|
I agree particularly as the OP has mentioned starting on full auto which I find is a bad idea on FF, the much shallower depth of field means you have to really be aware of aperture, depth of field and iso performance to be able to balance what type of shot you want. I find auto systems often favour opening up the aperture first whereas in some shots you need greater depth of field and therefore will want to increase the iso first.
Also it takes a bit of work to bring out the best of an FF sensor as straight out of camera they're often underwhelming.
A while back I saw someone posting their delight with their new phone camera and posted an example of how it beat their FF camera. The shot was taken early evening and the person admitted they only ever used the FF camera on auto and jpegs. The phone camera picture was noticeably better in comparison, the full scene was in good focus, it had made some attempt to recover detail in the shadow/highlights and the colour was more vivid. The FF camera picture in comparison was mostly out of focus as it had chosen the maximum aperture, the sky was blown out and the trees were underexposed plus the colour was very flat.
If the FF camera had been used properly the aperture would have been stopped down a bit, it would have been a raw photo and it would have the exposure pushed to bring out the detail in the underexposed and overexposed areas plus the colours brightened to produce a much better photo.
Last year when with a friend at a race track they offered to take photos for me and I was split between handing them my D750 which was the better camera but more difficult to use or the RX10M2 which is better at full auto. In the end I lent him the D750 but I configured it first with the aperture stopped right down to get a decent depth of field, the auto iso set faster to get a higher shutter speed at the cost of a little more noise, the drive mode set to high speed burst and the auto focus set to the most suitable tracking mode. In full auto mode the camera would have been next to useless as it would have chosen middling settings that wouldn't do what was needed.
I can certainly see situations where it would worth jumping straight into a FF camera if needing for example the best low light performance and were prepared to spend the time to get that. But with no specific requirements I think it's a lot of cost and bulk to begin with as it ultimately may not be the right system.
I agree with your analogy and would extend it by saying you may find after a few months of struggling with the compromises of the Aston that actually you prefer the stability from an RS6 Avant or the clever electronics on a Nissan GT-R to help get round the track faster. |
|