The Lure of Full Frame cameras

Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I think I might be falling for an old flame!? One that I thought I had finished with years ago. And one that, in this very blog, I vowed and declared I didn't care about anymore.

But I bumped into her recently, and we've kinda reacquainted. I've started seeing her off-and-on again. And I have to admit that it's been thrilling. I'm enjoying it. More than I maybe would like to admit. And now I can't stop thinking about her. And dreaming... and hoping....

Ok, so if you've read the title of this blog post, you'll know where this is going. I have recently switched systems (as is my want) over to the Sony SLT range - more specifically the Sony SLT a57. The decision to move to Sony was largely due to the fact that I have some very nice Minolta glass, and the full-frame Sony a99 'on-loan'. So a very full and comprehensive kit was just begging to be made. 

I've had the a99 for probably a year now, and never really explored its capabilities. For a few reasons. First, I had my main kit - the Olympus OM-D E-M1 micro four thirds system that I was enjoying using, so the Sony just sat in my cupboard, unloved. Second, I had actually lost interest in photography over this last year for various reasons (covid lockdowns being prime among them). And third, I had talked myself into this 'smaller is better' frame of mind that had disregarded full frame as an option in my workflow. Yeah, I know...

When I decided to leave the micro four thirds platform and go to the Sony SLT system, of course I dusted off the Sony a99 so I could start getting used to the Sony eco-system. I had used it briefly about a year ago, when Sony unofficially discontinued their A-Mount line. I wrote a memorial for the system, and used the a99 at Coal Creek Falls (you can read that post here). I loved using the camera for that brief period, and even suggested in later posts that I was sorely tempted to look at full-frame again. But then 'reality' took over, and micro four thirds consumed my attention.

But that was then... 

Rapahoe Beach poles. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G. f/11 @ 1 sec, ISO 50

My first time using the Sony a99 in a 'serious' landscape shoot rocked my world and blew my mind. No - really! Very few cameras have managed to do this to me over the course of my 35+ years in this hobby/profession - and I've used a lot of cameras.

The 24 megapixel full frame sensor in the Sony a99, shot at ISO50, creates beautiful files that are sharp and contrasty, with a nice 'pop' to them, and yet they also have a very filmic quality. They actually remind me of the files I got from the Fuji X-trans sensors, but better!

As can be seen from the image on the right, the RAW file was deliberately underexposed to retain information in the highlights. I figured that I could recover 'some' detail in the shadows later in post, but if I had to let some areas remain black I would.

I was amazed at not only how much detail I could pull out of the shadows with the full frame sensor, but how clean the shadow areas were afterwards. With micro four thirds, or even APS-C, I would expect to have to do some noise-reduction cleanup afterwards. But not with the ISO 50 files on the a99. Even after cranking the shadow recovery up to 100%, the shadow areas that remained were super-clean! And yes, I'm impressed. And yes, if that's one of the benefits of shooting with full-frame sensors, then count me in!

Motukiekie Beach, Low tide. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G. f/11 @ 2.5 secs, ISO 50

My next outing with the a99 - to Motukeikie Beach - pushed the sensor in the a99 even further. Both the highlights and shadows needed full-recovery to get the image above. And once again, I'm super-impressed with the final result.

There's no way I thought I was going to recover all the shadow detail in this file - let alone do it 'cleanly'. And yet the 24MP sensor on the a99 has done just that - with flying colours!

The a99 is also a fantastic camera to use out in the field. It has the best articulating screen I've ever used - no contest. Not even close.

It's solid and weather-sealed without being a brick, has dual card slots, and a plethora of on-camera buttons that make changing settings an absolute breeze.

Yeah, ok, I'm gushing. It's embarrassing. But it's also almost hard not to. I think this might just be my perfect landscape camera - of all time! Wow!

My 'new' Sony a57 has a lot to live up to. And of course, it doesn't. Not even close. Not that it doesn't also take some great images. Because it does. And the sensor is also pretty pliable - for a 16MP APS-C sensor. But it's not a patch on the mighty a99 - poor wee thing.

So I'm getting an a99 - right? I mean, I've just said it's my perfect landscape camera. What am I waiting for?

There are three reasons I won't be getting the Sony a99 anytime soon. Price, price and... price. Even on the used market here in NZ, an a99 body goes for a ridiculous amount of money. Around $3000NZ. And you can double that for a used a99ii! That's just stupid money. Even for my most favouritist camera😢 (and yes, I made that word up).

