Downgrade to crop

[Chuck Alaimo]

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

I usually don't reply to only the OP, I generally read through then possibly reply, but this this one I will take a stab at it before reading the other replies!

IMO - Upgrade should generally come when you've hit the limit of whats possible with what you've got.  With crop vs FF though, it gets a little trickier.  First off though, no amount of new camera will magically make you better!  As I am sure many have also said here, you get better by shooting, reading,m refining, trying new things, etc, etc.  Also, the benefits of FF are somewhat subjective (IE, if you shoot wildlife, with long lenses - your longest lens will appear to have shrunk on FF.  But, if you are shooting in a small studio, you may have hit that wall where none of the focal ranges of your lenses make sense anymore (IE your buying a 35mm because you want a 50, buying a 50 cause you want 85, buying an 85 cause you want 135, and passing on the 135 because its too long on a crop).  Low light work is another factor, if you find yourself shooting in lots of tight low light environments, you may find the light sensitivity of a FF sensor much to your liking. 

I made the transition from crop to FF in early July of this year.  For the work I do, it made sense and I have very much enjoyed the transition.  On my 7d, my go to lens was my 24-70.  my 70-200 sat in the bag more often than not.  And I used the 10-22 quite a bit too.  Transition to full frame though ---my 70-200 is now my favorite lens, with my 85mm 1.8 being the second fav and I just snagged a 16-35vII and i am very much liking that lens too!. 

To a certain extent, going FF is like grabbing a new lens.   I don't know what your lens setup is, but, for me I found that covering the wide end was much more difficult on crop.  I liked the 10-22, but found it to be much less flattering than I'd like for people shots. 

Not sure if any of that helps.   

[dr croubie]

I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
My only other zooms are EFs 15-85, and 70-300L.
The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.

So if we take the Samyang 35mm as having *good* IQ (which it does, all those wider ones just don't), and we take the Sigma 8-16mm as having *good* iQ (which it does), then by going to FF i'd be missing out on wide angles, super wide angles, über wide angles.
In fact, 8-16mm is the FF-equivalent of 12.8-25.6mm. The sigma 8-16mm mounted on my 7D I would be guessing gives as good if not better IQ than the Sigma 12-24mm v1, probably the same as v2, mounted on a 5D3 (at iso100 on a tripod for landscapes).
So by *upgrading* to FF, i'd be losing everything between 12.6-35mm at decent IQ, *or* I'd have to buy a Sigma 12-24 v2, or a nikon 14-24 and adapter, or a Canon 14mm *and* 16-35 and still miss out a few mm on the wide end. And that's not even considering the extra cost of those FF lenses, my 8-16 only cost me $500.

[DanielW]

I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
My only other zooms are EFs 15-85, and 70-300L.
The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.

So if we take the Samyang 35mm as having *good* IQ (which it does, all those wider ones just don't), and we take the Sigma 8-16mm as having *good* iQ (which it does), then by going to FF i'd be missing out on wide angles, super wide angles, über wide angles.
In fact, 8-16mm is the FF-equivalent of 12.8-25.6mm. The sigma 8-16mm mounted on my 7D I would be guessing gives as good if not better IQ than the Sigma 12-24mm v1, probably the same as v2, mounted on a 5D3 (at iso100 on a tripod for landscapes).
So by *upgrading* to FF, i'd be losing everything between 12.6-35mm at decent IQ, *or* I'd have to buy a Sigma 12-24 v2, or a nikon 14-24 and adapter, or a Canon 14mm *and* 16-35 and still miss out a few mm on the wide end. And that's not even considering the extra cost of those FF lenses, my 8-16 only cost me $500.

I see... That's kinda why I'm stuck. My WA is not very good nor fast (the only option I have is my 18-135 kit lens, my other lens being the 50 1.4), and I miss a better WA lens for indoor shots. The thing is, a good WA for crop means sticking to crop (EF-s 10-22, most likely), because it's gonna be an EF-s lens that's not that cheap. High ISO IQ is also something I consider important, although I can't say I'm totally dissatisfied with my 60d in that aspect.
Bottom line is, I want more lenses, but the 1.6 multiplier is pissing me off!

