To switch or not to switch?

[bobthebrick]

Now regarding the pop-up flash, I had a 60D and a 7D before my 5D mkII.  Once I started using an external flash like a speedlite, I would never go back using any pop-up flash.  Pop-up flash in my view give very mediocre result at best.  Once you get used shooting with a speedlite, you will not regret your pop-up flash.

I wouldn't choosea camera bqsed on whether they have pop up flashes or not anyway, I'm pretty sure (it may not have come out that way) that we were just saying it's a nice extra to have. Because, yes, they are mediocre, but if they enable you to take a photo where you couldn't before, a mediocre photo is ALWAYS better than no photo.

Thomas.

[tron]

I switched to full frame when a bag with my 40D and many good lenses was stolen!
I was thinking anyway to switch since I come from the film era so I had many FF lenses (except for a 10-22 which was in the bag).
I didn't regret it. As I said I was used to full frame anyway and I mostly shoot landscapes.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You should identify whats missing with your current images.  I've owned almost every Rebel and XXD camera, as well as a 1D MK II and a 1D MK III, and the 5D MK II meets my need for good very low light usage and the ability to crop.  However, its not a one camera does it all solution, so don't jump unlless you have a need for what it brings.

If you are just going to compare images with good light and no special requirements on a monitor screen, you will likely be happy with a point and shoot.  There is certainly nothing wrong with using a point and shoot, use the right tool for the job.

[katwil]

What lenses do you currently own, and how often do you use each one? That could make a huge difference in going FF or staying APS-C.

Thomas.

I agree with this post wholeheartedly.  One key reason I made the move to the 5D II was a recent vacation experience.  Neither of two of my better lenses were suited to my needs on an aps-c body.  The EF-S 17-55 was too short for a lot of shots, and my EF 24-105L wasn't wide enough.  If I had an EF-S 15-85 I could have used a single Canon lens for most all of my shots.

With the 5D, the 24-105 can now become what it was designed to be.  The 40D gets relegated to a back-up/ daytime sports role and the 17-55 gets re-calibrated to go with my 20D which will be converted to IR.

If you have to replace a lot of glass to replicate what you were doing before, you might not want to make the jump unless you were dissatisfied with your results.  But I would suggest you give a lot of thought to investing in more EF-S or equivalent glass.  It took me about 18 months to go from aps-c bliss to FF lust. 

[BaconBets]

Photography is all about options and limitations. Spend a little money and you can still take amazing pictures, but the circumstances under which you can take those amazing pictures are ideal and limited. Spend more, and you increase your options and expand the set of circumstances under which you can produce amazing results. Spend the most, and your options are virtually unlimited.

But spending the money in a vacuum will not advance you unless the options are mastered and understood.

A 5d2 will allow you to take advantage of 24mm 1.4 and control your sharpness and depth of field in less than ideal lighting. Looking for the equivalent on an APS-C? Sorry. FF will unleash 16-35 and 14mm.

A 5d2 can take a cheap $100 50mm 1.8 and turn it into a 50mm beast, with APS-C you can't even spend 3 times that on a lens and keep up. And to match the 50mm 1.4 on FF, you would have to spend $1400 on the 35mm 1.4 for APS-C.

Also you can bump up the iso a bit on the 5d2 to hit the aperture  "sweet spot" of your lens or keep the flash off.

But if you aren't planning on getting any higher end wide and normal lenses, aren't using fast lenses wide open for that shallow DOF and bokeh, aren't using Manual or Aperture priority, using a flash head on, and not printing out large scenery pics taken with a tripod....than the 5d2 might disappoint you as the results won't be much different than what you are accustomed to.

[Madkrafter]

When I switched from film to digital in 2004, I bartered for a used D60 (6.2 MP). I've been shooting 1.6 crop since. IQ is with the photographer. I've done 20x30+" blowups from that 6.2 MP sensor. I bought a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 PRO DX lens to get my wide angle views for architectural and landscape shoots.

In 2008, I wanted to upgrade. My decision was between the 50D and the 5DmkII. I ultimately decided on the 50D because the batteries from my D60 and the Tokina lens would carry over. I also picked up a 70-200mm f/4 L IS with the 50D for a combined total of what the 5DmkII body alone would cost.

Here we are waiting, drooling, for the 5DmkIII and I just purchased a brand-new, 3-year-old 5DmkII for 2K on 12/14. Why? I purchased  the Canon 17mm Tilt-Shift lens for architectural work last year for a business write-off. I was only able to use it for exteriors or spacious interiors because of its 27mm 1.6x view. A year later, another write-off, I pulled the trigger on the 5DmkII because I don't want to wait until Summer or Christmas to use my 17mm TS to its fullest. I'm loving the full-frame, my 24-70 is WIDE at 24! High-ISO looks good. And there's a back-focus button on the grip!! (it's the little things)

Crop-sensor cameras like the 7D are great cameras. I have made fantastic pictures with them for 7 years. Their extra reach with the crop factor can save you. It just depends on what you have in your equipment list. Do you have to sell and re-purchase lenses?

