Full Frame vs DX for Bird/Wildlife Photography

[Doug Herr]

I shot a D7100, D7200, D500 and now Canon R7. I don't recall anytime when someone said "wow, that photo would have been so much better if it was shot with a full frame sensor." The reason I'm posting this is we tend to agonize over the minutia of noise, grain, bokeh, corner sharpness etc. when, if we're really being brutally honest with ourselves; 1) folks looking at our photos just know "I like it" or "I don't like it" and 2) most of our photos even we wouldn't know the difference.

Just my personal opinion.
Jeff

point #1: correct, many people either like it or they don't, and its remarkable how blurry, grainy or crap-bokeh-y a photo has to be before the general public will flip from 'like" to "don't like". However the general public isn't my primary audience. My target audiences are a) me and b) stock agencies, both of whom care very much about such technical minutia.

point #2: I, being a member of my primary audience, know which of my photos were enabled by newer technology, or by more pixels, or by higher low-noise ISO, or by less-craptic bokeh.

It should be noted that even the general public eventually will see the difference. My best-sellers from the film era have been eclipsed several times over by newer technology that resulted in higher ISO, less noise/grain, better bokeh, more detail; most of these film images are now unremarkable and unmarketable. The technology advances in (usually) small steps but over time the cumulative effect is ingrained in the audience's expectations. It is a rare photo that sells well despite poor technical details. Only four of my film-origin photos continue to sell.

So, is the minutia important? To some, no, To others, somewhat. To a few, yes. Who is your audience? Do you want to appeal to some, or to a broader range of tastes? YMMV.

 

[jeffnles1]

But we are out having fun and enjoying ourselves which is the best thing

I hear ya. Being out in nature and enjoying what we do is absolutely the best thing!

 

[Dhelton]

I tend to use my D500 for photographing birds/animals (crop factor, better autofocus vs my D800 etc), but occasionally I use my D800 & the difference in quality (to my eyes at least) appears to me significant- the images have so much better detail & colour, and just look significantly better (even FX + 1.4 TC vs DX w/o TC to account for additional reach). Obviously I’m somewhat limited by the capabilities of my ageing D800, but just wanted to understand whether it’s more common to use FX for wildlife photography, especially if you have access to the likes of D850/Z9 etc? Apologies if this is somewhat stating the obvious given the higher MP, better sensor etc, but I suppose there’s always a compromise in terms of reach, autofocus capabilities etc…. I have been thinking of getting a D850/Z8 to replace the D800, hence asking the question (sometimes I wonder whether I should just keep the D800 & replace the D500 with a D850/Z8)

I always use fullframe for wildlife and only use DX temporarily sometimes to get a better focus lock on farther away subjects.

 

[O]

I tend to use my D500 for photographing birds/animals (crop factor, better autofocus vs my D800 etc), but occasionally I use my D800 & the difference in quality (to my eyes at least) appears to me significant- the images have so much better detail & colour, and just look significantly better (even FX + 1.4 TC vs DX w/o TC to account for additional reach). Obviously I’m somewhat limited by the capabilities of my ageing D800, but just wanted to understand whether it’s more common to use FX for wildlife photography, especially if you have access to the likes of D850/Z9 etc? Apologies if this is somewhat stating the obvious given the higher MP, better sensor etc, but I suppose there’s always a compromise in terms of reach, autofocus capabilities etc…. I have been thinking of getting a D850/Z8 to replace the D800, hence asking the question (sometimes I wonder whether I should just keep the D800 & replace the D500 with a D850/Z8)

Question from original post, D850 or Z8 or DX D500.

If you fully embrace the change to a Z8 you may like most people never touch your DSLRs again, mirror less will add sensor IS or VR to DSLR lenses that don't have VR, the Z8 will be backwards compatible with DSLR lenses plus it will have speed.

What determines your choice of back up camera is if you invest in mirror less glass or not.

I use FX glass and rent mirror less glass if and when as needed, i use a D850 and Z9 plus when needed i rent a D6.

If your staying mostly with FX glass then unquestionably the D850 is awesome as we know and a perfect back up.

In fact if you don't even go mirror less the D850 will do everything your D800 and D500 did and some.

However in mirror less the Z8 is a perfect choice for you, if you go mirror less, but if you don't need blistering speed the pending Z7III looks like a game changer if its 10fps and 61 mp, imagine the crop ability.