[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

I usually don't reply to only the OP, I generally read through then possibly reply, but this this one I will take a stab at it before reading the other replies!

IMO - Upgrade should generally come when you've hit the limit of whats possible with what you've got.  With crop vs FF though, it gets a little trickier.  First off though, no amount of new camera will magically make you better!  As I am sure many have also said here, you get better by shooting, reading,m refining, trying new things, etc, etc.  Also, the benefits of FF are somewhat subjective (IE, if you shoot wildlife, with long lenses - your longest lens will appear to have shrunk on FF.  But, if you are shooting in a small studio, you may have hit that wall where none of the focal ranges of your lenses make sense anymore (IE your buying a 35mm because you want a 50, buying a 50 cause you want 85, buying an 85 cause you want 135, and passing on the 135 because its too long on a crop).  Low light work is another factor, if you find yourself shooting in lots of tight low light environments, you may find the light sensitivity of a FF sensor much to your liking. 

I made the transition from crop to FF in early July of this year.  For the work I do, it made sense and I have very much enjoyed the transition.  On my 7d, my go to lens was my 24-70.  my 70-200 sat in the bag more often than not.  And I used the 10-22 quite a bit too.  Transition to full frame though ---my 70-200 is now my favorite lens, with my 85mm 1.8 being the second fav and I just snagged a 16-35vII and i am very much liking that lens too!. 

To a certain extent, going FF is like grabbing a new lens.   I don't know what your lens setup is, but, for me I found that covering the wide end was much more difficult on crop.  I liked the 10-22, but found it to be much less flattering than I'd like for people shots. 

Not sure if any of that helps.   

Most helpful ever!
My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting  the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
Thank you very much for replying!

[pwp]

There is a valid case for any format...APS-C, APS-H & FF. It depends on your needs. Your needs may require a $35k MF kit, so that's what you get. If your work goes no further than the web, screen viewing or medium sized prints, then APS-C will suit your needs perfectly. Maybe even a decent P&S.

Dr. Neuro mentioned earlier, "I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing..." By the same token, there are occasions when the greater DoF can be very useful. I currently work with FF & APS-H (x1.3 crop) and will likely pick up a 7DII when they ship. They're all useful for particular projects or shots.

I often feel concerned when I read posts from someone aching to go to FF with the misconception that FF is this extraordinary Holy Grail from Planet Camera. Often the upgrade can be a disappointing waste of money. OP, go FF by all means, just do it with your eyes open. And keep your APS-C.

Lookout! Here comes my evangelical moment. Good workers never blame their tools. Gear Geeks and Pixel Peepers aside, the true Holy Grail of Planet Camera lies within the photographer. Great images are made by photographers, not cameras.

-PW

[neuroanatomist]

However in this situation, we are reproducing the same sized image from the same area of sensor, ergo the dof is the same.

That would be true with film, but it's not true with digital.  Besides focal length, subject distance, and aperture, DoF is also affected by CoC.  So, the crop sensor actually gives a (slightly) shallower DoF when the first three factors are all constant.

I am sorry but you are looking at this wrong. The CoC is the same size for both images, think about it, the pixels don't know how big the sensor is and once you crop it doesn't matter how big the sensor was, it only matters how much you use, a FF camera cropped down to the size of a crop camera is exactly the same and I used the same area from both sensors. The CoC is only relevant with regards reproduction percentage, or how much you enlarge something, if the subject is the same size on the sensors (which it is) and the print/screen is the same size (which they are) the CoC is the same size (assuming the same aperture). I have cropped both sensors so effectively they are the same size, same reproduction size and same subject magnification, the DOF is the same.

CoC follows the same rules for film and digital, it is just the distance at which a point becomes a circle.

Sorry for the confusion, but I was talking about shooting both sensor formats at 1:1 lens magnification, no cropping involved.

[tortilla]

Lookout! Here comes my evangelical moment. Good workers never blame their tools. Gear Geeks and Pixel Peepers aside, the true Holy Grail of Planet Camera lies within the photographer. Great images are made by photographers, not cameras.

