80D Vs A3600 shoot out.

It is indeed.
Minus my Nikon gear for work, my hobby gear is completely mirrorless (m4/3) and I actually miss some of the features of my Panasonic's when in the studio (useful live view for a start!)

The Sony's are shaping up well and beginning to offer viable alternatives as the lens selection is beginning to get there (albeit not cheap!), gotta say though I do like the look of the 80D and if I was in the market for a DSLR today I'd probably be looking at it seriously.
 
60D to 80D would be a decent upgrade, supposedly better low ISO dynamic range.

I'd only get the 80D if you were planning on shooting sports, otherwise the A6300 would be better. Battery life is pretty dismal though, coming from 1500-2000 shots per charge to 250-300 hurts.
 
I have a 70 and 60D I was thinking of changing my 60d to 80d mainly for micro adjust too.
 
I'd be tempted to sell both the 60 and 70d and get 2 80D's if APSC is your thing.
We probably have different 'needs' but if it was me. I would sell both and go full frame with a 5d3 or something.
 
Janesy B said:
I don't understand why you'd have a 70D and a 80D at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's just just a second body for a second lens

Like 70-200 f2.8 on one and 35mm on the other for example with another lens in the bag
Also last minute pre holiday failure
 
An Exception said:
I'd be tempted to sell both the 60 and 70d and get 2 80D's if APSC is your thing.
We probably have different 'needs' but if it was me. I would sell both and go full frame with a 5d3 or something.
Click to expand...

Yeah full frame isn't for me

I don't do any portrait, people photography - I question getting rid of my 35mm sigma art 1.4
Very little landscape.. And not very good at it, but I do like water based shots
A bit of night time

But my favourite is nature, (Inc zoos) and macro
This includes birds in flight

There are times when a FF might be useful but I don't feel I can justify the cost when my main focus is geared towards APSC and they are cheaper

I'm not 100pc sure if crop is better for macro but does the extra reach you get with crop apply to magnification in macro?.. Downside.. Less light for those high shutter speeds
 
413x said:
Yeah full frame isn't for me

I don't do any portrait, people photography - I question getting rid of my 35mm sigma art 1.4
Very little landscape.. And not very good at it, but I do like water based shots
A bit of night time

But my favourite is nature, (Inc zoos) and macro
This includes birds in flight

There are times when a FF might be useful but I don't feel I can justify the cost when my main focus is geared towards APSC and they are cheaper

I'm not 100pc sure if crop is better for macro but does the extra reach you get with crop apply to magnification in macro?.. Downside.. Less light for those high shutter speeds
Click to expand...

The advantage of a crop sensor for macro work is similar to distance work.

A 1:1 macro lens means an object that is 1cm big will cover 1cm of the sensor at minimum focus distance. If the sensor is bigger than that object will be covering much less of the frame, and you will have to crop down to get the same subject size. that is very similar to the problem when shooting distant objects on FF, you will have to crop down to get the same subject framing as a crop camera.

If the FF sensor had the same pixel density as a crop sensor then there is much less of an issue, because you can still get your APS-C crop. That is the only reason why I purchased a D800, wouldn't bother going FF if I got less than a 16MP APS-C crop.


With distant subject you can try and get closer or buy a longer lens. In reality both options have problem, sometimes it is physically impossible, dangerous or illegal to get closer. My 300mm f/4.0 PF weighs 700g, a 500mm f/4.0 weighs nearly 4000g and cost the same as a small car.

With Macro, you actually have even harder constraints. you can't get closer, because you are at the minimum focusing distance. Getting a long lens just means you can get the same photo being further away.


If you photograph object that are bigger than the 35mm FF then the FF sensor will be better but for smaller objects an APS-C camera has a big advantage.
 
D.P. said:
The advantage of a crop sensor for macro work is similar to distance work.

A 1:1 macro lens means an object that is 1cm big will cover 1cm of the sensor at minimum focus distance. If the sensor is bigger than that object will be covering much less of the frame, and you will have to crop down to get the same subject size. that is very similar to the problem when shooting distant objects on FF, you will have to crop down to get the same subject framing as a crop camera.

If the FF sensor had the same pixel density as a crop sensor then there is much less of an issue, because you can still get your APS-C crop. That is the only reason why I purchased a D800, wouldn't bother going FF if I got less than a 16MP APS-C crop.


With distant subject you can try and get closer or buy a longer lens. In reality both options have problem, sometimes it is physically impossible, dangerous or illegal to get closer. My 300mm f/4.0 PF weighs 700g, a 500mm f/4.0 weighs nearly 4000g and cost the same as a small car.

With Macro, you actually have even harder constraints. you can't get closer, because you are at the minimum focusing distance. Getting a long lens just means you can get the same photo being further away.


If you photograph object that are bigger than the 35mm FF then the FF sensor will be better but for smaller objects an APS-C camera has a big advantage.
Click to expand...

Thanks dp

I already knew it for distance, but didn't think of the need to get closer for Macro
With my canon 100mm I already have to get all close its too close for insects
Also the Canon 180mm macro doesn't have IS

So really.. FF really isn't a good idea at all for me
 
413x said:
Thanks dp

I already knew it for distance, but didn't think of the need to get closer for Macro
With my canon 100mm I already have to get all close its too close for insects
Also the Canon 180mm macro doesn't have IS

So really.. FF really isn't a good idea at all for me
Click to expand...

With macro you wil be the same distance when trying to get 1:1, but with FF the object will be way smaller and you won't be able to get closer
 
if I was in the market for aps-c I would choose Fuji there lens line up is more impressive ,also mirrorlessons found the Fuji v a6300 the Fuji was preferred for birds in flight due to the viewfinder , although the auto focus on the sony is impressive with 4k also .
All looks good for mirrorless cameras ,I am justing waiting until oct for Olympus new flagship hopefully comes with improved c-af and 4k .
The Olympus does great macro with in built focus stacking could even mount your canon lens on it x2 focal length with IS in camera and body using an adaptor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqZfu68FeiI
 
An Exception said:
I quite like him. Less entertaining but way more informative than digitalrev.
Click to expand...

I do agree that digitalrev is not that informative some times, however the main guy is what Clarkson is to cars, he is the Clarkson of the camera world ! ;)

I do like some of his humour !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom