July 29, 2014, 06:47:04 AM

Author Topic: Would I benefit from going full frame?  (Read 9766 times)

LukieLauXD

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2012, 09:12:16 AM »
Hmm. If you're shaky on considering whether or not to change into full frame, you can get maybe some L-lenses, mainly the 2.8s to counter some of that high ISO noise in the meantime and then when you have enough invested into L-lenses, you'll be able to change FF a lot easeir :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2012, 09:12:16 AM »

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2012, 09:19:49 AM »
Keep 7D and 6D at the same time?

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2012, 09:23:42 AM »
I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?
3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII).

So given these circumstances, is there something I would gain by going FF with a 5DII/6D with a 24-105/17-40 (that offsets my loss of fps) or should I wait until I can afford the 5DIII/24-70II/16-35II? I am sure many of you have gone this route- your advice will be greatly appreciated.

5D II has inferior AF. FF has shallower DOF, a boon at times, a bear at others. Your lenses will become obnoxiously shorter and your corners a LOT worse. The 24-105 has rather immense barrel distortion at 24mm on FF. FF is not a bed of roses... Though perhaps, you might be served by a two camera setup...
What is truth?

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1170
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2012, 03:01:30 PM »
The 24-105 has rather immense barrel distortion at 24mm on FF. FF is not a bed of roses... Though perhaps, you might be served by a two camera setup...


I am familiar with the distortion at 24mm, but I tend to use my standard zooms a little longer. When I want to go wider, I use the UWAs. Unfortunately, I cannot keep the 7D AND get an FF at the moment.

I think anybody pondering the full frame move would benefit greatly from reading this blog post:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/the-full-frame-move


Good article, but I am aware of the technical advantages of FF vs APS-C. I was looking for some first-hand experiences from people who have made the move, specifically from 7D- and I am very appreciative that I am getting exactly that.

why nobody mentions the viewfinder always suprises me.

i never use the pop-up flash.


+1 on the viewfinder. Liked the big VF on the 5DII a lot.

The pop-up flash is actually useful for fill-flash on casual outings. Plus, I use the flash commander of the 7D a lot for my speedlites, although I should probably invest in RF triggers soon..

Hmm. If you're shaky on considering whether or not to change into full frame, you can get maybe some L-lenses, mainly the 2.8s to counter some of that high ISO noise in the meantime and then when you have enough invested into L-lenses, you'll be able to change FF a lot easeir :D


I do have f/2.8 glasses from 17-200mm (with IS!) but that doesn't help. I feel f/2.8 is not sufficient to stop motion at ISO 1600 indoors at night. However, your advice of getting fast lenses (f/1.4s) to counter the high ISO noise makes a lot of sense. Indeed, I am trying to make a decision between the 24mm and the 35mm, though the 24mm probably makes more sense if I am staying APS-C for a while.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1919
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2012, 06:43:56 PM »
Actually an interesting thread that seems well-balanced. I always love Roger's Lens Rentals articles as they tend to put things in real world perspective.

I have considered adding a full-frame body as well and may do so at some point, but honestly, Canon's recent actions are pushing me toward sticking with APS-C. Why?

Money. It's that simple.

Every time I do the math, reality sinks in and I just can't make the cost-benefit analysis work in favor of full frame.

I'm not earning money from photography. While I would like to explore the possibility in post-retirement, that's a few years down the road and for now, I'm concentrating on improving technique and building up my personal portfolio.

For what it is worth, here is my perspective:

My main interest in full frame is at the wide end. I have been spoiled by the 1.6 magnification for longer lenses and would almost certainly continue to use the 7D for telephoto lenses when I am distance limited. There would be some advantage to being able to use my telephoto lenses with both bodies, but that is a convenience not a necessity.

The cost of entry into full frame will be, at a minimum somewhere around $2,300, and that would be for a refurbished 5DII and 24-105mm lens, the bare minimum needed in my opinion. I already own the 15-85mm EF-S and the Tokina 11-16. So, the wide end is covered with my 7D. The 24-105 would replicate the 15-85 range, but not the 11-16 crop range. So, initially, it would be a compromise that would have to be supplemented by the 7D when ultra-wide is needed.

Now, $2,300 isn't out of the question, but that is for old technology. If I want the 6D and the new 24-70 L lens the cost of entry rises to about $3,500.

But, that is for a single lens kit. To take full advantage of the full-frame I would want to invest in other lenses, such as the 24 2.8 IS prime and probably the 135 f2 prime. After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field?

Because I seldom shoot at over ISO 400, I regularly print images at 12x18 with the 7D with no loss of quality. I've gone as high as 18 x 30 without any problem.