I see all the gear just as tools to work with time light and speed combinations, FX over DX however regardless of being DSLRS or Mirror less FX allows me better iso outcomes, and to shoot wider and crop to create that perfect composition if needed, something i cant quite get with the DX format all the time.

Again maybe wait till the Z7III arrives if ts 61 mp, it may well be worth the wait.

We have Z6II and Z7II combo, we have the D850 D6 combo well the Z9/Z8 that will match nicely with a Z7III 61 mp as a combo, here is hoping.

If the story's are true the Z90 DX may be 24mp or 33 mp, who knows..............................

Just enjoy what ever you do.

Time is like water dripping out of hole in a bucket, use it wisely.

Only an opinion

 

[Doomrider74]

Question from original post, D850 or Z8 or DX D500.

If you fully embrace the change to a Z8 you may like most people never touch your DSLRs again, mirror less will add sensor IS or VR to DSLR lenses that don't have VR, the Z8 will be backwards compatible with DSLR lenses plus it will have speed.

What determines your back up camera is if you invest in mirror less glass or not.

I use FX glass and rent mirror less glass if and when as needed, i use a D850 and Z9.

If your staying mostly with FX glass then unquestionably the D850 is awesome as we know and a perfect back up.

In fact if you don't even go mirror less the D850 will do everything your D800 and D500 did and some.

However in mirror less the Z8 is a perfect choice for you if you go mirror less, but if you don't need blistering speed the pending Z7III looks like a game changer if its 10fps and 61 mp.

I see all the gear just as tools to work with time light and speed combinations, FX over DX however regardless of being DSLRS or Mirror less allows me better iso, and to shoot wider and crop to create that perfect composition if needed, something i cant quite get with the DX format all the time.

Again maybe wait till the Z7III arrives if ts 61 mp, it may well be worth the wait.

We have Z6II and Z7II combo, we have the D850 D6 combo well the Z9/Z8 that will match nicely with a Z7III 61 mp combo, here is hoping.

If the story's are true the Z90 DX may be 24mp or 33 mp, who knows..............................

Just enjoy what ever you do.

Time is like water dripping out of hole in a bucket, use it wisely.

Only an opinion

As a D500 user, if they released a Z7iii with the AF of the Z8, but only at 10fps, it might be my D500 replacement: Personally, I've found 10fps to be fine for all the wildlife photography I've done. However, as it stands at the moment, I'll probably get a Z8 this year. The wildcard would be if they bring out a DX version of the Z8 with 24-33mpix: That would make it hard to justify a more expensive FX camera.

 

[O]

I shot a D7100, D7200, D500 and now Canon R7. I don't recall anytime when someone said "wow, that photo would have been so much better if it was shot with a full frame sensor." The reason I'm posting this is we tend to agonize over the minutia of noise, grain, bokeh, corner sharpness etc. when, if we're really being brutally honest with ourselves; 1) folks looking at our photos just know "I like it" or "I don't like it" and 2) most of our photos even we wouldn't know the difference.

Just my personal opinion.
Jeff

DX cropped camera versus FX Full frame camera,

Interesting and refreshing perspective

There is nothing wrong in what your say and its a grounding perspective to be well noted.
I see in competition or gallery exhibitions most viewers are ignorant to what camera or lens was used, as you say they just like what they see or they don't.
The viewer may engage connect or it may evoke emotion is all that really matters.
That said there is also a lot more to be considered that the creation of some photos compositions outcomes are very much dependent firstly on the eye, then skill sets, then light, then the glass and the camera last of all that records.

The key tool is light then speed balanced with time.
DX or even 4/3rd cameras are more dependent on light and therefore face higher ISO needs much sooner than FX FF or MF.

Its when a subject, moment, composition, is out of the perfect light and or position that different tools can make a huge difference.

Its when you can come up with photos that are essentially indistinguishable if they were taken on a Z9 600 F4 S TC, or a 600 F 4 FL on a D6, or a D7100 at 600mm using a 300 F2.8 VR II on a 2 x Tc III, says a lot, but let the light fall off with cloud cover and the difference becomes very clear that certain tools have certain limitations.

The fair light and fair weather shooters usually get really challenged.

So yes to some photographers and even less so to the viewer it doesn't matter what gear was used, but still to many actual photographers i think its critical in achieving the optimum outcome.

