Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

given Canon' innovation and engineering prowess, i see no major technical difficulties in this. given their marketing genius and financial strength i can see no commercial obstacles either.

further delaying the conversion from current "semi-analog/mechanical" photo gear technology to fully electronic digital imaging devices is ... counterproductive ... and plain stupid.

Yes, they could do it from a technical standpoint. But they haven't. The fact that you see no commercial obstacles doesn't mean they don't exist – you're just blindly unable to comprehend them.

 

[jeffa4444]

I'm not going to go into one format over another regarding pixel size , field of view, noise etc. but I will say this:-
Ive owned an used M4/3rds since Olympus brought out there first camera. Ive owned Canon APS-C cameras and currently have the 760D, Ive owned the 6D since 2013 and the 5DS since it came out. So what I hear some say.

Well pull those shots into LR or PS and work on them. The m4/3rds fall apart fairly quickly when cropped and especially when were talking about skin. APS-C is better especially the newer 24MP sensors but pull up an image from either the 5D MKIV or even better the 5DS and you soon realise how much better the image looks and how far you can enlarge onscreen to edit small details and how well the edited shot holds up.
In a way its not rocket science visual effects in movies have always preferred larger formats and the different apparent depth of field. In stills fashion photographers don't use medium format because they want to pay 6X the cost of 35mm they want it because of the greater information.

On a flip side the APS-C format is ideal in say a game reserve, yes Ive cropped images from the 5DS in South Africa but had more noise in low light performance than the 760D. The effective field of view brings the subject closer and trust me animals that look close to the eye look further away in the viewfinder.

Get out and take more photos and understand the limitation of each sensor size.

 

[unfocused]

Because statements like the following are misleading:

Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?

The clear implication (and when placed in context with your other statements, it affirms this) is that placing a lens on a crop sensor camera will somehow magically reduce its effective aperture. And that is simply not true and misleading.

It is just as misleading as to say that it changes the focal length. Yet the equivalent focal lengths are widely used especially in relation to fixed lens cameras. The equivalent aperture is no different. Many people do no seem to get the term "equivalent".

I'll respond to you, because it sounds like you sincerely want to have an intelligent discussion, as opposed to others.

Yes, it is misleading to say that it changes the focal length. But, it is much easier for people to understand the term equivalent when used with focal length. It's very straightforward math. An APS-C (Canon) camera crops a full frame image to the equivalent to what the image would look like if you used a full-frame camera in the same position and cropped it down. Multiply your focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent. Very easy to understand.

If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.

You cannot get similar framing if you shoot at a different position. The background will be different. You need to reduce the focal length. This increases the depth of field. To compensate this you need to open up the aperture. This increases the light so to compensate you need to drop the ISO. The factor for the two first is 1.6 and for the ISO 1.6^2 i.e 2.56. You can get relatively close if you just open up one fstop and cut ISO by half (makes more intuitive).

A 50 mm f/1.8 on a crop behaves like 80 mm f/2.8 on FF. You can do exactly same as long as you do not go below ISO 250 on the FF.

Yes, of course. In fact, your example illustrates the difficulty of trying to achieve equivalent depth of field. Unlike focal length, as a practical matter you have to introduce additional elements, such as -- as you correctly state -- the distance to subject. This is why I object to people flippantly using equivalence when discussing depth of field or aperture. Most people -- as least most rational people -- think of the f stop as one of three elements controlling the intensity of the light that hits the film or sensor. (Time and ISO being the other two).

For the average person, depth of field is generally a secondary consideration. If I am shooting a soccer match, I need to set my shutter speed to stop the action. Only after setting that shutter speed will I worry about fstop and ISO. If the lighting is poor, I may need to boost my ISO. If the lighting is good, I will set a moderate ISO and then try to get an fstop that will give me a little more leeway in focus, but only after setting the shutter speed high enough to stop the action.

