APS-C okay? or fork out for Full frame with much fewer lens options

[Hazza777]

Hey guys, looking for some advice or just opinion on my next camera choice which I think basically boils down to APS-C vs FF, restart or adapt my lens collection vs keep it in the family.


I have a currently have a nikon d5100 which i got for a song years ago but its a bit heavy,dated and its lack of autofocus motor for the 70-300 nikor lens I have for thru hikes (ultralight so I'm counting grams)/wildlife photography means its time to move on to a mirrorless system. My current scope is a Williams Optics Star71 II which is probably considered wasted on an APS-C but I've found the nikon z50 16-50mm+50-250mm quite appealing, often showing up for around $1300 barely used. With an FTZ adapter I could pick between them and my dx 70-300 (or sell) or prime 35mm as well. As far as I can tell it has the same sensor as the D7500 but I've got no experience with the D7xxx series in astro configurations.


On the other hand there's the full frame sony A7 line (likely A7 or maybe a rare good deal on an A7ii body, these are heavier and given my lenses are all DX I'd have to slowly replace everything but the scope. I've read glowing reviews about their astro performance and in sensor stabilisation sounds great but I'm not sure if full frame is really worth all the expense as money is quite tight for the next year or two and if as I suspect I wont be able to adapt any of my nikon crop lenses and the full frame glass will likely weigh considerably more on hikes.


Fuji XT-2 is another APS-C i've been highly recommended for astro (mostly by professional photographers and designers) but I feel it's got the draw back of having to invest in a new system (possibly the most expensive brand) though my dx glass might adapt okay in the short term sans AF-P/S and VR as well as sacrificing sensor size so haven't dived as deep in my research.


The only other scope I look to get in this time frame is a 10"-12" dob and while astro is the primary reason I have a DSLR it will probably see more use travelling and hiking over the next 24months as uni assignments seem to suck up all the best starry nights. Any thoughts or input on my narrow minded bias for thrift and the Z50 are welcome.

[Drac0]

The crop sensors are fine. I'm currently using an unmodified Canon 70D and digging out my old 40D (bigger pixel size) to use - I may even attempt to astro mod it.

Attached is Orion/Running Man from Sunday night.

[etill]

APS-C is also fine for me, and lets you stick with 2 inch everything. I decided against full frame due to the increased cost of everything else I'd need to upgrade.

[JA]

Hi Harry,

Even though I believe in the image benefits of full frame, modern APSc sensors have certainly closed the image quality/noise gap. I have the Nikon Z50 along with a few full frame Nikon DSLRs and if travelling or wanting to go light the Z50 is incredible. Its 4K and 1080p Video are excellent even in low light as its ability to recover detail in underexposed areas.

If you're wanting to go APSc then buy the z50. It has good ergonomics, logical easy/menus, bright LCD and twin control wheels (as compared with one control wheel typical of many other brands as well as the Nikon APSc D3xxx, D5xxx models) and with lens it will be about 200 grams lighter than your D5100 with lens, which you mentioned was important for hiking.

EDIT: There is only one downside to the z50 and that there is no add on intervalometer available so all exposures >30s are either BULB/timed or you need to use a PC for control. I haven't tried mine tethered to PC yet. The Z6-II on the other hand is incredible and offers some incredible possibilities with up to 900 second exposures.
Best
JA

[glend]

In my years of imaging, APS-C has been fine. Keep it simple, and APS-C gives you more flexibility. There are fringe benefits as well, reduced processing time, spot size compatibility with many more scopes, and reduced cost of purchase.
Don't get caught up in the bigger is better hype.

[bojan]

Larger sensor, more problems (coma, astigmatism etc.)at corners.

[AdamJL]

^ this.
Everything has to be perfect with larger sensors. Smaller sensors are forgiving.

[astro744]

A full frame camera has less depth of field than APS-C for a given aperture allowing for more creative effects especially for portraits and nature shots. Full frame is a bigger body and if hiking you would likely want something smaller and lighter perhaps to complement a full frame.

You can pick up a full frame Canon 5D Mkii or 6D at around $600 to $800 and this at Teds Camera Store when they have one in their secondhand section, perhaps less privately but it depends on shutter count too. Same also for a full frame EF-L 24-105 f4 IS lens as they used to be kitted with these.

For astrophotography a full frame gives you more field of view but you will have to have suitable optics to correct any aberrations. I would not want to hike with a 5D but it is doable.

Mirrorless full frame are certainly smaller and lighter than DSLR although I’m not familiar with any.

[JA]

Certainly the increased field of view on full-frame can be advantage in framing some targets, and it is certainly a more extreme test of the optics than a smaller sensor, but if that concern can be mitigated or better optics used, it opens the door to the other important potential benefits of full-frame compared with APSc (or smaller), namely that:


FF collects approximately 2.5 times more light than APSc and therefore should offer lower noise for an equalised field of view and
FF tends to have greater well depth and hence greater dynamic range and is therefore likely to suffer less from loss of star colour for the same exposure


Best
JA

[gregbradley]

I've used Nikon D800e, Sony A7R11 and !!! and a Canon EOS R(a) full frame cameras and several Fuji X cameras - XE2, XT1, XT2 (APSc)

For nightscapes you do get a more engaging image using a full frame. I have setup the Sony alongside the Fuji and shot the same scene and the Sony image was the better.

But taking into account budget and full frame starts to be an expensive proposition.

There are very few wide angle lenses that perform well on full frame. for nightscapes, very few and they are all quite expensive with Samyang being the exception.
A bit easier with APSc.

I am familiar with Fuji APSc so I will comment on them.

Fuji lenses are up there with the very best. Zeiss like.

The stock 18-55mm zoom lens works great wide open. The Fuji XF 14mm F2.8 also works almost perfectly wide open (a small area in the corners is off but not by a lot.

There is a Fuji XF zoom its something like 28-50 F2.8. That is a stellar lens.

Fuji XF cameras are quite good for nightscapes as they use the Sony backside illuminated sensors. In the XT series there is some funny business to do with noise reduction on RAWs like Sony does so stars are slightly manipulated. Canon and I think Nikon are the only 2 that don't monkey with the stars. Even then that may be model dependent with Nikon.

Sony has the famous star eater issue. It will mistake faint sharp stars as hot pixels and try to remove them which ends up with a bunch of green stars. Fuji XT3 or 4 (there is a thread about it on the DPR Fuji forum about it) does something similar. Star eater started with later models, A7 should not be affected.

Fuji is a good choice overall as apart from the star eater which is lot less of an issue compared to Sony the camera has a lot of features that is astro friendly.

Say Fuji XT2 or above you get a timer for exposures up to 15 minutes in camera without needing an intervalometer.

Fuji uses the latest Sony sensors so the sensor is high tech and low noise, very sensitive.

Canon APSc though dominates the APSc market for astro use.

Greg.