Only an opinion

 

[O]

As a D500 user, if they released a Z7iii with the AF of the Z8, but only at 10fps, it might be my D500 replacement: Personally, I've found 10fps to be fine for all the wildlife photography I've done. However, as it stands at the moment, I'll probably get a Z8 this year. The wildcard would be if they bring out a DX version of the Z8 with 24-33mpix: That would make it hard to justify a more expensive FX camera.

Hear you, the Z90 is tipped as 24 or 33mp, i cant remember just have to wait and see, i don't think it will be cheap..............Re Speeds 100% i wind back a D6 Z9 to 5-10 fps, occasionally i might on my Z9 crack 20 fps, but yes FF 61mp at 10 fps eventuates sounds good, that would be nice, with tracking i find for myself it has a small spot but is not the must have end all by a long way, in fact i have it turned off more than on.

Only an opinion

 

[Anjin San]

I shot a D7100, D7200, D500 and now Canon R7. I don't recall anytime when someone said "wow, that photo would have been so much better if it was shot with a full frame sensor." The reason I'm posting this is we tend to agonize over the minutia of noise, grain, bokeh, corner sharpness etc. when, if we're really being brutally honest with ourselves; 1) folks looking at our photos just know "I like it" or "I don't like it" and 2) most of our photos even we wouldn't know the difference.

Just my personal opinion.
Jeff

Yep…unless one has the same shot at the same time from FX and DX…once you get to final output the vast majority will IMO not be about to spot any difference…and if they do it will be not better/worse but just different.

 

[Anjin San]

No doubt. But not IQ.

At 1:1 pixel peeping…sure, but downsampled to 1024 or 1280 wide for screen output the differences get pretty much downsampled away. I tried this experiment with my Z8, Zo, wife’s Z50, 500PF, 100-400, 400/4.5, 600PF and the Z TCs in every combination I could. At 1:1 I could see very minor sharpness differences but nothing to make any of them unacceptable not sharp…but then downsampling and looking side by side there were still minor differences in the results but it wasn’t sharpness or bokeh or whatever…just slightly different and picking the best was pretty much not doable.

 

[Nimi]

At 1:1 pixel peeping…sure, but downsampled to 1024 or 1280 wide for screen output the differences get pretty much downsampled away. I tried this experiment with my Z8, Zo, wife’s Z50, 500PF, 100-400, 400/4.5, 600PF and the Z TCs in every combination I could. At 1:1 I could see very minor sharpness differences but nothing to make any of them unacceptable not sharp…but then downsampling and looking side by side there were still minor differences in the results but it wasn’t sharpness or bokeh or whatever…just slightly different and picking the best was pretty much not doable.

I'm comparing FF to MFT, not APS-C. Material difference. In the hands of a good photographer/editor, good light, no crop, they'll come close. But not usually.

 

[bleirer]

It would be counter intuitive if there was no difference. Even with the finest lens there is a limit to how much detail can be resolved as you take smaller and smaller sections. If you want to view an image of the same size with the subject filling the same amount of the frame then by taking a smaller and smaller crop and magnifying it one is expecting the impossible from the lens.

 

[Nimi]

It would be counter intuitive if there was no difference. Even with the finest lens there is a limit to how much detail can be resolved as you take smaller and smaller sections. If you want to view an image of the same size with the subject filling the same amount of the frame then by taking a smaller and smaller crop and magnifying it one is expecting the impossible from the lens.

Ditto noise and dynamic range. The larger the sensor area exposed, the better the IQ.

 

[wotan1]

It would be counter intuitive if there was no difference. Even with the finest lens there is a limit to how much detail can be resolved as you take smaller and smaller sections. If you want to view an image of the same size with the subject filling the same amount of the frame then by taking a smaller and smaller crop and magnifying it one is expecting the impossible from the lens.

I agree with this.

I have always preferred images with high fine grain detail. They invite the observer to examine the image closely and the image resolution itself is part of the attraction of the image. I have always admired Ansel Adams' work.

So I have always gravitated to high resolution cameras and lenses.

I pretty much stayed with film until finally digital exceeded the resolution capabilty of film. My digital choices in cameras have included the d810, Z7ii and Z9.

