Downgrade to crop

[DanielW]

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.

Do you actually own those lenses?

[aj1575]

I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).

DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range. Sure, Images from a FF look really nice. I compared the pictures from FF to APS-C on The-Digital-Picture.com, and the the FF looks much better (no surprise), but then I looked at the comparison tool at dpreview and there the verdict was not so clear anymore. Sure FF is always better, but by how much?
If you are a pro, then it is easy to deceide, but as an amateur I'm still asking myself if it is worth to upgrade.

[symmar22]

I come from the film era, where 24x36mm was already considered small. When I made the jump from my Nikons F4 / F100 to the D70, later D200, I was mainly bothered by 3 things :

1- The cropped viewfinder made it like I was looking through a keyhole (this only is enough for me to stick with FF cameras).

2 - I use a lot wide angles, the only thing that could replace them was the 12-24mm f4 DX, that was a bit limited to say the less.

3 - Too much depth of field makes it more difficult to separate the subject from background and deal precisely with DoF.

I won't enter the very tech stuff about pixel size, high ISO. Since I am back with the format I was used to, I never looked at a crop camera again, but I am half considering to buy a used 550D (or 1100D) to serve as a luxury point and shoot.

[DanielW]

I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).

DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range. Sure, Images from a FF look really nice. I compared the pictures from FF to APS-C on The-Digital-Picture.com, and the the FF looks much better (no surprise), but then I looked at the comparison tool at dpreview and there the verdict was not so clear anymore. Sure FF is always better, but by how much?
If you are a pro, then it is easy to deceide, but as an amateur I'm still asking myself if it is worth to upgrade.

Same boat. If I could only find a 24-105 f/4 equivalent for my 60D, I would sure hold it for now and upgrade to FF when(ever) I start making money from photography. I would stick to my 50 1.4 and get a 35 1.4 (or a 28 1.8?) and an 85 1.8, and have fun!

[Dylan777]

I jumped from crop to FF is one reason, better IQ in low light shootings. I'm not a big fan of flash photography yet - maybe some days in the future.

[neuroanatomist]

Do you actually own those lenses?

I have a 600mm f/4L IS II. The "1200mm" is the 600 II + 2xIII, the "1344mm equivalent" is the 600 II + 1.4xIII on APS-C.

[The Bad Duck]

Haha it seems many of us think alike.
I would miss (no particular order):

1. The big viewfinder with a better possibility to focus manually (I changed the focus screen or whatever it is called). I can look through my viewfinder for a long time without getting tired.

2. As Neuro said, the option go get really thin DoF. Although I do not use it unless I want that look, there is something that make your portraits pop when you use high quality ultra fast primes on a FF sensor. Not always suitable and sometimes hard to get right.

3. A twist of number 2 above is that on FF, f/4 gives rather thin DoF so the 70-200 /4 is in a way equivilent to the f/2.8 version, minus one stop extra light = pump the ISO if needed or use flash. Same goes for 17-40 instead of 16-35. That saves money and bulk.

4. Better wide angle. The samyang 14 is really really wide! Perhaps I should have gotten the sigma 12-24 instead but I´m pleased with the samyang.

Those are the most important differences for me. IQ is great on newer APS-C cameras aswell and depend on more than the camera. Of course the final image is mostly about idea and content anyway.

However, there is no reason to naturally want to get a FF camera. There is absolutely nothing wrong with APS-C and you can get great results. It depends on what you want to do. Right now I am investing in flashes, not cameras and lenses.
And yes, I do take much better photos now compared to when I was using my 30D. Why? Way more practise and more studying of photography on the net, books and videos, and more photographing friends/amateur models. Oh and selling photos is a great motivation to constantly improve my "products", the same goes for competing in my local camera club. Also... I have better lenses and light-equipment now.

[sandymandy]

Oh yes bigger and brighter viewfinder is definitly a reason why i wanna go FF as soon as possible. Anytime i jump on my analog EOS im like...ehh....this camera costs 15 euro but has a nicer viewfinder than my digital one...

But i think only 5D and higher got "pentaprism" which is brighter than "pentamirror" that 6D uses if im correct.

If i was you i would go fullframe and get 1,4x TC. Sure u lose light but FF camera lets more light in and 6D or higher offer really good high ISO so it doesnt matter.