So no, I won't be getting one anytime soon. Or probably ever! "But what about the one you've got on-loan"? I hear you say. Jolly good question. I'm glad you asked. Two things about that give me considerable pause. First, the a99 I have on-loan is 'on-loan'. Obviously. I'm not going to create a system around a camera that doesn't even belong to me. And second, it's had a pretty hard life. The command wheel has fallen off and it's permanently stuck on Aperture Priority (fortunately), and the control dials are a little sticky and 'unresponsive'. They work, but not consistently. Lord only knows what the shutter count on the camera is? I shudder to think. If this was my 'main' camera, these things alone would drive me nuts. Even if it turns out that I can keep the a99 as my forever camera, I'd be looking for a 'better' unit. And I simply can't afford the asking price. I guess that's it for full frame then?

Not so fast there buddy. All, perhaps, is not lost. Full-frame cameras - both DLSR and mirrorless, have been around for quite a while now. Long enough so that the earlier models are appearing regularly on the used market - for 'reasonable' prices.

Cameras like the Sony a7ii and a7Rii - 24MP and 42MP respectively - are coming up regularly for around the $1400 to $1800 range. Which, while still not 'cheap', is a little more affordable than a used a99. And I'm betting that image-wise the quality from the a7ii's 24MP sensor will be as good, if not better, than the a99's. No - handling won't be quite the same. The a7ii only has one card slot, is probably half the weight and size of the a99, and doesn't have the same articulation on its LCD screen. And apparently the battery life on the earlier A7 range is abysmal. But I could live with all that. Ultimately it's the IQ that matters most.

So yes, I've been looking up information on the Sony a7ii range, keeping my eye out, and dreaming that one may be in my future. And then, just to mix things up a bit, there's the 'dark horse' in the race....

My desire for full-frame digital began in about 2008, when I got the original full-frame DLSR, the Canon 5D. It too was an eye-watering price for a camera when it was first released. I waited three years for it to come down from eye-watering to just plain ridiculous before I jumped in and got one. I was shooting weddings with a 30D at the time, and moving to the full frame 5D was a huge jump in quality.

The Canon 5D was another one of those 'wow' moment cameras for me, although I ended up having something of a love-hate relationship with it.

Even though I used to shoot 'professionally' I've always looked after my gear. There's never a scratch on them (unless I purchased them pre-scratched 😆) and I'm not the sort of photographer who throws my gear around because they are 'just tools'. Yes, they are tools. But they also happen to be very expensive tools. So I look after them. Imagine, then, my surprise when my pristine 5D just stopped working one morning before a wedding! Failed logic board (apparently). I was gutted. And a bit burnt from the experience.

I was still paying it off, and couldn't really afford to get it fixed (it was about 3 months out of warranty). So I used my backup 30D for the wedding, and then promptly changed to Nikon (the amazing D300). It wasn't until the next wedding season that I managed to get the 5D fixed, and then I ended up going for a swim with it in a river! Never a good idea. One completely dead 5D!

I haven't had a 5D, or a full frame camera, since. But now that they are up to the Mark IV, and Canon have announced that there won't be a Mark V, older bodies have started coming down in price. People are switching to the mirrorless R system, and DSLR's are becoming 'old' tech (and therefore cheaper). You can pick up a 5D MkIII for about the same price as a Sony a7ii. They are, of course, very different shooting experiences. But for someone who grew up with Canon (first film and then DLSR), a move 'back' to the 5D system actually has quite a lot of appeal.

Of course, all of this is simply a 'what if' mental exercise. I still don't actually have the money to make it happen. BUT... (isn't there always a but) I certainly am not counting it out for the future. I have been booked to shoot a wedding this time next year (March 2023), and who knows? I'm doing it on the 'cheap' for somebody I know - but I might just make enough to get back into the world of full frame?

I know I've said ad-nauseam on this blog that you (I) don't need 24 megapixels. Or full frame. Or even APS-C. Especially if, like me, you only print occasionally - and even then, not very large. And indeed, you don't. And I stick by that unequivocally. I still maintain that for 'general' photography, 24MP (and full frame) is overkill.

But (there it is again), what shooting recently with the a99 has shown me, in relation to full frame, is the superior performance that it does bring to the table when post-processing. And how beautifully clean the images are at low ISO's. When dealing with pixels and light-gathering information, we've all known for a long time that bigger equals better. Bigger photosites that is. Which is why a 16MP camera can sometimes produce 'cleaner' images, with less noise, than a 24Megapixel camera. Because their photosites are bigger (sensor size being equal).

I have always introduced myself as a landscape photographer - first and foremost. And as a landscape photographer, I'm often dealing with extremes. Of weather, of light, and of the sensor's dynamic range. It's a constant struggle to fit what you see in front of you, into the camera's range of information. HDR photography was invented for this very reason. And if cameras really are just tools, and if you should always choose the right tool for the job, then as a landscape photography maybe I'm just coming to the realisation that larger, full-frame sensors, really might be the best tool for my job!? Better late than never I guess?