I'm not thinking twice about buying the 5DmkII. It will make a great backup camera next year! And I still have the 50D for the "reach"

[unfocused]

I have a 7D and doubt seriously if I will ever switch. Why not?

A combination of personal style and overall investment.

Switching to a 5D (or other full frame) involves not only switching the body, but also switching lenses. I would need to invest at least another $1,000 or so over and above the cost of the 5DII to get a wide angle zoom that covers the same range of lenses I already own for my 7D.

I don't do a lot of low-light photography. I don't usually shoot high ISO, and the image quality of the 7D is just fine at normal ISOs. Besides, I am certain that the next generation of 7D will have improved ISO performance anyway.

I print most of my images full-frame, and absent radical crops, the image quality of the 7D in print is flawless, even for relatively large print sizes.

I am spoiled by the extra reach of the 7D. I just bought a 100-400 zoom and I don't want to give up the 1.6 crop factor.

I've studied my own preferred style and composition. I'm not a romanticist, my style is more documentary and my compositions tend to emphasize a flat plane. Thus, I don't find as much need for shallow depth of field and in fact, prefer the greater apparent depth of field of the APS-C sensor.

I'm not prepared to say I will never switch to full frame and the low price of the 5D II is tempting, but for my personal style of photography, at this point I'm not seeing sufficient advantages to full frame.

[bobthebrick]

I have a 7D and doubt seriously if I will ever switch. Why not?

A combination of personal style and overall investment.

Switching to a 5D (or other full frame) involves not only switching the body, but also switching lenses. I would need to invest at least another $1,000 or so over and above the cost of the 5DII to get a wide angle zoom that covers the same range of lenses I already own for my 7D.

I don't do a lot of low-light photography. I don't usually shoot high ISO, and the image quality of the 7D is just fine at normal ISOs. Besides, I am certain that the next generation of 7D will have improved ISO performance anyway.

I print most of my images full-frame, and absent radical crops, the image quality of the 7D in print is flawless, even for relatively large print sizes.

I am spoiled by the extra reach of the 7D. I just bought a 100-400 zoom and I don't want to give up the 1.6 crop factor.

I've studied my own preferred style and composition. I'm not a romanticist, my style is more documentary and my compositions tend to emphasize a flat plane. Thus, I don't find as much need for shallow depth of field and in fact, prefer the greater apparent depth of field of the APS-C sensor.

I'm not prepared to say I will never switch to full frame and the low price of the 5D II is tempting, but for my personal style of photography, at this point I'm not seeing sufficient advantages to full frame.

Very well said, and restates the point that there is no "one is so much better and is the end-all". You need the right tools for the job, and sometimes an APS-C camera is the right tool. You need to determine exactly what your shooting and work out whether FF will be a massive help, or even a hindrance to your creativity. I'd wait for the 7d mk ii, or 70d, or whatever comes next, if you decide you want to stay APS-C. If you want to go FF, maybe look at a used 5d. A lot of the image quality for a fraction of the price. More money for lenses

Thomas.

[friedmud]

Here's an example of 7D AF and off-camera flash capability coming in handy for "family" photos.

My mother-in-law's dog will absolutely let you dress him up in _any_ way... and then will just sit there and pose for photos.  It's pretty hilarious...

This was shot with a 7D, 17-55 f/2.8, 430 EX II as a remote (to the right and above the frame, pointed up with the diffuser on), ISO 400, Manual Mode

Yep, even with a flash it was still ISO 400... it was _very_ dark in the room... but the 7D was still able to lock on perfectly and control the remote flash to get a great exposure.  Only slight modifications done in iPhoto (still traveling so no access to Lightroom right now).

There is a bit of noise in the OOF areas in the back (you probably won't be able to tell because CR limits the upload size so the photo is pretty small) but I'm sure I could get rid of it with Lightroom.  There is a _ton_ of detail in this photo though.  Zooming in I can see every hair on his face....

Just shot this tonight and thought it might add some cheer to the discussion ;-)

(EDIT: In case you're wondering those are _Doggles_ he has on ;-)

[hoousi]

I changed to FF for DoF on wide angle with a 16-35L now and a 24L next, also the nifty fifty gives a beautiful bokeh on 1.4 with FF compared to DX. Though I must ad that I finally came to a salary point where I can afford L-glass, a must when switching to FF. On DX there are many inexpensive lenses with good quality, FF is a huge plunge concerning glass, the body plays a very little role in the total price point.