewfinder.

The components of a mirrorless camera include:

The lens

The shutter

The image sensor

The digital display

A shot from above a mirrorless camera

What Is a DSLR?

A DSLR, or Digital Single Lens Reflex camera, is a digital camera with a removable lens and a reflex mirror. Light filters through the reflex mirror to either the sensor or the optical viewfinder (which displays your image). A DSLR camera body is bulky and heavy, due to the complicated internal mechanics.

The components of a DSLR camera include:

The lens

The reflex mirror

The shutter

The image sensor

A focusing screen

The condenser lens

The pentaprism

The optical viewfinder

The additional components, like the condenser lens and pentaprism, direct light through the camera and help reflect the image. These components are necessary for DSLRs to capture a complete image.

What Are the Similarities Between Mirrorless vs. DSLR Cameras?

Both mirrorless and DSLRs are interchangeable-lens cameras. An interchangeable-lens camera is a camera body that features a removable lens. Lenses come in a variety of focal lengths that allow a photographer flexibility in capturing shots both near and far.

A picture of a Fujifilm camera

What Are the Pros and Cons of Mirrorless vs. DSLR Cameras? There are many factors to consider when investing in a high-end camera. Both mirrorless cameras and DSLRs come with their own sets of benefits and drawbacks.

Learn more about the seven most common differences in mirrorless cameras and DSLRs.

Cost DSLR Well established, wide support by third-party vendors, which can result in more choices and lower prices. DSLRs can start in the low hundreds.

Mirrorless Newer technology; less common, with fewer choices of lenses and accessories. Mirrorless cameras start in the mid to high hundreds, but costs are driving down as the technology rapidly catches up to DSLRs.

Size DSLR Needs to be quite large because of mirror system, which makes it somewhat heavy.

Mirrorless Can be much smaller since there is no mirror, allowing it to be much lighter.

Image Quality

Image quality varies with DSLRs, depending on camera formats. DSLRs come in many formats, but most use top-of-the-line APS-C or full-frame sensors. The larger the sensor, the better the resolution and image quality.

The more common formats include:

APS-C: A sensor that renders at about 40% of the full frame. Sony, Pentax, and Samsung all offer APS-C cameras.Full-frame: Full frame refers to the standard 35mm film format. Canon EOS and Nikon D-series are full-frame cameras. Four-thirds system: Smaller system that displays 26% of full frame. (Even smaller? Micro four thirds.) Created by Olympus and Eastman Kodak. Mirrorless Both full-frame sensors and compact sensors are available in mirrorless cameras, but the larger sensors cost more. Opt for a compact or crop-quality sensor and you’ll end up sacrificing quality (especially in low light) for cost.

Autofocus

DSLR

Blazing fast autofocus, which is essential for sports and events.

Optical viewfinder: you are literally seeing through the lens, meaning you have to take a photo and then look at it to make sure your exposure is correct.

Both mirrorless systems and DSLRs provide optimum quality—at a cost. Which you choose will come down to personal preference on a variety of factors, including weight, video, and pricetag, but either type should work well enough to inspire your creativity. Visit http://www.compactclick.com/, if you are looking for more Information.

[picsera]

Family portrait ideas

Family portraits are powerful. They present a person with a great way to take a trip down memory lane. The beauty of a family portrait ideas is not only does it take a person back in time, but it also permits them to revisit an exact moment in time.

[mirrorlessinformation]

Mirrorless Camera

There are lots of things to think about when choosing a mirrorless camera. Do you want to shoot stills or video or both? Almost all the cameras in our list can shoot 4K video, but some have in-body stabilization for smoother footage, professional 'log' modes for color grading and higher frame rates or capture quality. 

  • Micro Four Thirds is the smallest sensor format, but the image quality is surprisingly close to that of larger APS-C cameras. The Panasonic Lumix G100 is designed specifically for novice vloggers but is also a great stills camera, while the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV is one of our favorite small cameras. 

•  Medium format cameras have sensors even larger than full frame. They're generally for slightly more specialist applications where you really need the pixels, and while they were once prohibitively expensive,

How mirrorless body work?

 As the name suggests, mirrorless cameras capture images without the use of a mirror in the camera body. This is different from DSLR cameras, which reflect images into viewfinders via mirrors. Instead, mirrorless cameras often use electronic viewfinders (EVF) to display images digitally

    Touchscreen live view

The ability to switch seamlessly from viewfinder to live view on the OLED or LCD screen is a draw for many photographers. Some models even allow you to autofocus by simply touching the screen. Continuous live view is perfect for shooting at tricky angles without needing to raise the camera to your eye, and it’s great for shooting video. Many creatives choose to use their mirrorless as a video camera for this reason.