I believe I've heard that before It's true of course, but isn't photographing more fun if you don't have to care about ISO or carrying a tripod all the time...

[bdunbar79]

The only thing I can say is that a 5D2, or a 5D3, or a 6D will perform much better for indoor sports than APS-C.  I'm not saying you can't shoot indoors with it, but the IQ will be different.  The way to go is FF and then if you need reach, get lenses.  That is obviously very costly, so not recommended here.  I have never been able to shoot 1/1000s for indoor basketball and volleyball until I got my cameras that I have though.  The APS-C and even 1D4 at ISO 5000 or 6400 were terrible.  At lower ISO however, it doesn't really matter.

[pj1974]

There is a valid case for any format...APS-C, APS-H & FF. It depends on your needs. Your needs may require a $35k MF kit, so that's what you get. If your work goes no further than the web, screen viewing or medium sized prints, then APS-C will suit your needs perfectly. Maybe even a decent P&S.

Dr. Neuro mentioned earlier, "I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing..." By the same token, there are occasions when the greater DoF can be very useful. I currently work with FF & APS-H (x1.3 crop) and will likely pick up a 7DII when they ship. They're all useful for particular projects or shots.

I often feel concerned when I read posts from someone aching to go to FF with the misconception that FF is this extraordinary Holy Grail from Planet Camera. Often the upgrade can be a disappointing waste of money. OP, go FF by all means, just do it with your eyes open. And keep your APS-C.

Lookout! Here comes my evangelical moment. Good workers never blame their tools. Gear Geeks and Pixel Peepers aside, the true Holy Grail of Planet Camera lies within the photographer. Great images are made by photographers, not cameras.

-PW

+1

I have used both FF and APS-C sized Canon DSLRs.  Certainly there is noticable difference in depth of field b/w FF and APS-C - but the difference in depth of field (DOF) between P&S to APS-C is MUCH larger!  And when people say "FF gives a 3D feeling" or "the quality of light from FF is so much better" - it's probably as a result that the photos they've chosen (or seen) from people using FF were more carefully composed, timed, etc.

Sometimes I prefer the larger DOF that a APS-C can give for the same aperture (eg for macro - and sometimes for landscape).  Other times I want a razor thin DOF, and then I use a fast (ie less than f/2 prime on a APS-C, which often does the trick.  I've done the 'blind test' even with pro photogs many times, and without knowing the camera / lens, 90% of the time are hard pressed to tell if it's FF or APS-C - many people delude themselves on (potential) purchases, in marketing it's called "cognitive dissonance".

It sounds like the OP might be well served by the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, as this is both fast, and gives sharp results (also reputedly good wide open). I have a good copy of the Sigma 10-20mm, which is sharp corner to corner. Often I've been less than impressed seeing photos of the full frame equivalent (16mm) eg the 16-35mm, which have noticeable corner softness, even stopped down.

Not that I pixel peep, but there IS something to be said about using the 'sweet spot' of lenses (or specifically lenses designed for APS-C sized sensors, which seem to be very good on the ultra wide angle!)  There is definitely a place for FF, but as PW wrote above, FF isn't the holy grail - it's in the photographer (knowledge, artistry and technical competence!)

Paul

[DanielW]

Thank you, PW and Paul! I'm aware that gear won't make me a better photographer (but it sure would be nice, wouldn't it?), so I'm studying a lot and shooting as often as I can.
The answers I've got on this thread have really helped me figure that what I'm lacking in fact is a fast WA. The Tokina is sure worth considering, although maybe a little too much on the wide side for what I'll use it (mainly people). The 17-55 f/2.8 is probably the way to go if I stick with crop sensors (27 mm wide should be good enough), but I think it's a tad too expensive a lens when I think I could pay considerably less for a 24-105 f/4L.
Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...
Well, anyway...

[neuroanatomist]

Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...

Ummmm, sure. Tell that to my wallet.  The one with a whole lot less green in it, after buying a 600/4L IS II to get similar framing on my 1D X as the 100-400mm on my 7D.   

[Chuck Alaimo]

I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
My only other zooms are EFs 15-85, and 70-300L.
The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.