The main reason why im annoyed of my APS-C sometimes is that its so hard to get the lenses i want. Sure, there are many lenses but i always gotta calculate the 1,6* factor and suddenly some lenses become not what i really wanted  If i want 50mm i get like ..44mm or 56 or something like this e.g.

[aj1575]

Same boat. If I could only find a 24-105 f/4 equivalent for my 60D,

How about the 15-85? It has no constant aperture, but IQ seems to be great. I have heard very little complaints about that lens (I will buy one, if my next body is APS-C). That one, or the new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. I'm looking forward to see that lens, the new 35mm f1.4 from Sigma looks like a real winner, having better IQ wide open than Canons 35mm 1.4 L at a much lower price.

[neuroanatomist]

But i think only 5D and higher got "pentaprism" which is brighter than "pentamirror" that 6D uses if im correct.

Sorry, you're incorrect. The xxxD/xxxxD bodies have a pentamirror, but the 60D and 6D both have a pentaprism.  However, the VF generally gets more coverage and higher absolute mag as you go up the lines.

[Jay Khaos]

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. 

But last time the conversation was comparing a 10D with only 8 megapixels or w/e it has, which made sense.  But cropping the inner APS-c FOV of a 6D wont giver you as big of a difference between the 60D right?  As far as comparing a current APSC to a current full frame, that argument doesn't apply.  If I shot sports or wildlife, I would definitely wait for the 7DII over buying a 6D. 

I do love my 5D3 though... and the low light performance is definitely noticeable over my t2i.  Although I'm also using an 85 1.2L where I used to use a 50mm 1.8, so that definitely contributes.  Personally I dont see the 6D as worth its price...  I'd save a little more to jump to 5DIII with way better AF, low light, build quality... slightly better everything, and you can get it for around $2500.  If you can afford the kit up front and feel comfortable with ebay, you can make guaranteed profit off reselling the kit lens to chip away at the price.

[sawsedge]

Something isn't an upgrade if it doesn't improve your situation.  Likewise something isn't a downgrade if it works better for you.   Lots of folks use both types.

[Steve Todd]

My first DSLR was the 5D back in 2005.  I chose it because I had over 35-years of shooting Film SLRs and felt it was the logical step into the world of digital photography/imaging.  I purchased the 5D Mk II when it came out and then a 1D Mk IV in Feb 2010.  After using both the 5D2 and the 1D4 for a few months together (shooting the same subjects with both bodies), the 5D bodies stayed home and I shot exclusively with the 1D4.  I never regretted or missed the FF bodies.  In fact, I purchased another 1D4 body in Nov 2010, to allow me to carry one with big zoom and the other with a 20-35 wide one.  I also bought a 7D, which I liked for the long lenses.  However, I never really found myself using it much over the 1D4s.   I sold it (7D) and one of my 1D4 bodies to purchase a 1DX.  I really like the 1DX, however, I am really glad I kept one of the 1D4 bodies.  I now carry the 1DX for general work (24-105) and the 1D4 for all other stuff, mostly with either a 70-300L or 100-400 attached.  To me, having both the FF and the 1.3 crop bodies, fills all of my current needs.  However, if I had to choose only one body for all my needs, it would be the 1D4!

[KyleSTL]

My main reasons:

1.  Viewfinder (big, pentaprism)
2.  Primes (selection thereof)
3.  Selection of wide angle

Here's a comparison of viewfinder sizes (normalized):
1Dx, 1Ds3 - 0.76x
5D3 - 0.71
1Ds2, 1Ds, 5D2 - 0.70
6D - 0.69
5D - 0.68
7D, Nikon D300, D300s - 0.63 (biggest crop VF yet)
60D - 0.57
Rebels - 0.48 to 0.52 (pentamirror)

Once you look through a FF viewfinder everything else just looks like staring through a dark hallway.  Here's a comparison I used for someone looking into upgrading a little while back:

Looking through a 5D Mark III would be like looking at an 8x10 print at arms length in good, indoor light.  A 7D would be like looking at a 7x9 print at arms length in the same light.  A 60D would be 6.5x8 in the same light.  A Rebel would be light a 6x7.5 with a lights dimmed to 80% (since it is a pentamirror).

[cayenne]

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 don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

C