Mirrorless Vs Dslar

·        DSLR cameras have a reflex mirror inside them, which bounces light up into the optical viewfinder.

·        In mirrorless cameras, light goes directly into the image sensor. Viewfinders on mirrorless cameras are electronic and show the same preview of the image that you'd see on the LCD screen. 

·        Also, mirrorless cameras are lightened in weight as compared to dslar because as the name suggests there is no prism in it.

·        And, if we see there’s a huge price difference between Mirrorless and Dslar. As, mirrorless are do more cost then Dslar.

[milimiki]

Held off on spending $980 on ordering a lens I’ve wanted for 6 years. After today, that price jumps back up another $100.

I’m holding it off because I’m not sure what I wanna upgrade my camera to. But I think the Fujifilm X-T4 is out. I held it by the grip today, and it wasn’t all that comfortable. There’s the X-S10, but it doesn’t look good. I’m gonna have to go with looks for that specific camera.

I’m down to 2 Sony cameras: the 2, almost 3 year old a6600, and the newly released a7 IV. APS-C vs. full frame. $1,400 and $2,500.

I’m interested in the a6600 because it’s smaller and lighter. The problem is that I have more full frame lenses than APS-C lenses. Though Sony hasn’t given up on their APS-C lineup, their main focus is clearly their full frame cameras. That’s where the innovations are happening.

I’m just gonna have to wait. Save up $6K, see what my options are when that happens. Can’t be greedy and impatient now; I’ve been using my a7 II for 6 years. And it’s not like I have all the time in the world to go take photos whenever I please now.

Save up ‘til the end of March. By March, I upgrade my camera gear. I can do this. It’s just another 3 months.

[tech4geeks]

Full-Frame vs Crop Sensor | Which One Is the Best?

Have you ever wondered which is better; full-frame or crop sensor cameras? Full-frame vs crop sensor is a common debate. There’s quite a bit of (mis)information out there; full-frame being ‘better’, for one. Having used nearly every system (full-frame and crop) out there, I’ve come to realize that both have plenty to offer. So if full-frame vs crop is a question affecting your first camera purchase, let’s have a look at the advantages and disadvantages of each sensor size.

What Is a Camera Sensor?

Full-frame vs crop sensor? Which one is better? Photo by Qamera from Pixabay. A camera’s sensor is the digital equivalent of film. It consists of millions of photosites which register and record incoming light. This is where the megapixel (MP) count of your camera comes from. A 24 MP sensor has 24,000,000 individual photosites or pixels; the more photosites available, the higher the resolution of the photograph. If your camera is mirrorless, the sensor also acts as the autofocus unit that feeds the electronic viewfinder (EVF). This is one reason why the battery life of mirrorless cameras is low compared to DSLRs. With no separate phase-detection system or optical viewfinder (plus a smaller, mirrorless body), the sensor has to do a lot more work.

If you remove the lens from an interchangeable lens camera, you can see the rectangular shaped sensor inside. For DSLR cameras, you will need to flip the mirror in order to see it. Photo by Muhammad Ribkhan from Pixabay. Sensors come in several sizes: - 7.01 x 5.79mm sensor: The iPhone X has a sensor of this size. While tiny compared to interchangeable lens cameras, this is actually respectable for a smartphone camera; - 1-inch sensor: The Nikon J1 and Sony RX-100 line have a sensor size of 13.20 x 8.80mm;

The Nikon J1 camera has a 1-inch sensor. - Micro 4/3rds sensor: This is actually 17.30 x 13.00mm; - APS-C sensor: This is usually 23.60 x 15.70mm (depending on brand); and - Full-frame sensor: This is usually 35.00 x 24.00mm (depending on brand). But sensor sizes don’t stop there. Medium format cameras, such as the Fujifilm GFX line, have 44.00 x 33.00mm sensors. However, in this article, we’ll be focusing on the differences between full-frame and crop interchangeable lens formats, like APS-C and Micro 4/3rds.

