Should I upgrade to FF or invest in lenses instead?

[daveypoo]

With Canon's release of the 6D last September, I have been wrestling with the notion of upgrading from my 60D to the 6D. However, I just can't seem to make up my mind on whether an investment in lenses would make better sense. On one hand I am wanting the benefit of higher image quality, better bokeh and the ability to shoot at higher ISOs with FF. On the other hand, I also see that a couple of new lenses would allow me more opportunities for creative expression that I have now.  I primarily shoot Macro (180mm 3.5L and 100mm 2.8 USM with twin 430EXIIs or twin 270EXIIs on a Manfrotto macro flash bracket) and  I also shoot outdoor landscapes as well as a few of family and pets. I shoot almost exclusively for prints (5 X 7 to 11 X 14). I'm also looking at a 70-200 2.8 from Sigma or the new Tamron and also a wide lens to fill in the void I have now.

So what should I do? I am thinking of selling my 60D/18-135, 55-250 and battery grip to put toward the 6D with 24-105 lens, or keep what I've got and add a 70-200 2.8 and maybe a 10-22. I also have a 70-300 4.0/5.6, 50mm 1.8 along with the two macro lenses.

[neuroanatomist]

I primarily shoot Macro (180mm 3.5L and 100mm 2.8 USM with twin 430EXIIs or twin 270EXIIs on a Manfrotto macro flash bracket) and  I also shoot outdoor landscapes as well as a few of family and pets.

If you've got plenty of light, the IQ of an APS-C sensor is good - definitely sufficient for 11x14 prints.  Better quality lenses (EF-S 17-55/2.8 vs. the 18-135, for example) will likely do more for your IQ than a FF sensor.

[pierceography]

The only reason I kept my 7D after getting my 5Dm3 was for macro shooting.  I've always felt that if you're primarily a macro shooter, there's no reason to go full frame, since you'll lose the additional length a crop sensor provides.

If I don't have my 7D in my bag and need to pull out my 100mm macro lens and use it on my 5Dm3, I always miss the extra reach.  Unless, of course, I absolutely need the extra ISO performance... but I'm generally on a tripod, so I'm not as worried about ISO.

I would keep the crop body, or upgrade to a 7D or new (unreleased) 70D.  My $0.02.

[charlesa]

Higher quality glass always surpasses sensor in terms of performance gains in the end.

[robbymack]

Lenses are always a better investment than a new body. I think with the amount of extra light you have you won't see much of a IQ difference in your macro shots especially at the size you are printing. Your macro kits looks pretty well endowed, I'd focus on a mid range walk around zoom to replace the 18-135, I like the 17-55 2.8, but the 15-85 is also very good. Is your 70-300 the "L"?  If so keep it and don't worry about one of the 70-200 offerings, if not then any one of the four 70-200 offerings would be great as would the 70-300L.

[jmontagu13]

Higher quality glass always surpasses sensor in terms of performance gains in the end.

For the most part, I completely agree. However, I noticed after upgrading from a 60D to 5D3, I can use my 400 5.6L in just about any light condition now. With the 60D, I had to keep it at ISO1600 or below to control noise. Now with the 5D3, I am using ISO6400 (sometimes even 12800) with minimal noise and can keep the shutter speed much higher to compensate for the lack of IS in the 400 lens.

[sivesind]

I upgraded to FF and the 5D3, last year, after considering it since the first 5D came out, 8 years ago.  The bokeh was what tempted me the most, but I never felt I could afford it and did stop by the 7D before I went to the 5D3.  However.  Since I started looking at FF, I never again bought an EF-S lens.  All my new lenses where EF lenses that would fit a future FF camera

Maybe that is a way to go?: Get better glass now, and then go for the 6D2 in a few years, when the quality of the sensor will make a bigger difference and you want to change your body anyway.

By the way, I want to mention that the 5D3 totally outperforms the 7D (which I believe have the same sensor as the 7D) in terms of low light performance.  I have about 3 or 4 extra stops of ISO to get the same quality shots, so if low light is an issue for you, FF makes much more sense.

[ecka]

I'd choose FF+3 lenses over crop+4 lenses.

[aj1575]

I'm in the same situation as you are. FF is definitly great, and now, with 6D it is even kind of affordable. The Image-quality of a FF will always be better than the one an APS-C sensor (sensor-size rules). But the new Nikon D5100 (and the D7100) have an IQ that comes pretty close to a 5D Mark II, and is better than a new Sony alpha 99.
The question is, what is good enough for you. I'm looking forward to the 70D, it's IQ should improve quite a lot from what we are use to in Canon APS-C (which is not bad in real world situations). Then there is the focal length issue. If you work more on the wide side of focal range spectrum, then FF is better for your bokeh, if you are working on the narrow end, than APS-C helps you to get more reach at a better price (just compare a 135mm f2 and a 200mm f2).

I'm still torn between going FF and staying at APS-C; at the moment I lean towards APS-C. Hopefully I will know more in about a week, if the 70D gets announced then.

[RS2021]

A full fledged move given your current line up of lenses to full frame will not keep you content unless you plan to invest heavily in FF lenses. The current crop of full frame sensors are also not very forgiving with the shortcomings of mediocre lenses. 

If you are a macro shooter, given your current line up of lenses, APS-C is a fair platform... should you invest in lenses, consider those that will augment your current style but will also transition nicely to FF.

[Jackson_Bill]

As I guy who doesn't own a FF yet (but wants to), I'd say get the FF for the kind of photography you're doing.
1. As far as landscapes are concerned, every time I take a landscape shot with my 7D I wish I had the FF. It seems I'm always working towards the wide end of my 15-85 and wondering about the wide angle extension distortion.
2. Regarding macro, yes, you get more "reach" with the APS-C but the downside of that is your dof will be greater that with the FF. To fill the FF sensor with the object to the same proportion as the APS-C you have to be closer, resulting in a shallower dof and better bokeh.

[traveller]

I primarily shoot Macro (180mm 3.5L and 100mm 2.8 USM with twin 430EXIIs or twin 270EXIIs on a Manfrotto macro flash bracket) and  I also shoot outdoor landscapes as well as a few of family and pets.

If you've got plenty of light, the IQ of an APS-C sensor is good - definitely sufficient for 11x14 prints.  Better quality lenses (EF-S 17-55/2.8 vs. the 18-135, for example) will likely do more for your IQ than a FF sensor.

A bit conservative surely! O.K. you might start to notice the benefits of a modern full frame sensor at 13" x 19", but that doesn't mean that APS-C cameras can't make very good prints at this size (accepting your "plenty of light" caveat). 

Maybe some of us are getting a little spoilt by full frame? 

[dickgrafixstop]

Why not go whole hog?  As I read your inventory and requirements, I'd sell everything but the macro and the "nifty fifty" and start from scratch.  Get a 5DIII if the budget allows (if not get a 6D), add
the 16-35L and the 70-200L f4.0is with a 1.4X converter and you're good.

[Drum]

I am in exactly the same situation wondering whether or not to go full frame, my decision has been to go with lenses this year and then in a year or so get the body, because the lenses are used on both FF and aps-c - you can't loose. Then if an extraordinary aps-c option comes out in the time frame I haven't put all my eggs into one basket so to speak  and have the option of either. Lens choice I leave to you.

[infared]

Do BOTH!!!!