The Jump To Full Frame

[Mark1]

I upgraded to a 5D MK1 last year from a 30D. I don't think I will ever buy another APS-C camera!

Sure the LCD screen is crap but I'm more interested in the histogram so it's no biggy for me. People rage about the autofocus being ancient but I have never been able to attribute a poorly focused shot on the camera's inefficiencies. It works just fine for me, don't understand why so many people hate it. Maybe if you shoot flying birds I can understand but the 5D isn't built for that, buy a 7D and get your point and shoot focus with a bit of noise. The 5D was built for landscapes and portraits. Portraits are just awesome with full frame and if you get it right you can capture a kind of texture and dimension impossible with APS-C.

I have considered going for a 2nd hand 5d2 but I'm not sure what extra quality my images would gleen from it. I don't need HD video and can live without a better LCD. I have a good focus technique so don't need 4000 extra focus points to help me out!

I would echo other people's views on pro film cameras too. I bought a Canon EOS 1n recently. Beautiful camera which handles better than my 5D. It's very, very tactile, why can't they use the same ergonomics on the 5D?

[dr croubie]

I've been looking at used prices on fleabay for a while, and used prices (depending on condition and accessories) seem to be in the range of:
5D: $600-$1000
1Ds2: $1300-1800
5D2: $1600-1900 (at which point new models start at $1950)
1Ds3: $3k-7k (from not many sold)

Besides the drop from 21.1 to 16MP and lack of video, the 1Ds2 is so much more of a camera (build, sealing, AF) than the 5D2, I can't think of any reason not to get one, anyone else know in what respects the 5D2 beats the 1Ds2? But the 5D classic is a nice steal for the same price as a new 550D if it's in good nick...

[Hillsilly]

This was my thinking in deciding on a 1Ds Mk ii, too.  But the 5D Mk ii has some benefits and its not easy to declare a clear winner.   The 5D Mk ii is lighter and newer and has video capabilities.  It performs much better at higher ISOs.  Supposedly, its jpegs are bit sharper straight out of the cameras and its LCD is better.  But if all you want to do is take photos at low-ish ISOs, the 1Ds is as good as it gets and is surprisingly simple to use.  You can't go wrong with either.   

[willrobb]

You have just got your 50D. It's a great camera. My suggestion would be to have a total passionate love affair with the 50D, get to know it backwards and enjoy the output before putting too much attention on what your next upgrade will be. Quality time with the 50D is going to inform you in ways you could not anticipate.

The magic is in the pictures you take.

Paul Wright

Wise advise, so many people seem to think that by buying new gear your photos are instantly going to change into something magical. Yes the equipment helps, but it isn't the deciding factor. Use, know, love your gear and once you've exhausted the possibilities of what you can do with it, then upgrade when you can.

[pj1974]

Hi all.

There are some interesting posts here, thanks for this online channel of communication.

I'm just going to pick up on what a few people said in this thread:

pwp wrote:
I shoot full frame, 1.3x crop & 1.6x crop bodies on a daily basis and move freely between the three. My personal viewpoint isthat there is an overblown marketing department driven perception that full frame is something etherial and almost mystical...it's not. It's useful at times for sure, and very nice to have, but unless your kit is making money for you, upgraditis can be a financially punishing trap.
The magic is in the pictures you take.

Mark1 wrote:
Maybe if you shoot flying birds I can understand but the 5D isn't built for that, buy a 7D and get your point and shoot focus with a bit of noise. The 5D was built for landscapes and portaits. Portaits are just awesome with full frame and if you get it right you can capture a kind of texture in people's faces impossible with APS-C.

My opinion is that having good equipment helps, but it is not 'the' deciding factor. I've seen award winning photos that professional journalists have taken with a point and shoot! (because a heavier, bulky and more wieldy DSLR would have actually been a hindrance, eg in real up close photos of street battles, where the journalists have to run, duck and hide, etc).

Obviously, we're not all at that 'extreme' (between possibly loosing our life if we're slightly slower at running with a DSLR in our hand, or round our neck).  However my point is, (and that some have made above) - that learning about light, and a camera's real limits will give many people a lot more photographic prowess than having the 'top of the line and it's SURE to produce the best images'.

I wouldn't agree that an APS-C camera can not produce amazing texture. I've seen repeatedly that without EXIF data, and unless people almost count the pixels while pixel-peeping, an overall image itself is indistinguishable if used appropriately between a APS-C or a FF.  As a generalisation, of course I know FF can give images that have more dynamic range, shallower DOF, sharper 'per pixel' detail, etc.

I learned a lot about photography with an old Olympus film camera, then a few Fuji P&S digital cameras, then moved to DSLRs in 2005. My Canon 350D has served me well for over 6 years, and in more recent years my 7D has indeed allowed my photo skills to continue flourishing.

Some of my 'most prized' photos, yes even of landscapes, are with a 3MP Fuji P&S way in the distant past... ie around 2000.      

Paul

[wickidwombat]

get a new 5D2 for the price and the deals being done at the moment its by far the best choice when you see the quality of the images you can produce with it you forgive it for its bad AF

[Isaac]

+1 the move the FF is one of the best choices to make. Go for the 5D3 that's coming in a few weeks/months.

[wickidwombat]

+1 the move the FF is one of the best choices to make. Go for the 5D3 that's coming in a few weeks/months.

you mean year right?