The Meaning of Full-Frame and Crop

Why do we use the terms full-frame vs crop? Well, full-frame harks back to the days of film. Specifically, 35mm film photography, which–funnily enough–is also a crop format. It is crop because above that you have medium and large format cameras. When digital sensors came out, the term full-frame helped distinguish the sensors from APS-C, which are considered a crop format. Full-frame sensors were not the largest digital sensors at the time; the term helped film photographers transitioning to digital understand that equivalency in field of view and depth of field wouldn’t be a factor with a full-frame sensor.

A full-frame Canon camera body. Image by Pexels from Pixabay.

Advantages of Full-Frame

There are a number of advantages to full-frame sensors, including: - More Megapixels; - A better dynamic range; - Better light detection; - Low light performance; and - Beautiful bokeh. So let’s take a look at the key advantages of full-frame sensors in the full-frame vs crop debate. Do More Megapixels Matter? Higher resolution does not necessarily lead to better quality photos. How many megapixels you need is entirely dependent on you. In fact, there are even disadvantages to a higher resolution sensor. When it comes to full-frame vs crop, full-frame cameras tend to have the highest resolutions, like the upcoming Sony A7IV (61 MP). More resolution gives you more room to crop a shot without visibly losing image quality. This is useful if you view images on large, high-resolution screens. High-resolution images also mean more detail if you want to produce large prints.

Full-frame, high-resolution sensors are great if you want to produce large prints. Photo by JuergenPM from Pixabay. But if you’re sharing most of your images on social media only, a high-resolution camera will not be necessary. A 12 MP resolution would be more than enough to view on a screen, plus significantly fewer pixels are needed for smartphone viewing. You don’t look at a photo in a magazine from nose distance. So why would you blow up computer files to check for grain and noise if you aren’t making gallery prints? You need fewer megapixels than you think you do. High-resolution photos also have massive file sizes, that suck up processing power and hard drive space. Better Dynamic Range

Photo by Landon Nguyen. The current standard for both full-frame and crop is 24 MP, which also has a secondary benefit: improved dynamic range. Dynamic range refers to the range of light and dark tones the camera sensor is capable of rendering. The more refined the gradation, the higher the dynamic range the camera has. Dynamic range is less about the size of the sensor and more about the photosite quality (in terms of sensitivity and size). Full-frame sensors do usually have better dynamic range than crop cameras. This is because a 24 MP full-frame sensor has larger individual photosites compared to a 24 MP crop sensor. Better Light Detection Another benefit of a full-frame sensor is that the larger photosites are also more efficient at detecting light. Not only does the total light gathering area of the sensor increase with sensor size, but so do the individual pixels; making full-frame the best choice if you intend to shoot regularly in low light.

Full-frame has its advantages if you shoot high dynamic range scenes. Photo by David Mark from Pixabay. This means you’ll see a slight reduction in dynamic range and low-light noise performance if you’re using a high-resolution, full-frame sensor, but not as much as you might think. Technology like back-illuminated sensor (BSI), found in many full-frame (and a few crop sensor) cameras, helps negate the disadvantage of crowding pixels onto the sensor. Does Full-Frame Equal Better Low Light Performance?

Full-frame cameras tend to produce better images in low-light. Photo by mostafa meraji on Unsplash. This is a common question with a complex answer: yes and no. The larger sensor does mean a larger light gathering area, which can translate into better exposure and autofocus performance. But pixel size also plays a role in low-light performance, as does aperture, which is dependent on your lens, not your camera. Shutter speed selection, lens vibration reduction, sensor stabilization systems (which tend to be more efficient on smaller sensors), and tripods also help narrow the gap, depending on what you’re shooting. As a rule, though, you will get a cleaner image using a lower ISO with a full-frame camera. Full-Frame Equals Beautiful Bokeh Larger sensors also create a shallower depth of field for a given aperture and focal length. For example, if you’re using a 35mm f1.4 lens on a full-frame body like the Nikon D800, you’ll get a depth of field of approximately 0.16m from a subject distance of 1.5m. If you use that same 35mm f1.4 lens on an APS-C body, like the Fujifilm X-Pro 2, you’ll get the full-frame lens equivalent of a 50mm f2 in terms of depth of field and field of view.