Like many photographers today, the vast majority of my pictures end up on the internet at 72dpi. The other use I have for prints is in photo books, which never get larger than 9 x 14 maximum.

So that's where I am at. I can't bring myself to spend well over $2,000 on old technology, I can't justify $3,500 for the minimum of what I would want in new technology and I certainly can't rationalize $4,000 for the 5DIII and kit lens. Plus, I am not anxious to start adding new lenses at $800-$1,200 a pop.

So, this is where Canon has put me: I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements. Even if it is released at the same price as the 6D, I think it will be a better camera and I won't have to buy wider lenses. Even if I decide to add the 17-55 2.8 lens (refurbished) it will still be significantly less costly than the 6D and 24-70 f4 and a full stop faster. I firmly believe that there will be a 7DII, for reasons that have been well-documented on this forum. But, even if it doesn't materialize, I won't have lost anything and I can decide what to do when that becomes known.

I am happy with my current kit and frankly have more than I can reasonably carry in a bag anyway. Adding lenses is always fun and tempting, but honestly, I don't need anything right now.

My point: Every case is different. But, I would be a prime candidate for the jump to full-frame. But Canon has raised the cost of entry so significantly that when I compare the cost, versus the benefits I cannot justify it.  I believe I will remain an APS-C shooter for quite some time.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4434
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2012, 08:53:32 PM »
Actually an interesting thread that seems well-balanced. I always love Roger's Lens Rentals articles as they tend to put things in real world perspective.

I have considered adding a full-frame body as well and may do so at some point, but honestly, Canon's recent actions are pushing me toward sticking with APS-C. Why?

Money. It's that simple.

Every time I do the math, reality sinks in and I just can't make the cost-benefit analysis work in favor of full frame.

I'm not earning money from photography. While I would like to explore the possibility in post-retirement, that's a few years down the road and for now, I'm concentrating on improving technique and building up my personal portfolio.

For what it is worth, here is my perspective:

My main interest in full frame is at the wide end. I have been spoiled by the 1.6 magnification for longer lenses and would almost certainly continue to use the 7D for telephoto lenses when I am distance limited. There would be some advantage to being able to use my telephoto lenses with both bodies, but that is a convenience not a necessity.

The cost of entry into full frame will be, at a minimum somewhere around $2,300, and that would be for a refurbished 5DII and 24-105mm lens, the bare minimum needed in my opinion. I already own the 15-85mm EF-S and the Tokina 11-16. So, the wide end is covered with my 7D. The 24-105 would replicate the 15-85 range, but not the 11-16 crop range. So, initially, it would be a compromise that would have to be supplemented by the 7D when ultra-wide is needed.

Now, $2,300 isn't out of the question, but that is for old technology. If I want the 6D and the new 24-70 L lens the cost of entry rises to about $3,500.

But, that is for a single lens kit. To take full advantage of the full-frame I would want to invest in other lenses, such as the 24 2.8 IS prime and probably the 135 f2 prime. After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field?

Because I seldom shoot at over ISO 400, I regularly print images at 12x18 with the 7D with no loss of quality. I've gone as high as 18 x 30 without any problem.

Like many photographers today, the vast majority of my pictures end up on the internet at 72dpi. The other use I have for prints is in photo books, which never get larger than 9 x 14 maximum.

So that's where I am at. I can't bring myself to spend well over $2,000 on old technology, I can't justify $3,500 for the minimum of what I would want in new technology and I certainly can't rationalize $4,000 for the 5DIII and kit lens. Plus, I am not anxious to start adding new lenses at $800-$1,200 a pop.

So, this is where Canon has put me: I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements. Even if it is released at the same price as the 6D, I think it will be a better camera and I won't have to buy wider lenses. Even if I decide to add the 17-55 2.8 lens (refurbished) it will still be significantly less costly than the 6D and 24-70 f4 and a full stop faster. I firmly believe that there will be a 7DII, for reasons that have been well-documented on this forum. But, even if it doesn't materialize, I won't have lost anything and I can decide what to do when that becomes known.

I am happy with my current kit and frankly have more than I can reasonably carry in a bag anyway. Adding lenses is always fun and tempting, but honestly, I don't need anything right now.

