Downgrade to crop

[DanielW]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers

[rpt]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers!

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

[DanielW]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers!

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

I mainly shoot wide, so not a problem for me. Good, one less thing to worry!

[rpt]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers!

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

I mainly shoot wide, so not a problem for me. Good, one less thing to worry!

Good! Then the only thing to worry about is that you will miss the grainy look at high medium ISO
 

[ScottyP]

So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.   

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies.  That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules.  Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes.  My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry.

[DanielW]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers!

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

I mainly shoot wide, so not a problem for me. Good, one less thing to worry!

Good! Then the only thing to worry about is that you will miss the grainy look at high ISO
 

Thank God LR lets me put it back where it belongs! LOL

[DanielW]

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.   

LOL

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies.  That is very valuable stuff.

That's my main reason for upgrading, indeed. Good to know there's not a huge benefit on DoF (and I'm pretty happy with the blur I can get with my 50, too). What I find a little annoying about crop is that you don't get to use great zoom lenses like the 24-70 or the 24-105 as an all-around, since you lose the WA advantage; I could buy the 17-55 f/2.8, but it's not as wide as I wish and it manages to cost more than the 24-105 L!

[bycostello]

my camera of choice is now crop, smaller and lighter.... 

[RC]

My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3.  Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas.  But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars.

I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV.  Adding a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option.  My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit.  I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.   

[Cory]

Hmmm.  I'm considering upgrading my T1i to a 6D, but my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 give me the perfect focal length for indoor sports.  A 70-200 would likely get me 90%+ of the right focal length for outdoor sports. 
Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?

[DanielW]

my camera of choice is now crop, smaller and lighter....

!
That's sure unusual, considering you shoot weddings!
To be honest, I don't care much about size and weight, although I don't have to carry my gear around for hours like you do.
Don't you miss the low-light advantages of FF?
Would you mind if I asked you what gear you use for weddings? Your camera, lenses...
Very nice pics on your website, btw!

[sandymandy]

Hmmm.  I'm considering upgrading my T1i to a 6D, but my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 give me the perfect focal length for indoor sports.  A 70-200 would likely get me 90%+ of the right focal length for outdoor sports. 
Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?

I think many people use a 7D for sports. Other option would be to get 1,4x teleconverter.

[DanielW]

My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3.  Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas.  But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars.

I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV.  Adding a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option.  My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit.  I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.   

I'd add, too, although I'm not as lucky as you are and would own only a 60D and a 6D!
The 60D would be kept to walk around and as backup, since I don't need too much reach (and you can always crop those 20 MP files) and 4 fps seem enough for what I shoot.
Thanks for answering!

[neuroanatomist]

So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing.  To get the FF-equivalent of f/1.2 on APS-C would require an f/0.75 lens...last time I checked, there weren't any in a Canon EF mount.

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

Well, we've had this discussion before.     The reach only matters if your output demands it.  A FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ - the only thing you're really giving up is megapixels.  So, if 7-8 MP is sufficient (which it is for web, slideshows, and prints up to ~12x18" - and I suspect that covers most people's needs), then a cropped FF shot will do just as well as an uncropped APS-C shot. 

Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?

From a sensor standpoint, not to me (again with the caveat above regarding need for high MP output).  Especially if you're not focal length limited.  One of the keys for sports is a high shutter speed to stop action, and the much better high ISO performance of a FF sensor means you can push the ISO higher to get a shutter speed that stops the action.  With the sensor in the 60D (I have a 7D), I really prefer to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower.  With the 5DII, I had no problem shooting at ISO 3200.  With the 1D X, I routinely use ISO 6400, and I'm fine with ISO 12800.  That's 3 stops better than I prefer on the 7D (although I can tolerate ISO 3200 on the 7D, so call it 2 stops to be conservative...but still that's the difference between a blurry 1/250 s and a crisp 1/1000 s).

Of course, the sensor is only part of the story for sports/action.  The AF system is the other big part.  For fast action, I'd take the 7D and live with the noise vs. the 5DII/6D and lower noise.  The 7D's tracking capabilities are far superior to the 5DII, and will be similarly superior to the 6D.  But I'd take the 5DIII over the 7D in a heartbeat for sports/action - FF for higher ISO and even better AF more than makes up for the loss of 2 fps.

I can tell you that after getting the 1D X, my 7D has just gathered dust.  As I stated above, IMO a FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ.  I tested that semi-formally with the 5DII vs. 7D (with a static test scene) and proved it to my satisfaction.  I've actually decided to test my statement above with the 1D X vs. the 7D, with a 600/4 lens, comparing the 1D X and 1.4xIII vs. the 7D (as approximately equivalent focal lengths), and also at the longest AF-capable focal length (1200mm f/8 on the 1D X, 1344mm equivalent f/5.6 on the 7D).  This will be a 'formal' test with an ISO 12233-based chart, and a static 'real world' scene.  If the 1D X cropped gives equal or better IQ vs. the 7D, I'll need to decide if I sell the 7D or keep it solely as a backup camera. 

[Sporgon]

I agree that a modern crop body is not a "down grade". Depends on what you photograph and what your budget is. As always, glass is most important. For most people on a budget crop has an advantage for sports in reasonable light - also I've always found the smaller viewfinder is actually better for fast action as I can see all the frame better. At Building Panoramics we use FF. But then buildings don't move that quick