I have also tended to gravitate toward higher resolution lenses. My favorite non-super telephoto lenses are the 14-24mm f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8. The 70-200mm f2.8 is also one of the highest IQ zooms ever rated by DXOMARK from any manufacturer.

I can tell the difference in images from these special lenses.

I have a 17 inch high resolution Epson photo printer and I like to print 17 inch wide prints on super fine paper using the highest resolution possible. Images taken with these special lenses have that extra "pop".

I now own three "midrange" high resolution Z super telephoto primes, the Z400mm f4.5 and the 600mm pf and 800mm pf. I have played around with those lenses and I know how far I can extend their nominal focal length through teleconverters, switching from full frame to dx format or cropping.

I have also carefully studied lens evaluation results. I respect the approach toward lens evaluations taken by Steve Perry and have come to respect and trust his advice.

I am no Ansel Adams and will never have his legendary discipline and skill.

But I am having fun. It stretches my mind and skills, gets me out of the house and into the field and keeps my mind sharp.

Every once in a while I do something that others appreciate and that is all the reward I need at this time of my life.

 

[Anjin San]

I'm comparing FF to MFT, not APS-C. Material difference. In the hands of a good photographer/editor, good light, no crop, they'll come close. But not usually.

I still contend tha5 once reduced to output size it’s going to be real hard to tell the difference…no matter whether it is M43, dx, fx, or higher…for the majority of people. We see too much emphasis overall on max IQ and while there are differences, the final output obscures a lot of differences…and except for the ‘mine needs to be best’ idea…for amateurs not making money at this the difference in IQ is overcome by the myriad of other factors…and that when viewed as output few people can tell the difference between an6 of the formats for a good shot. When doing PP…yeah, one can see minor differences, but the output process hides most/all of those and to be fair people aren’t going to look at a shot with nice framing, pose, and PP and say…that sucks, woulda been better with a full frame body and an exotic prI r. Better is always…always…the enemy of good enough.

 

[Nimi]

I still contend tha5 once reduced to output size it’s going to be real hard to tell the difference…no matter whether it is M43, dx, fx, or higher…for the majority of people. We see too much emphasis overall on max IQ and while there are differences, the final output obscures a lot of differences…and except for the ‘mine needs to be best’ idea…for amateurs not making money at this the difference in IQ is overcome by the myriad of other factors…and that when viewed as output few people can tell the difference between an6 of the formats for a good shot. When doing PP…yeah, one can see minor differences, but the output process hides most/all of those and to be fair people aren’t going to look at a shot with nice framing, pose, and PP and say…that sucks, woulda been better with a full frame body and an exotic prI r. Better is always…always…the enemy of good enough.

I agree that in most instances, viewed on a phone, it makes little to no difference. But some of us have to send in the photos to editors, in RAW, and they require the best files: high dynamic range, tack sharp, correctly exposed, room to crop, etc. And for that, MFT and consumer lenses don't cut it. APS-C and above, no problem. Same reason you can't use a camcorder for a movie.

 

[O]

I still contend tha5 once reduced to output size it’s going to be real hard to tell the difference…no matter whether it is M43, dx, fx, or higher…for the majority of people. We see too much emphasis overall on max IQ and while there are differences, the final output obscures a lot of differences…and except for the ‘mine needs to be best’ idea…for amateurs not making money at this the difference in IQ is overcome by the myriad of other factors…and that when viewed as output few people can tell the difference between an6 of the formats for a good shot. When doing PP…yeah, one can see minor differences, but the output process hides most/all of those and to be fair people aren’t going to look at a shot with nice framing, pose, and PP and say…that sucks, woulda been better with a full frame body and an exotic prI r. Better is always…always…the enemy of good enough.

There is truth in what you say and i applaud this.

I mean my friend she uses a D850 on a 28-300 only and sells out her exhibitions doing creative nature, moody landscapes and street scapes.

My other friend and i were doing a couple of sunrise shoot in challenging weather on Norfolk Island, me with my D850 Schneider filters, heavy tripod, he used a D810 16-35 no filters just shot raw with bracketing, but he was also a graphic designer and could make anything look spectacular just through post processing, he just uses the one camera one lens for everything nothing else, now he has years of experience in PS LR and is a highly qualified computer genius, you name it he could do it, won gold internationally so many competitions and due to a lack of challenge he has given up photography.

Now he uses his IPHONE 14. He says as long as he can shoot RAW he is happy, his previous camera was a D2H where he won most of the gold awards with.