Full-frame sensors create a shallower depth of field for a given aperture. Photo by Pexels from Pixabay. In short: a smaller sensor means you have to use faster lenses (wider apertures) to get the same shallow depth of field. As a very rough rule of thumb, you move back a stop of aperture in terms of the depth of field appearance per step from full-frame (APS-C, Micro 4/3rds, 1-inch). If you’re a portrait photographer who wants the best bokeh for his buck, the best option for you would be a full-frame sensor. Full-Frame Cameras Look Professional And lastly, there’s the marketing hype surrounding the term ‘full-frame’. Crop seems to suggest ‘inferior’ to full sensor size; despite the fact that that full-frame is actually a crop format. Read the full article

[photosworthseeing]

InConversation 27 // January 25th, 2020

… with Pete @tvoom admin of @photosworthseeing and Fern @allthingsfern admin of @luxlit  

In this episode we talk(ed) about:

Photography burnout, creative blocks, and all that jazz. Nasty stuff, right? How to overcome? We might have some thoughts.

We also might talk about gear. Mirrrorless (because Fern shoots mirrorless) vs. DSLR (because Pete still shoots DSLR). And maybe even Full Frame (because that is what Fern fancies) vs. Crop-Sensor (because Pete is still going the APS-C route). We will not be talking about Sony vs Canon. Who are we kidding? Of course, we will. (Btw. this video is not sponsored by anyone) We didn’t ;) because... time...

[hunteroil456]

Shutter Count Sony A6500

Shutter life ratings differ across cameras. Most modern interchangeable lens cameras, such as the Sony A6000, have shutters that support at least 100 000 actuations. Semi-pro models, such as the Sony A6500, are rated for about 200 000 shots, while professional cameras, such as the Sony A7R III, have shutters that can sustain 500 000 actuations. Jan 11, 2021 One of the most useful and underrated settings on the Sony a6500 camera while traveling is the silent shutter mode of the Sony a6500. This is especially useful if you’re shooting in a quiet environment, shooting wildlife, doing some street photography, or just don’t want to bring attention to yourself in general.

Sony A6400 Shutter Count

Check Shutter Count Sony A6500

Shutter Count

Find Shutter Count Sony A6500

Check Shutter Count A6000

The full-frame Sony A7 III is the brand’s latest full-frame E-mount model and also the most well-rounded in the range thanks to its brand new 24MP sensor, impressive number autofocus points, 5-axis in-body stabilisation and 4K video with full pixel readout. In fact, some are already calling it the “Mini A9” for the photographer on a budget.

But what about the a6500, the flagship camera of Sony’s APS-C range? It too can be called an all-rounder, as it incorporates many similar specifications to the A7 III – albeit inside a flat-topped body – so it is only natural to wonder how the two compare.

In the following comparison preview, we’re going to be answering this very question by looking at the ten main differences between the new A7 III and a6500. Let’s get started!

A7 III / a6500 full comparisons:

A7 III vs A7R III – A7 III vs X-H1 – a6300 vs a6500 – a6500 vs X-T2

A7 III / a6500 accessory articles:

Best A7 III accessories – Best a6500 accessories

A7 III comparison previews:

A7 II vs A7 III – A7 III vs A9 – A7 III vs Fuji X-T2

Sony A6400 Shutter Count

What they have in common:

E-mount

continuous burst speeds of 10fps (A7 III) and 11fps (a6500), live view with blackouts up to 8fps

5-axis IBIS with 5.0Ev of compensation (CIPA standards)

WiFi, NFC, Bluetooth connectivity

Ethics statement:The information supplied in this article is based on the official specifications found on the Sony website and our personal experience with both cameras. If we get the chance to test the two cameras side-by-side for an extended period, we will publish a full comparison complete with sample images. We were not asked to write anything about these cameras, nor were we provided with any sort of compensation. Within the article, there are affiliate links. If you decided to buy something after clicking the link, we will receive a small commission. To know more about our ethics, you can visit our full disclosure page. Thank you!

1. Design and ergonomics

As we mentioned in the introduction, the a6500 is immediately recognisable due to the flat-topped design it inherited from previous APS-C models. Unlike the A7 III whose electronic viewfinder is found inside a protruding hump at the centre, the a6500’s viewfinder is found on the left side of the body.

Although both cameras feature a prominent grip out front, that of the A7 III is a little larger. However they both feel somewhat small when used with heavy lenses such as the FE 100-400mm.

The viewfinder and larger grip contribute to the extra size and weight of the A7 III, with the official measurements being as follows:

A7 III: 126.9 x 95.6 x 62.7mm; 650g with battery and memory card

a6500: 120 x 66.9 x 53.3mm; 453g with battery and memory card

Looking more closely at the body, it becomes clear that the A7 III has more physical controls and buttons than the a6500.