My point: Every case is different. But, I would be a prime candidate for the jump to full-frame. But Canon has raised the cost of entry so significantly that when I compare the cost, versus the benefits I cannot justify it.  I believe I will remain an APS-C shooter for quite some time.

just a few thoughts

the tokina 11-16 will physically mount on full frame and still operate at 16mm without vignetting (13mm on APS-H) so the 5Dmk2 and 24-105 + keeping the tokina and using it as a 16mm prime effectively would be a pretty good option to sort you out without the need to spend big on the megabucks wide lenses
this would give a pretty nice entry point with solid coverage and good IQ

I also got the voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar SLII new are $600 or so i got mine second hand for $400 and its a fantastic little wide lens especially when packing light
the voigtlander has less distortion than all the other UWA options around except probably the ziess 21mm but thats super expensive and much much bigger

My typical pack light setup is

5Dmk3 (but say you go with a 6D $2000)
the voigtlander 20mm ($600)
the canon 40mm pancake ($200)
both are 52mm filters so i carry a B+W 10 stop ND and a CPL both in 52mm with these lenses and 52mm filters of quality are not expensive ($100 for both)
then i also have the 85mm f1.4 sigma for portraits low light etc ($800)

totals about $3700 you could probably get it to under $3000 if you went 5Dmk2 and got some good deals on used lenses.

i guess it depends how badly you need a zoom and your tollerance for using primes but these 3 primes provide exceptional image quality and give excellent coverage in a relatively small easy to carry kit

all fits in a small bag
I'm guessing when the canon 35 f2 IS comes out it might replace the 40mm in this kit but probably wont have the nice interchangability of filters that i have between the voigtlander and the 40mm
APS-H Fanboy

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2176
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2012, 09:16:46 PM »
I have a 60D and I'm probably (85% chance) going to upgrade to a 5d mkii.  I've been preparing for this move for over a year just in case.  I've purposely avoided Ef-s lenses as I thought this might happen. 

I know what you mean about the noise that becomes intolerable after an ISO of 2000... Lightroom can only do so much.  I picked up a 430ex II and for indoors I've been quite pleased.  I bounce light from above or the side, and that makes using the f/4 substantially more tolerable. 

There are a few times where I'm outdoors and I can't bounce light from an optimal angle... so I wind up bouncing it off the ground... But I was shooting at f/2.8 in near dark... so I was pleased to get any shots considering the circumstances. 

The 17-40 is ok... but you have to stop it down so it isn't quite as soft.  I had and will have again (I sold my old one so I could get a package which will hopefully be cheaper on a per piece basis) the 24-105mm and I was pleased with it.  It doesn't out perform my primes, but it does and excellent job of giving me more great flexibility in either good light or with a flash. 

I get about 5.3 shots per second from the 60D... and I'm not pleased with the 3.9 downgrade.  But I don't think I will miss the 1 shot per second.  I'll just have to time it right.  I think I will still use the 60D in bright sun, but the 5d mkii when I'm in doors shooting basketball or other sports like that.  I also use the center AF point... more often than not. 

Personally, I don't like waiting because that next step will take freaking forever.  So I improve incrementally.  I started with an XS plus kit lens and a 75-300mm.  That was a bad setup... but then I picked up a 50mm f/1.8, then upgraded the telephoto to a 55-250. 

I upgraded the XS to a 60D, and a then the lenses to the 24-105 and the 50mm f/1.4, and throw in a 100mm F/2.8L Macro IS, and a 70-200mm f/4 and f/2.8L (but I sold both of the latter). 

I think if you can keep both bodies... that will be the best bet.  I have to make a decision on whether I want to keep the 60D or possibly sell it and buy a 135mm f/2L.

I think if you can wait a year and a half... and exchange your ef-s lenses for a EF complement.  Then when you have the cash, upgrade one of the three...

If I have a choice to get the best option, I'd probably get the 16-35 first since the price has normalized.  Then after a year, I could see getting the 5D mkiii for around $2300, and the FINALLY getting the 24-70 mk ii. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2012, 09:16:46 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8272
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2012, 09:29:53 PM »
Except for sports or bif, the 5D MK II is a great camera.  I stopped using my 7D except for product photography and macros in favor of the 5D MK II.
If you do low light photography, its a big step.  I am pretty unhappy with the 7D even at ISO 1600 its weak, while I get better images with the MK II at 3200 and even 6400.  I'm hoping to get 1/2 or better additional stops with my new 5D MK III, but I have yet to really give it a heavy duty test.

sach100

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2012, 10:57:40 PM »

First off, if i understand this correctly then f2.8 on 7d is more like f2.8*1.6 = f4.4ish on FF. Appreciate it if someone could correct me on this.


I think you are correct.  The light gathering is the same for the lens,  if they are the same focal lengths.  For instance, a 31mm or 30mm lens on crop sensor will gather the same light as a 50mm lens on full frame, at the same aperture.  If you are using the exact same lens for crop sensor on a full frame camera, the focal length would be wider and more light will be gathered.  The bokeh or out of focus blur would also be affected by the crop factor.

