Full frame or not???

[Canon Cliff]

Hi I am hoping some of you guys could help me out!

I currently have the following equipment, canon 60d,Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8, Sigma 50-150mm f2.8, canon 50mm f1.4, 580exii speedlite and a 430exii speedlite.

My question im hoping you guys can help me with is if i move to full frame i.e 5dmkii or 6d i will only be able to afford f4 lenses 24-105 or new 24-70 f4 and then a 70-200 f4 is to cover all the focal lengths i generally use. I have recently shot at a few weddings and have more interest from people to do the photography at theirs next year, however when in low light situations and not allowed to use flash in churches etc id like better noise performance. I find that iso1600 is the max i like to use on my 60d to achieve a decent shutter speed and a reasonably clean image, so this would become iso 3200 on a full frame camera using f4 instead of 2.8 right? So will i have cleaner images on the FF camera or will the extra stop of iso on f4 glass even out over a stop less on APSC using f2.8? Also will focusing become any different form the 60d with 2.8 glass to lets say the 6d with f4 glass?

Many thanks in advance your help and advice is very much appreciated!

[neuroanatomist]

A 5DII will have about 1.3-stops less ISO noise than your 60D, a 5DIII about 1.5-stops less, no idea on the 6D but it will be at least 1.3-stops.  So, with an f/4 lens on FF vs. f/2.8 on crop, you can bump the ISO a stop to maintain shutter speed and still have lower noise, or bump 1/3-1/2 stop more for an even faster shutter and the same noise. 

[PackLight]

Your question seems to be will the increased ISO performance be a wash over using a faster lens at f/2.8 on a crop body.

Why not look in to adding a few fast cheap primes to fill the low light void when it the situation comes up?

[Daniel Flather]

The 5D3's ISO 6400 is plenty clean for your needs.  An F4 zoom seems to be the new F2.8.  But in the real hard conditions, nothing beats raw speed of the lens.   I use ISO 6400 with pleasure.  When I was using a 50D, I found ISO 1000 to be a realistic max for clean images.  Of course, someone might post esoteric numbers to prove me incorrect.

[dpollitt]

If you are serious about shooting weddings and paid gigs, having a kit full of f/4 glass is not a great idea. A 70-200mm f/4 lens(especially without IS) is not going to be an option at an indoor wedding venue without a flash. I don't care if you are shooting with a 5D mkIII or a 60D. If you are currently getting by on this lens with a 60D, then you are just scraping by. Wedding photography especially is very demanding in that the venues are very poorly lit, the subjects move, you typically can't use flash, and you are expected to capture once in a lifetime memories that are very expensive or impossible to recreate.

I think you would be better suited to either get a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 135 f/2 L, or 85 f/1.8 at this point - and if you have the money, also upgrade to the 5D mkII or higher if possible.

You are really walking a fine line of "acceptable" gear for even attempting a wedding, with a 60D and only one wide prime.

[bycostello]

iso nothing to do it crop or full frame..  it's more the processor...

[Drizzt321]

iso nothing to do it crop or full frame..  it's more the processor...

I'm trying hard to figure out what you mean by this comment. Can you please be more clear?

[bycostello]

iso nothing to do it crop or full frame..  it's more the processor...

I'm trying hard to figure out what you mean by this comment. Can you please be more clear?

as in you won't see much difference between the latest 7d and 5d...  i know the tech gooks that take pictures on camera targets on this forum will say different, but actual pictures i bet you can't....

[neuroanatomist]

as in you won't see much difference between the latest 7d and 5d...  i know the tech gooks that take pictures on camera targets on this forum will say different, but actual pictures i bet you can't....

Seriously? Maybe you'll see no difference if you're one of those folks that shoot at only ISO 400 and lower, but I shoot a lot in less than abundant light.   I shot with both a 7D and a 5DII routinely, and the 5DII had noticeably better high ISO performance.  ISO 3200 was tolerable on my 7D (barely), but quite usable on my 5DII.  I'm not talking about shooting test charts, I'm talking about shooting in the real (dimly-lit) world.  I would never use ISO 6400 on my 7D, and less than 6% of my 7D images are at ISO 3200 - and it would have been far lower if I'd had the v2 firmware's ability to set a cap on Auto ISO (which I have now, and it's set at ISO 1600).  On my 5DII, I used ISO 3200 frequently - over 15% of my shots were at ISO 3200 and higher.  On my 1D X, over 30% of my images are at ISO 3200 and higher.

So yes, it's not all about sensor size - the 1D X is certainly better than the 5DII at high ISO.  But sensor size plays a big role - and it's one that impacts everyday shooting.

[gmrza]

The 24-105 f/4 is a very popular lens amongst wedding shooters in Melbourne. - Even Yervant uses it.

While a f/2.8 zoom is a blessing in terms of having the extra stop of light and more accurate AF, a lot of the time a wider aperture only affords you enough DoF to get one person in focus  - unless all your subjects are parallel to your focal plane, which is often not true.

If you are only shooting with one body, the 24-105 also allows you the benefit of not having to change lenses as often.  - Apart from 1 stop less light, the 24-105's bokeh is nowhere near as nice as the 24-70 f/2.8II.

My wife started out shooting weddings using mainly the 24-105 (partly because of not having other lenses), but is gravitating more towards the combination of the 24-70 f/2.8II and 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II.  The double Blackrapid strap just arrived in the post this week ;-)

Someone else made the comment about using a cheaper prime to make up for the lack of a f/2.8 zoom - that was one of the strategies my wife applied as well - taking along a 50mm f/1.4 as well and using it when she really needed low light performance.