In addition to having two control dials instead of just one, it also comes with an AF-ON button and an AF joystick on the rear. A closer look at the mode dial on top also reveals that the Panorama shortcut has been replaced by the Slow & Quick mode.

A welcome addition to the A7 III is the dual SD card slot. One slot is standard UHS-I while the other is UHS-II compatible. The a6500 only has a single UHS-I compliant slot, making less capable of higher write speeds than the A7 III.

Found on both models is a 3.5mm microphone terminal but only the A7 III comes with a headphone output.

Array pop php. Both are dust and moisture resistant but lack freeze proofing.

2. Viewfinder and LCD screen

Check Shutter Count Sony A6500

Both cameras feature an OLED electronic viewfinder but the A7 III’s is larger (0.5” type vs. 0.39” type) and has a higher magnification (0.78x vs. 0.70x). The resolution is the same however (2359k dots).

They both offer 100% field coverage and an eyepoint of 23mm but the a6500’s EVF has a faster refresh rate (120fps vs. 60fps).

Although both cameras have a 3-inch tilting LCD screen with the same 921k-dot resolution, the A7 III offers a little more flexibility in that it tilts up 107 degrees and down 41 degrees instead of 90 degrees and 45 degrees. Usefully, touch sensitivity has been given to both screens, although its only purpose is to change the AF point on-screen.

3. Sensor and processor

Approximately 24.2MP is the shared resolution of both the A7 III and a6500 but this is where the similarities begin and end.

The A7 III is equipped with a brand new BSI full-frame CMOS sensor which allow for better light collection than its predecessor. In fact, Sony claims 15 stops of dynamic range at low sensitivities.

This new sensor, combined with the latest BIONZ X image processor, gives the A7 III lots of flexibility in low light situations. It has a base range of 100 to 51200 ISO and can be expanded down to 50 or up to 204800. Note that the extended values only go up to 102400 for video.

The a6500 has an APS-C sized Exmor CMOS sensor whose maximum native sensitivity is ISO 25600 or 51200 when extended.

Both sensors feature a front-end LSI chip that improves the processing speed capabilities.

They offer 14-bit compressed RAW but only the A7 III has an uncompressed RAW option.

4. Autofocus performance

The A7 III is the latest model to feature Sony’s fast hybrid AF system. It features an impressive 693 phase detection and 425 contrast detection points across 93% of the frame.

The a6500 uses fewer points (425 phase detection and 169 contrast detection). These numbers are still very impressive though, if you consider that in APS-C crop mode, the A7 III is limited to 299 points with FE lenses or 221 points with APS-C lenses.

The minimum focus sensitivity range starts from -3Ev on the A7 III while the a6500 has a minimum -1Ev sensitivity.

The A7 III also comes with the AF Area Recognition mode that allows frequently used focus point settings to be memorised and assigned to custom buttons for fast recall, as well as the AF Track Sensor that allows you to adjust the responsiveness in continuous mode. Both feature EyeAF and Face Detection.

We’ve tested the a6500 intensively and its autofocus system is definitely excellent. The A7 III is one of the best camera you can find and its AF is based on that of the flagship A9, which is the best we’ve tested so far in the mirrorless world.

5. Buffer capacity

A smaller yet potentially significant difference for sports and wildlife photographers is the buffer capacity of the two cameras.

The A7 III can record 177 frames in JPG format and 89 in RAW format in a single burst whereas the a6500 is capable of recording 233 JPGs or 107 RAW frames. Usefully, you can operate the Fn and menu buttons on the A7 III immediately after finishing a continuous burst, even while data writing is in progress.

https://hunteroil456.tumblr.com/post/656908496763322368/fetch-tv-plex. Of course, we mustn’t forget that performance is also dependant on the SD card, lens and continuous shooting speed.

6. Shutter speed

Shutter Count

The A7 III and a6500 both use an electronically controlled, vertical-traverse focal plane type shutter that is supposed to produce fewer vibrations than previous shutters.

The main difference between them is their maximum shutter speed. Whereas the A7 III can reach 1/8000s, the a6500 is capped at 1/4000s. (Note that those speeds don’t change when you switch to the electronic shutter.)

Interestingly, the A7 III also comes with a new flicker reduction mode that minimises flickering in still images caused by fluorescent and other artificial lighting. It is useful at high shutter speeds and for continuous shots but does not work during silent shooting, bulb exposure, or movie recording.

7. Flash

The a6500 makes room for a built-in flash, rated with a guide number of 6GN at ISO 100.