+1 Thanks.
5D MkIII

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1170
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2012, 11:32:37 PM »
I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements.

I am also very happy with the 7D and think it is the best APS-C camera available; but two things bug me and I am sure has bugged thousands of users into going full frame (including some of the posters here): There is light to be had and my sensor cannot capture it, and I can get shallower depth of field at the same FoV if I want (and I DO want).
I still have an Elan 7 and sometimes I would just take that and my cheapo 50mm and go out and shoot. And the results are very satisfying in spite of the bother of processing and scanning.
That is why my next upgrade is more likely to be a FF (read 5DIII, also read no way within 1 year) instead of the 7DII, which I am sure will be as excellent as its predecessor.

After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field?

Exactly, and that means faster lenses before an FF upgrade. AND they will help avoid high ISO noise.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

florianbieler.de

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • florianbieler.de photography
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2012, 02:06:38 AM »
I know what you mean about the noise that becomes intolerable after an ISO of 2000... Lightroom can only do so much. 


Let me throw in a full resolution macro of mine here to show what Photoshop can do to ISO 2000. Shot with 5D Mark III and EF 100mm Macro non-L. A 60D or 7D will not do that, so as far as it concerns noise at high iso, go fetch that FF!

EOS 5D Mark III · Canon 17-40 4.0L · Sigma 35 1.4 · Sigma 85 1.4 · Canon 70-200 4.0L IS · Tamron 150-600 5-6.3 VC
EOS M · Canon 22 2.0 · florianbieler.de

ishdakuteb

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2012, 03:02:53 AM »
i am not sure why people complaining about not being able to push iso over 2000 with 7d.  as for me, it is still usable up to 6400.  i do not have my 7d here, but i do bring my 30d with me when traveling to work (keep learning after working hours) and this following picture was taken with max iso of 30d (straight out of camera, just re-size with ACDSee as you can tell from exif).  i choose to use my 7d and 5d iii for events; therefore, i always leave them home.

what i am trying to say here is to choose your angle of shooting and shift your exposure to the right... do not shoot low key with high iso on any crop body...  you can see noise even with FF when shooting low key with 400 iso...

note:  i do not have macro lens, but this is should same kinda shot... "bright background"

just a thought...
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 03:04:41 AM by ishdakuteb »

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2012, 08:38:10 AM »
I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements.

I am also very happy with the 7D and think it is the best APS-C camera available; but two things bug me and I am sure has bugged thousands of users into going full frame (including some of the posters here): There is light to be had and my sensor cannot capture it, and I can get shallower depth of field at the same FoV if I want (and I DO want).
I still have an Elan 7 and sometimes I would just take that and my cheapo 50mm and go out and shoot. And the results are very satisfying in spite of the bother of processing and scanning.
That is why my next upgrade is more likely to be a FF (read 5DIII, also read no way within 1 year) instead of the 7DII, which I am sure will be as excellent as its predecessor.

After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field?

Exactly, and that means faster lenses before an FF upgrade. AND they will help avoid high ISO noise.

+1 on Unfocused's original post.

With regards to the DOF 'advantage' on full frame, there is always the flip side of greater depth of field at larger apertures for the crop sensor which could be useful for e.g landscape work. Of course this can be countered by
the arguments that crop sensors become diffraction limited sooner so especially for landscape a larger aperture may be needed anyway to prevent loss of resolution. And that usually tripods are used for landscape work so that a longer exposure/smaller aperture is no issue for a full frame landscape shooter. Just trying to say that it's not always worse on a crop camera.

Like Unfocused said, for me, money is the issue. It's a hobby, and one I can't find enough time for at the moment anyway. For me to go full frame and keep the features of the 7D I have, it has to be a 5D mark III- 2.5x the cost of the 7D in the UK at the present time. Plus I would need to buy a new ultra wide zoom- my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop. The 16-35 is twice the price of the 17-40 and not without issues either. Put simply, I cannot justify the cost as much as I would like to go full frame.
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2012, 08:38:10 AM »

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1170
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2012, 03:23:34 PM »
my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop.

My experience too. Is that what others have found, or did I have a bad copy or didn't spend enough time with the setup?
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

dlleno

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2012, 04:15:44 PM »
my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop.

My experience too. Is that what others have found, or did I have a bad copy or didn't spend enough time with the setup?

I'm thinking thats why God inspired Canon to invent the 16-35 II :D :D

on a related note:  with the recent introduction of the 24-70 F/4 L IS, at $350 more than the 24-105 f/4 L IS, I wonder if the latter is due for an update and price increase

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2012, 04:15:44 PM »