Swicthing to camera with 35mm sensor from APS-C did squat

Few months ago I switched to 35 mm sensor camera (digital SLR) from APS-C one.

Recently, after reading others' experience of the same, I am rather disgusted that

neither has my photography improved nor did an inspiration came to me. The images

look much the same before & after.

 

(The only gain is a large file to crop from. That, more weight; better color fidelity & lower noise at ISO

1600 & 3200; finder-blackout cover right in the finder; exposure|histogram preview

without saving a file on card, among other things.)

 

Switching to Nikon system would be the next step, surely. . o O ( Wait ... medium

format digital camera system would be better still, I think. )

<p>You should definitely take the leap to 8x10. Anything less is for chumps.</p>

<p>Uh......This is a joke, right?</p>

Thanks, Jeremy. I did thought about that but, please correct me if I am wrong, a 8x10 camera does not come in digital version, say within $ 2000. That is why I mentioned "medium format" digital camera[0].

 

 

[0] Only digital medium format camera anywhere near the $ 2000 mark is one from Pentax, sensor of which is ridiculously smaller than actual "medium format" size. So much for that.

A joke, William? I must be missing something in photography, or life, if better equipment does not inspire or improves my photography. And that saddens me deeply. Thus the purchase was a cruel, crushing joke.

<p>OK, parv, sorry about that. But, it did seem to me that you were casually dismissing the advantages you listed, and they aren't insignificant. Other than that, I don't think that elements like improving photography or getting an inspiration are necessarily related to equipment upgrades, at least not totally...</p>

<p>Most people, upon blowing thousands of dollars for new equipment, will "see" improvement whether it's there or not. It's refreshing to hear from someone who is honest with himself and others.</p>

<p>There are certainly advantages to full frame, just like there are other advantages to crop. However, neither format is the holy grail. The actual differences are less significant that most people expect. It should interest anyone pondering "moving up" to full frame that a lot of experienced photographers shoot in BOTH formats, which begs the question why this might be. After a moment of reflection, it should become apparent that both formats are used because they represent different tools. If one were clearly superior to the other, experienced photographers would use only one or the other and not both.</p>

<p> . . . when you switch to a 35mm sensor DSLR from those smaller APS-C toys, you need to buy new lenses . . .<br>

are you sure that is not your real problem?</p>

<p>WW</p>

Wrong direction. I switched from a 5DII to an iPhone and won five Pulitzers...

<p>I think we're all sufficiently experienced to know that the gradation of improvement becomes finer as the price escalates; diminishing returns, but nonetheless there are tangible improvements.</p>

<p>Whether these improvements make an actual difference is dependent on the individual user so there's really no right or wrong. To each his/her own. </p>

 

<p>Sure, it isn't as dramatic as a change as it isn't 2008 anymore. APS-C is 90+% of FF counter parts. The high iso and shallower dof are only slightly better, plus bigger OVF. The huge gap is wide angle sub f2.8 primes, if you are into that aspect...</p>

<p>Japan is still in a bad situation, so I definitely think that your switching to Nikon is a really good move. Then you can try Pentax.</p>

<p>Im still trying to figure out if this is a troll post....</p>

<p>I thought it was light hearted and tongue-in-cheek humour - and my comment was in the same fashion.<br>

I might be incorrect though.<br>

</p>

<p>I don't understand how anyone could not realize that this post was a joke.</p>

<p>As for myself, seriously, I switched from full-frame (5D Mark II) to Micro Four Thirds (Olympus EP-2). Aside from a temporary loss of high-ISO image quality (which I could now fix by upgrading to an EP-5), I do not believe my photography suffered in any way. The weight of my camera bag, however, decreased markedly.</p>

<p>I'm sure you were correct, William, but this type of humour is sometimes not well received and can get contentious pretty quickly. </p>

<p>Of course, everyone's entitled to my opinion. :-) </p>

<p>My 35mm format cameras are much heavier. I think that is something few people think about. I think they impart a sense of gravitas to the picture taking process that a crop sensor camera just can't. Bigger is always better. It talks to me too. More importantly it listens and remembers what I say. My wife can't even do that nor can my crop sensor cameras. (She is not very big herself so that may have something to do with it.) My 35mm format camera clicks really fast too. Really fast. Sometimes when I forget to change the thingy that makes it go slow it rips off about 10 frames like a machine gun right in the middle of someone's wedding. Everyone looks at me and says, "what was tha.....will you look a the size of the camera that guy has! Have you ever seen a bigger lens?" That makes me feel good.</p>

<p>The pictures are about the same but that is not the point. </p>

<p>Expecting equipment to drive the creative process is basically going to be a rather long trip. Cameras are just a tool to facilitate YOUR creative process - to augment your process and inspiration. Photo.net is so equipment centric that I can't blame you for expecting your gear to provide decidedly better images - ideas - visual concepts, sadly if the images are just the same, what does that that tell you?</p>

<p>Other than the obvious advantages pointed out above - you can't see the beauty of a FF sensor on screen - it all looks the same - but wait til you blow up a 30"x40" print then you'll begin to appreciate the advantages.</p>

<p>If you want large format digital, buy an iPad.</p>

<p>Link to the 'prequel' (?) :</p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bqN2">How switching to full frame DID make me a better photographer</a></p>

<p>I see some differences when I upgraded from a D70 to D600, not that I got a better photo it just looked newer if you catch my drift. The D70 was a 2004 look and the D600 is a newer look. DR, noise, color, WB. It told me that I could more ruthlessly PP my D70 file. But at base ISO the D70 was still a very good camera for the print sizes that I do. In hindsight maybe I should have went with a D7000 (not D7100) as it was cheaper but then maybe I could not use the WA primes they are just so small and nifty. </p>

<p>I find that for me to get a better image I need to actively seek them out or shoor in a certain way, travel there, or long exposures, keep asking myself what I want in my frame etc. Part of my way at least initially is to shoot slide film which I enjoy is the eye popping colors that digital still isn't able to do. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I switched from a 5DII to an iPhone and won five Pulitzers...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tried my cellphone, still no Pulitzer... Should I switch my phone to Apple?<br>

<em>(while I appreciate this joke, I also did try to reply seriously in the 'prequel thread'; the ease with which tools are dismissed as part of the photographer's ability to deliver the images he wants to deliver is sometimes staggeringly simplistic. Why it has to be "gear does not matter" versus "oh, shiny new gear!"... like one excludes the other?)</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Tried my cellphone, still no Pulitzer... "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, I don't think they award Pulitzer prizes for selfies or feet. :-) </p>

<p>Darn..... but Cindy Sherman does selfies....well, there is something to aspire to then :-D</p>

<p>To do Cindy Sherman selfies you'd need one of those cell phone tripods and a camera self timer app.</p>