The A7 III doesn’t feature a built-in flash, which is anything but unusual given that other cameras in this series don’t have one either. An external flash unit or a trigger for remote units can be attached to the hotshoe on top.

8. Battery type and life

There used to be one bugbear that pretty much all Sony owners had: the poor battery life of the original NP-FW50 battery.

This is why all third generation A7 cameras – including the A7 III – use the new NP-FZ100 battery. On one full charge, the A7 III can manage an average of 710 photos with the LCD monitor or 610 shots with the EVF, which is approximately 2.2x the capacity of the NP-FW50.

Unfortunately the a6500 uses the older battery and is listed as being able to take around 310 shots with the viewfinder or 350 shots with the LCD. In our experience, you can usually get through a day of moderate shooting on one charge as long as you avoid using power-hungry features such as 4K video or burst shooting.

Usefully, both cameras can be charged via the USB port but neither comes bundled with a separate wall charger.

9. Vertical battery grip

The battery life of the NP-FZ100 is excellent on its own, but those who require even more juice for long shooting sessions will certainly want to consider the VG-C3EM vertical battery grip for the A7 series.

It holds two additional NP-FZ100 batteries and benefits not only from weather-sealing and an extended grip for vertical shooting, but also a second shutter release button and an AF joystick identical to the one on the body. There is also a USB port to charge the grip via the camera body.

Unfortunately Sony didn’t develop an official vertical battery grip for the a6500 but there is the option of a third-party grip from Meike called the MK A6500pro. (Check out our a6500 accessory list to find out more!)

10. Video

Although both cameras are capable of 4K recording up to 30fps and 100Mbps, and Full HD up to 120fps, there are a few small differences worth highlighting.

They both record in 4K with full pixel readout using the entire width of the sensor, which means they collect roughly 6K of data that is then sub-sampled to 4K to increase details and sharpness. However the A7 III applies a 1.2x crop when recording at 30fps, which means it collects slightly less data (5K).

You’ll find the picture profiles for video including S-Log2/3 but only the A7 III has HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma).

Finally, on the A7 III, you can record in both full frame and APS-C format.

Bonus: E-mount Lenses

Find Shutter Count Sony A6500

A final point you might want to consider is the lens catalog for each camera.

Although both use the Sony E-mount, the A7 III is primarily intended for use with full-frame (FE) lenses whereas the a6500, being a smaller body, is physically a better match for the more compact range of APS-C (E) lenses.

At the moment, there are more high quality FE lenses than E lenses, not only from Sony itself but also Zeiss and affordable third-party brands such as Sigma and Tamron to name a few. (In fact, Sigma recently announced nine lenses for the FE system, two of which are brand new and seven of which are existing ART lenses.) For this reason, a full-frame Sony camera may turn out to be a better long-term investment than an APS-C camera like the a6500.

Of course, you can use full-frame lenses on the a6500 and the 1.5x crop factor can come in handy with some of them (the 100-400mm gives you the same field of view as a 150-600mm for instance).

Finally, the phase detection AF points of the two cameras allow them to perform well with DSLR lenses via a compatible adapter, although once again the lightweight design of the a6500 isn’t ideal for this purpose.

Conclusion

In most ways that count, the performance of the Sony A7 III and a6500 is similar, owing mostly to their excellent hybrid AF systems and video capabilities. But given the price difference of around $600, some justification is needed for the additional cost of the full-frame camera.

The first is just that: the fact that it offers a larger sensor, and a brand new one at that. Indeed, it could easily become one of the best on the market if the specifications are any indication.

Second is the A9-inspired AF system and its additional phase detection points, which together provide great results for action-packed genres like sports and wildlife.

Finally there are the smaller details that make the shooting experience more enjoyable, from the larger battery and EVF to the AF joystick and the dual SD card slot.

That said, there is one aspect in the a6500’s favour that can’t be underestimated, and that is compactness, especially if your goal is to move from a heavy camera system to something lighter.

Check price of the Sony A7 III on

Amazon | B&H Photo

Check price of the Sony a6500 on

Amazon | Amazon UK | B&H Photo | eBay

A7 III / a6500 full comparisons:

A7 III vs A7R III – A7 III vs X-H1 – a6300 vs a6500 – a6500 vs X-T2

A7 III / a6500 accessory articles:

Best A7 III accessories – Best a6500 accessories

Check Shutter Count A6000

A7 III comparison previews:

A7 II vs A7 III – A7 III vs A9 – A7 III vs Fuji X-T2