So if we take the Samyang 35mm as having *good* IQ (which it does, all those wider ones just don't), and we take the Sigma 8-16mm as having *good* iQ (which it does), then by going to FF i'd be missing out on wide angles, super wide angles, über wide angles.
In fact, 8-16mm is the FF-equivalent of 12.8-25.6mm. The sigma 8-16mm mounted on my 7D I would be guessing gives as good if not better IQ than the Sigma 12-24mm v1, probably the same as v2, mounted on a 5D3 (at iso100 on a tripod for landscapes).
So by *upgrading* to FF, i'd be losing everything between 12.6-35mm at decent IQ, *or* I'd have to buy a Sigma 12-24 v2, or a nikon 14-24 and adapter, or a Canon 14mm *and* 16-35 and still miss out a few mm on the wide end. And that's not even considering the extra cost of those FF lenses, my 8-16 only cost me $500.

I see... That's kinda why I'm stuck. My WA is not very good nor fast (the only option I have is my 18-135 kit lens, my other lens being the 50 1.4), and I miss a better WA lens for indoor shots. The thing is, a good WA for crop means sticking to crop (EF-s 10-22, most likely), because it's gonna be an EF-s lens that's not that cheap. High ISO IQ is also something I consider important, although I can't say I'm totally dissatisfied with my 60d in that aspect.
Bottom line is, I want more lenses, but the 1.6 multiplier is pissing me off!

I hear ya man, loud and clear.  Let me say this thought, bodies vs glass..  glass holds its value much better!  I'm not trying to hold you back from going FF...but...a good lens will hold its value.  Before i went FF, I waso n a 7d and i pondered getting a 16-35 vs 10-22.  I found a used 10-22.  And it was a good decision.  i spent $600 on it, and used it a lot.  It did annoy me at times (for working with people, the variable aperture got to me, at 22mm the distortion wasn't too bad but it let less light in so i had to work it wider than i wanted).  Even with that said, it served me well, and when i moved to FF i sold that lens for very close to what i paid for it.

It does sound like you may be ready for FF though.  Don't take what I just said as a no to going FF.  Just research your lens options - how do they hold up used?  if it makes sense to get a wider crop lens now, go for it!  if not, go FF!

[symmar22]

Most helpful ever!
My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting  the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
Thank you very much for replying!

As an alternative to the 10-22 Canon, maybe you should give a try to the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, lots of people claim it's the best wide zoom for crop sensors.

[elflord]

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!

Whether or not it's a "benefit" is in the eye of the beholder, but the difference in dof is substantial. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame gives you similar dof to an f/1.8 prime on APS-C. Likewise an f/4 zoom is comparable to f/2.5 on a crop, and your f/1.4 primes are in another league. 

You will find yourself needing to stop down to get enough depth of field  (even with a "slow" f/4 zoom)

On the flip side, minimum focus distance at a given "effective" focal length increases. That is, MFD for an 85mm lens is quite a bit longer than MFD for a 50mm lens which is again longer than MFD for 35mm. You sometimes notice this with very tight shots, and you do lose some of the advantages of full frame when you are distance limited (at either end!)

[KyleSTL]

OK, that does it, I'm selling all my gear and carrying around a Panasonic FZ200 from now on since there is no 25-600mm f/2.8 lens for DSLRs.  Not even the Siglauncher can hold a candle to that FL/aperture combination. /sarcasm

To be fair, though, in perfect light that would be a pretty good package for birding.  Although the tripod and gimbal would weigh considerably more than the camera.  IQ would not even be in the ballpark of a 1Dx / 600 II rig, but the size, weight, and cost ($600 vs. $20K+) difference is night and day.  Likely any crop DSLR and 400mm f/5.6 would result in image quality much greater with fewer pixels and would not be an order of magnitude more expensive.

EDIT: Actually, I'd like to see this shootout:

FZ200 @ 600mm f/2.8 ISO 100
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (640mm equ with 400mm f/5.6L USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 200mm f/4 ISO 200 (cropped to 1.7MP with 70-200mm f/4L USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 75-300mm f/4-5.6)