I have just upgraded from a 500D to a 7D. I didn’t really consider FF because I had my focal range pretty well covered with a 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4 L IS.
Two weeks after the purchase my 7D was stolen along with the 10-22mm.
Now, I am debating whether to get the 5- or 7-series successor, assuming that the specs are similar.
I take photos just for the fun of it and don’t do excessive printing but enjoy high quality.
Mostly, I take photos while traveling – landscapes, cities, people – as well as my dog.
The main reason for considering FF is that I sometimes see photos that have something mine are missing. It is hard to put a finger on it. It is a certain brilliance that gives the pictures the impression of depth. While there seems nothing obvious to be wrong with my photos they are “flat” and unspectacular in comparison.
Has one of you encountered something similar? I am not even sure if it is the FF or composition, light, post procession, primes etc.
FF from the web:
My out of camera jpgs:
In my pictures nothing pops out, everything seems to be on one plane.
What do you think? Is FF really the reason?
Besides this issue, lower noise in the range of ISO800-3200 would be the main benefit for me.
On the other hand APS-C has a lot of advantages over FF.
From what I have read the 10-22mm is on a level with the 16-35mm as well as the 17-55mm with the 24-70mm while having IS. So for the same glass quality you pay a high surcharge, have to carry more weight and lose tele reach.
To cover the same focal range with a FF body it would be about 1500€ over a crop setup.
If the 7D had been available when you switched to FF would you still have done it?