The problem, and my objection, is because it is far too easy to confuse people when you talk about equivalency in fstops. That is because the primary function of an fstop (controlling exposure) is fixed across all formats. A lens set at f8 is f8 no matter what the lens, focal length or sensor size may be.

So, when someone says a lens on a crop sensor camera set at f4 is "equivalent" to a lens at f5.6 on a full frame camera, the vast majority of people equate that with the exposure. Which is just plain wrong, grossly misleading and unnecessarily confusing. In my experience, people who do this are, too often, trying to show off their supposed technical superiority, instead of trying to be helpful to those with less understanding or experience.

That was precisely my objection to the original statement.

Your problem seems that you cannot think these in an abstract way. You have an idea that you want to shoot something an you have a lens and then you think different bodies. This is a pretty natural for a photographer to think so. Yet the formulas used to calculate the depth of field do not care of what you intend to shoot. They object just is not in them.

That's more than a little condescending and offensive, but I will let it slide. Perhaps English is not your first language and I certainly admire anyone who can write in a non-native language.

Your final statement is correct: the formulas do not care what you intend to shoot. In fact, that affirms exactly what I said. Two cameras: identical shooting positions, identical lenses, identical settings. Once cropped to identical framing, the depth of field does not vary.

 

[ecka]

Regarding the cost difference, I'd say generally APS-C is the cheaper option. For example, landscapes: 6D + 16-35/4L vs. 80D + 10-18mm; at f/8 and ISO 100, the IQ differences will be minimal. For birds/wildlife: 7DII + 100-400 II vs. 5Ds + 600/4; the FF option will yield better IQ, but at a significant cost premium. OTOH, for outdoor portraits: 6D + 135/2L vs. 80D + 85/1.2L II; the FF option is actually cheaper.

Well, for landscapes, I'd say that EF-S 10-18mm at F8 is kind of ... sort of ... OK (I mean it is definitely a very nice crop lens for the price). But is it anywhere close to the 16-35/4L? One is a tiger ... other one is a kitten. For a fair comparison, we would need something like 16-30mm F7.1-9 and I don't think it would play well with DSLR AF system (but it could with mirrorless , specially for landscapes).
"IQ differences will be minimal" - are sure about that? If the L is more than you need, that doesn't mean they are equal.
"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
maybe even better.

There are many better, cheaper and unparalleled (F1.2-1.4) FF lens options. Even the 22F2 ($250) M pancake is not as good as the EF40F2.8 ($200) on FF (25/1.8 crop equivalent). My old EF100F2 on FF is like 63F1.2 on crop. How much would such lens cost? Well, Fuji asks $1000 for their XF56F1.2, which is twice the price, and $1500 for the APD version. Of course the old Canon lens is not that great by today's standards, so maybe there is no big FF IQ advantage, but it is muUuUch cheaper. I don't like zooms ... not a fan. But something like Sigma 24-35F2 ($900) is equivalent to a freaking 15-22F1.2 on crop! Can you imagine Fuji selling something like that for at least $1200? No? Me neither. Maybe for $2200? - I don't believe they would. I think $3500 could be realistic (in Fuji reality). How about MFT 12-18F1.0? Sky is the limit? Back to Earth ...

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is why I object to people flippantly using equivalence when discussing depth of field or aperture. Most people -- as least most rational people -- think of the f stop as one of three elements controlling the intensity of the light that hits the film or sensor. (Time and ISO being the other two).

So, when someone says a lens on a crop sensor camera set at f4 is "equivalent" to a lens at f5.6 on a full frame camera, the vast majority of people equate that with the exposure. Which is just plain wrong, grossly misleading and unnecessarily confusing.

There you have it, three elements...shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Probably the best way to think of it is that sensor size impacts ISO, in that total light captured impacts image noise, as does ISO. When discussing equivalence, the point is that focal length is not the only difference with a smaller sensor. Phrasing it as 'effective aperture times 1.6' is arguably a less confusing way of incorporating the idea that sensor size affects image quality. Well, less confusing to rational people, at any rate.