That said he did comment that my files had better clarity, more dynamism and dynamic range, straight out of camera, something that is also massively apparent when shooting with a 100 or 150 mp MF camera versus a D2H, D810, D850, you see i don't like post processing much at all and normally i shoot JPEG Fine 98% of the time except for scapes etc.

I can crop the MF 2 or 3 times more than a 35mm camera.

All said and done, i can do a shoot with a D300 and D800 is there a difference we know the answer.

My friend using the D850 on the 28-300 says she can notice a huge difference when using her D4s on the 28-300 when processing or cropping...........in perfect light or with full flash the gap is so close until again you crop heavily.

Now here is a consideration, if a camera and lens due to conditions uses or needs a lot more iso, for the iso to be effective simply put it needs to throw out some DYNAMIC range !

Cropped sensors have much poorer iso tolerance mostly due to the pixel size, the larger the actual pixel pitch size the more light therefore more colour - dynamic range the more the ISO increasing can be tolerated, that's why low light sports action camera keep the pixel density lower to accommodate larger pixels as well as tollerate speed, Simple.

This defines a difference in tools, the more pixels the better the micro contrast and definition. Do a land scape with the 100 MF camera you may not wont to use anything else thereafter.

So the bottom line is their all just tools, some hammers push a nail in with 2 blows others with 6, their all just tools and each has it benefits, its what works for you and makes you happy.

But yes given good light the gap between different tools does narrow unless ISO starts to really climb.

Myself i am happy using a D850, Z9, DF, D3X, D4s, D6, on any lens i just act adapt accordingly, the key asset here is the glass and you.
Why a DF of all things, FWIW firstly its fun, mint, lots of actuation's left, not worth selling for what i can get for it, great travel camera, slows me down, love using it on a manual Ziess 50mm 1.4, ISO performance is really really good. Its only a 16mp sensor, great large pixel pitch that sucks in so much light.

Only an opinion

 

[Doug Herr]

I still contend tha5 once reduced to output size it’s going to be real hard to tell the difference…no matter whether it is M43, dx, fx, or higher…for the majority of people. We see too much emphasis overall on max IQ and while there are differences, the final output obscures a lot of differences…and except for the ‘mine needs to be best’ idea…for amateurs not making money at this the difference in IQ is overcome by the myriad of other factors…and that when viewed as output few people can tell the difference between an6 of the formats for a good shot. When doing PP…yeah, one can see minor differences, but the output process hides most/all of those and to be fair people aren’t going to look at a shot with nice framing, pose, and PP and say…that sucks, woulda been better with a full frame body and an exotic prI r. Better is always…always…the enemy of good enough.

If social media is the output, an iPhone is all that's needed. I thought the point of a dedicated camera with interchangeable lenses was to do better.

 

[StefanSC]

Well, most print is dead and most people consume images via their smartphones, tablets or at best their laptop screens (which most likely aren't color calibrated to begin with).

 

[Luskentyre]

DX cropped camera versus FX Full frame camera,

Interesting and refreshing perspective

There is nothing wrong in what your say and its a grounding perspective to be well noted.
I see in competition or gallery exhibitions most viewers are ignorant to what camera or lens was used, as you say they just like what they see or they don't.
The viewer may engage connect or it may evoke emotion is all that really matters.
That said there is also a lot more to be considered that the creation of some photos compositions outcomes are very much dependent firstly on the eye, then skill sets, then light, then the glass and the camera last of all that records.

The key tool is light then speed balanced with time.
DX or even 4/3rd cameras are more dependent on light and therefore face higher ISO needs much sooner than FX FF or MF.

Its when a subject, moment, composition, is out of the perfect light and or position that different tools can make a huge difference.

Its when you can come up with photos that are essentially indistinguishable if they were taken on a Z9 600 F4 S TC, or a 600 F 4 FL on a D6, or a D7100 at 600mm using a 300 F2.8 VR II on a 2 x Tc III, says a lot, but let the light fall off with cloud cover and the difference becomes very clear that certain tools have certain limitations.

The fair light and fair weather shooters usually get really challenged.

So yes to some photographers and even less so to the viewer it doesn't matter what gear was used, but still to many actual photographers i think its critical in achieving the optimum outcome.

