I shoot wildlife, landscapes, travel, indoors, low-light, etc. Not much portraiture or action. I currently have a 450D with a 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 L IS. My main non-artistic weakness is shaky hands, which is why I use, and only seriously consider, lenses with IS.Goals in upgrade:
Crop/FF vs. Goals:
- Better noise in low light/high ISO situations.
- Good AF (AF point coverage and performance, speed in focusing, UI for point selection).
- Availability of lenses.
- Low weight/physical size. (related: I won't be using two bodies)
- Environmental sealing.
If I upgraded to a newer crop body, I'd gain better ISO performance, potentially better AF, opportunity for me to reuse my 17-55, maintenance of reach of my 70-200 (to 320mm), and likely lower weight than a FF option. The environmental sealing may or may not exist on the body, and definitely doesn't exist on the 17-55.
If I went with a 6D, I'd get better low light performance and better ISO performance, potentially better AF, and environmental sealing. I'd have to replace my 17-55 with the 24-70/4 L IS, which while smaller, sealed, and capable of near-macro performance represents more expense and one lost stop. I'd be able to continue using my 70-200 but would lose some reach on the FF sensor. And lastly, the 6D would likely be bigger and heavier than crop options.
How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS? If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO? How about a 7D instead of a 60D? In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?
Thanks for any advice and help you can offer.