As for most rational people thinking of aperture mainly referring to controlling the amount of light, and depth of field being of secondary importance, consider that in the Canon T7i/800D manual, the section header for Av mode is, "Av: Changing the Depth of Field." I guess Canon is irrational, and they should have titled the section, "Av: Changing the Amount of Light Reaching the Sensor." Or maybe Canon doesn't expect rational people to read their manuals. :

Incidentally, this is an excerpt of my 175th post on this site (my oh my, that was a few posts back):

Lots of people say they're waiting for a FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The thing is, they forget that the camera is part of the equation. In fact, there's already a better lens than the 17-55mm for FF - it's the 24-105mm f/4L IS. Keep in mind that the crop factor applies to aperture (in terms of depth of field for equivalent subject framing) and to ISO noise as well. So, the FF-equivalent numbers for the 17-55mm would be 27-88mm f/4.5 - i.e., the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster, and still has 3-stop IS. Yes, you lose a full stop of light (the crop factor does not affect exposure), but if you need the shutter speed to be higher, you can just bump up the ISO since noise is 1.33 stops better on FF as well.

But, that's a little wordy...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, for landscapes, I'd say that EF-S 10-18mm at F8 is kind of ... sort of ... OK (I mean it is definitely a very nice crop lens for the price). But is it anywhere close to the 16-35/4L? One is a tiger ... other one is a kitten. For a fair comparison, we would need something like 16-30mm F7.1-9 and I don't think it would play well with DSLR AF system (but it could with mirrorless , specially for landscapes).
"IQ differences will be minimal" - are sure about that? If the L is more than you need, that doesn't mean they are equal.

The most significant lens design benefits for crop sensors are for ultrawides. Look at the 17-40L...even stopped down, the image quality suffered pretty badly, but for years it was a go-to lens. In practice, at low ISO and stopped down, the IQ advantages of FF are not really that significant. The benefits of a larger sensor really come into play when you want shallow DoF, low light shooting, etc.

I've shot urban landscapes with an M + M11-22, and the results hold up favorably to similar shots with my 1D X and TS-E 17. But the former combination is significantly cheaper than the latter (not to mention much smaller and lighter!).

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
maybe even better.

Why? Here's why.

 

[ecka]

...

Doesn't matter what you say. I'm sorry, I can't help you. You just don't want to learn or understand anything. You only accept what's easy, even if it's an absolute BS.
Thinking is hard. Good luck.

 

[ecka]

Well, for landscapes, I'd say that EF-S 10-18mm at F8 is kind of ... sort of ... OK (I mean it is definitely a very nice crop lens for the price). But is it anywhere close to the 16-35/4L? One is a tiger ... other one is a kitten. For a fair comparison, we would need something like 16-30mm F7.1-9 and I don't think it would play well with DSLR AF system (but it could with mirrorless , specially for landscapes).
"IQ differences will be minimal" - are sure about that? If the L is more than you need, that doesn't mean they are equal.

The most significant lens design benefits for crop sensors are for ultrawides. Look at the 17-40L...even stopped down, the image quality suffered pretty badly, but for years it was a go-to lens. In practice, at low ISO and stopped down, the IQ advantages of FF are not really that significant. The benefits of a larger sensor really come into play when you want shallow DoF, low light shooting, etc.

I've shot urban landscapes with an M + M11-22, and the results hold up favorably to similar shots with my 1D X and TS-E 17. But the former combination is significantly cheaper than the latter (not to mention much smaller and lighter!).

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
maybe even better.

Why? Here's why.

I know that 600/4 is amazing. I don't see why we should compare it to 100-400 II on crop
Why not 7D II + 400/2.8 vs FF + 600/4 ? And the price is "similar"
Why not 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 C ?