Only an opinion

Many thanks @O & others. After much deliberation, I have decided to sell my D500 & go with a new D850 in this instance due to both cost (D850 was half the cost of Z8 new & I’m strictly a hobby photographer), and requirements (I was more interested in resolution than speed at this stage + I tend to photograph fairly docile wildlife). That said, I can see that my next camera will definitely be Z8 or whatever the new version of that will be! The advise here has been invaluable in making this decision & I cannot thank everyone enough for it!

P.S. my original observation was more around FX vs DX where framing was nearly identical (either by moving a bit closer with FX or using a 1.4 tele on the 600 f4 G). Im not usually overly constrained by the distance & as I originally noted, the D800 images were significantly more pleasing to the eye vs D500 (mine anyway)- I suppose somewhat stating the obvious in hindsight given the higher resolution sensor!

 

[Doug Herr]

Well, most print is dead and most people consume images via their smartphones, tablets or at best their laptop screens (which most likely aren't color calibrated to begin with).

For my customers the rumors of print's demise are greatly exaggerated. When I prepare for a day in the field I cannot pre-determine whether the photos I make will be suitable for a large print or only for smartphone/tablet/laptop so I choose to optimize my equipment and technique for the former. I've found it much easier to dumb down my output for the smartphone/tablet/laptop than to make lesser output suitable for a large print; I'd rather not limit my options.

The law of diminishing returns is obviously in play here. If your audience differs from mine your choices may differ, which is why YMMV.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

Many thanks @O & others. After much deliberation, I have decided to sell my D500 & go with a new D850 in this instance due to both cost (D850 was half the cost of Z8 new & I’m strictly a hobby photographer), and requirements (I was more interested in resolution than speed at this stage + I tend to photograph fairly docile wildlife). That said, I can see that my next camera will definitely be Z8 or whatever the new version of that will be! The advise here has been invaluable in making this decision & I cannot thank everyone enough for it!

P.S. my original observation was more around FX vs DX where framing was nearly identical (either by moving a bit closer with FX or using a 1.4 tele on the 600 f4 G). Im not usually overly constrained by the distance & as I originally noted, the D800 images were significantly more pleasing to the eye vs D500 (mine anyway)- I suppose somewhat stating the obvious in hindsight given the higher resolution sensor!

Luskentyre,

I think that you will be completely satisfied with the D850, still using mind. Have fun and enjoy shooting the D850.

 

[Wrogu]

I think we are missing one important point - consumers, advanced bobbyists want the best IQ ... for their own pleasure. Not because editors require it (what editor... maybe besides yourself? ). I used to accept heavy crops but nowadays I want ot have a perfectly printable files at at least A3 format with enough resolution to print with 300DPI. Just for my own pleasure

Pros aside, who do not really need the best quality all of the time! They often know the media they are shooting for and can get away with lower IQ. Of course the better the IQ, the easier tools to use etc. the better for them. Ok, so pros aside, most of wildlife shooter are hobbyists. And for some a certain level of IQ is good enough. Some ant the best. And given the media the image is viewed on, the IQ difference for somebone might matter or might not. The equivalency debate is kind of funny to me too - it has been proved many times that the larger the format the better. By using a smaller format (compared to any bigger ones) you have to give something in therms of IQ. Many valuable posts in this thread have great points about that! However I rarely see posts that stress the importance of gear selection based on expectations of either IQ or rendeing (ie. depth of field) or fieldcraft required to get certain shots. Nikon p1000 is a great camera, if you accept it's drawbacks and want it's perks!

 

[macwalter]

I apologize as I’m late to this post but wanted to add my 2 cents. DX is fine to get closer but if you are doing action having a larger field of view will pay dividends with fewer clipped wings etc. also in my opinion there is no comparison between a z8-9 and any dslr. I sold my d500 and although I still have my d850 I never use it. The z8 I have blows it away in terms of speed accuracy and ease of acquiring the subject. The z glass is better overall and the options Nikon has for wildlife photography in terms of lenses is so much better. Get a z8-9 and you will never look back unless you are doing things like landscape etc. where you don’t need the speed the IQ of a d850 is still the benchmark.

 

[Butlerkid]

You will LOVE the D850! Best and most enjoyable camera I have ever owned. Congratulations!

 

[fulltimewanderer]

Bottom line it’s all about getting out enjoying yourself with the gear that you have.