Do you miss APS-C?

[Autocall]

Do you miss APS-C?

Nope...

[pwp]

Right now I work with FF 5D3 & APS-H 1D4 and can say with certainty that I'll pick up the 7D2 when it ships. I like all the formats for the unique qualities that each one brings to the table. If I need MF for a project I'll rent it, and some projects are happily shot on the G15.

If I had a bigger garage & suitable disposable income I'd have a kitted out Toyota Landcruiser, a fuel efficient Japanese station wagon and a Vespa motor scooter. And then drive the right one for the job at hand. That's a slightly extravagant fleet, but returning APS-C to my current format mix is an easy, inexpensive expansion.

-PW

[RustyTheGeek]

I think it boils down to whether you prefer to have more equipment to choose from (and manage) or less equipment.  I like having both formats but it does create more agonizing choices before a shoot about which lenses on which body, how will I shoot this or that, etc when you have two different bodies.

Here is my opinion... I own the 60D and I use it because it has a faster fps for sporty stuff.  It has the same sensor as the 7D but the 7D has even faster frame rate.  For the price however, the 60D works fine for my needs since sports isn't my primary thing.  I use my FF 5D and now my 5D3 (and soon my 6D) for just about everything else.  Even compared to the older 5D the 60D IQ doesn't compare.  And when I shoot anything else "important" going forward requiring me to carry two cameras, those two cameras will now be FF without a doubt and that will require a bit less thought.

[RLPhoto]

I only miss the reach from APS-c but nothing else.

[Bob Howland]

i own and use both a 5D3 and 7D. This pairing replaced a 5D and 40D. The 7D is used principally with my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8 (with and without TCs) for sports photography. Very often, the 100-400 will be on the 7D and a 70-200 on the 5D3. With the focusing improvement, the 5D3 is a passable sports camera, something the 5D never was.

However, I have also used a (1) 17-35 on the 5D/5D3 and 24-70 on the 40D/7D, (2) 24-70 on the 40D/7D and 100-400 on the 5D3 and (3) 17-50 on the 40D/7D and 70-200 on the 5D/5D3.

Having said that, if I were regularly shooting events and/or weddings, I would certainly buy another 5D3 and relegate the 7D to backup status.

Regarding the mythical 7D2, I want improvements in DR and high ISO image quality over the 7D, not more pixels. That's what I said about the 5D3 over the 5D2 and that's what Canon delivered.

[EYEONE]

As someone that went from a 7D to a 5D3 and still own both I can so easily answer that.
Do I miss my focal ranges being just plain wrong? No.
FF feels like home.

I never look back. I keep the 7D as a back up at weddings but that's all, it's hardly ever used.

[gjones5252]

Awesome! Thanks guys that's what I needed to hear.
I have enough and am going to go with the 5d iii.
I like what was said about how gaining an apsc is very easy especially if its just for the reach. I will miss the vari angle but if I get the 5d now then as time goes on the 60d will only get cheaper and the 7d ii will be announced even though it will be pricey. I will need a apsc though because you can't crop video but for pictures it will be awesome. And with the 5d ii and iii I think they will be good match for each other. I hope the 5d ii still gets used. Haha

[gjones5252]

Ok so last question. I got the money and they are going to mark down the mark III if i want it. only question is i watched the new episode of Digital Rev Tv and they compare the 5d to the 6d. The 6d looked like it had way better image quality under high iso. I would assume they werent stupid enough to make the test non-comparable(jpeg to raw, high iso noise on vs off)
That kinda scared me. I am bored of the 5d II auto focus and by far ready for a better auto focus but at the cost of a higher iso image quality! thats pretty frustrating! anywhere else i can find a good similar comparison between high iso of these?

[neuroanatomist]

Check the 6D review on TDP.

...I do think that the 6D is producing less noise than even the 5D III. You won't see much difference at lower ISO settings, but somewhere around ISO 800 to 1600, I can start to see a slight difference. The difference between these two cameras, even at very high ISO settings, is not significant enough to be a differentiator in my opinion.

[paul13walnut5]

And how many of you have noticed that we are in the video forum rather than the 'open your mouth and let your belly rumble' forum.

And it turned into another APS-C  vs FF debate.  Like all the others before.  And nary a nod to video.

My take from a video context...

I actually prefer APS-C for video.

I don't tend to use extreme ISO's.

The APS-C cameras to my eye exhibit less rolling shutter (certainly than the 5D2, not had hands on with 5D3 or 1DX yet)

The depth of field is far more managable on APS-C.  I'm sure there are those who have no problem shooting moving pictures of moving subjects from a moving stand point and can keep the focus contiguous at f1.4 on a full frame.  I'm just not one of them.  I find APS-C a lot more forgivving.

I'm also going to use a phrase that people hate here....

I'm not a rich hobbyist, for whom my camera is a badge of status or a trinket or plaything.  I buy what I can afford (and like most working in video / photography, the money isn't 'out-there') or justify.  I can get a more versatile lens set for less money on APS-C.

The tokina 11-16 f2.8 is vastly cheaper than the 16-35 f2.8 I'd need on full frame to get equivalence.

And here's the good bit.  When I get my c100 I'll already have the lenses that work for me.

I find it curious that canons own cinema line is roughly APS-C with the exception of the 1D-C (Which nobody buying a camera for video would buy ahead of a c500) yet all the usual suspects pipe up with why FF is better for stills.

IT'S A VIDEO FORUM, DOH!

[gjones5252]

went ahead and ordered the 5d mark iii. I got it for 2600 from a dealer where i can get a warranty, and with my 1300 credit i ended up at about 1300 for it. For only 500 more than the 6d i think it was worth it. And worth the wait. so excited.

[sleepnever]

Not one bit. Upgraded from a T2i to a 5D3. Thought I would miss the flip-screen too and I don't. It all depends on what you're using it for.

[Renegade Runner]

At the moment no.  Now that winter is here there is very little wildlife in the form of birds to photograph.  I know in the spring and summer when all the birds return I will miss and want the reach.

[JPAZ]

Seems like everyone says about the same thing but I'll add yet another comment.  My 50D was a big step up from my old Rebel.  It focused better, had higher FPS, could do automated bracketing, and felt good in my hand.  I really liked this camera in many ways.  The "reach" was another advantage (like wildlife using a 300mm with a 1.4 on this camera gave an equivalent to 672mm).  But, the noise drove me nutty and I spent a lot of time in PP trying to tame it.

I am still learning how to get the most out of the 5Diii.  The focus, high iso performance and IQ of the 5diii are such a step up that I am glad I sold my old friend to help finance the FF camera.  I am not going back to crop.

JP

[CharlieB]

Miss it?  No, I'm still using it, and FF too - depends on the job at hand.

The only cameras I could really get sentimental over are the Leica M's. 

Everything else is just a tool.