I think that EF-M 11-22 is considerably better than EF-S 10-18. But if 11-22 results hold up favorably to TS-E 17, then maybe there is something wrong with your copy of ST-E 17? Because this is weird. I know 11-22 is good, for the price (maybe even the best there is), but it's not thaat good.
I tried to like the 17-40L, but those blurry corners are a no-go for me, even past F8. However, I don't really need AF for UWA and there are some really nice and affordable prime options for FF - Samyang 14, Irix 15, Irix 11, Laowa 12 Zero-D, Laowa 15 Macro, Laowa 24F14 Relay Weird Macro (aka.Really Weird Macro) , etc. - they are not small, but they are good and fun to use . The problem is I cannot decide which one I like the most, the Sigma 14F1.8ART "unicorn" seems reasonable, heavy though.

 

[Don Haines]

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

 

[ecka]

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

 

[unfocused]

...

Doesn't matter what you say. I'm sorry, I can't help you. You just don't want to learn or understand anything. You only accept what's easy, even if it's an absolute BS.
Thinking is hard. Good luck.

Oh God, I should have checked your profile. I forgot you were the "buying lenses for the camera bag" guy. I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. I apologize to the other forum members for what has been a colossal waste of effort.

 

[Don Haines]

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

If you are focal length limited, it becomes a question of pixels on the target, and the quality of those pixels....

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better. Change to a FF camera like the 5D4 ad the quality of the pixels goes up considerably, but the number of pixels on target drops.... Interestingly enough, if you resemble the crop image to the same number of pixels on target as the FF camera, the pixel quality improves to about the same....... in other words, it becomes a wash as to if FF or crop is better....

Remember, this is only when you are focal length limited..... if you are not, then the FF camera and the top camera will both have approximately the same number of pixels on target and the FF pixels are of better quality.

So yes, crop is cheaper, Under really good lighting can be better, but most of the time is not.....

An interesting variation comes when you are severely focal length limited and you have good lighting conditions. In that situation an SX60 can put 12 times as many pixels on target as a 5DX and a 100-400 II and assuming it can AF and stabilize properly, can return a better picture!

 

[ecka]

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

If you are focal length limited, it becomes a question of pixels on the target, and the quality of those pixels....

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better. Change to a FF camera like the 5D4 ad the quality of the pixels goes up considerably, but the number of pixels on target drops.... Interestingly enough, if you resemble the crop image to the same number of pixels on target as the FF camera, the pixel quality improves to about the same....... in other words, it becomes a wash as to if FF or crop is better....

Remember, this is only when you are focal length limited..... if you are not, then the FF camera and the top camera will both have approximately the same number of pixels on target and the FF pixels are of better quality.

So yes, crop is cheaper, Under really good lighting can be better, but most of the time is not.....

An interesting variation comes when you are severely focal length limited and you have good lighting conditions. In that situation an SX60 can put 12 times as many pixels on target as a 5DX and a 100-400 II and assuming it can AF and stabilize properly, can return a better picture!

Why not 5DsR + 500/4 vs 7DII + 400/2.8? Should be enough pixels on target for the same price

 

[ecka]

...

Doesn't matter what you say. I'm sorry, I can't help you. You just don't want to learn or understand anything. You only accept what's easy, even if it's an absolute BS.
Thinking is hard. Good luck.

Oh God, I should have checked your profile. I forgot you were the "buying lenses for the camera bag" guy. I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. I apologize to the other forum members for what has been a colossal waste of effort.

No, I'm the opposite guy, who buys bags for the lenses
"I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion" - And you didn't, unfortunately. I tried to pull you towards the rational side of things, but you resisted strongly, so I've failed . This is sad and hopeless, because there are millions of others like you. The world is doomed!

 

[unfocused]

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better...

Don, not sure I understand your reasoning. Why do you feel the quality of the pixels would be a bit better with the 100-400 II vs. the 400 f5.6.? Is that because you feel the new zoom is sharper at 400 than the prime? I'm not disagreeing, I just am not sure I'm following the reasoning.

 

[Don Haines]

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better...

Don, not sure I understand your reasoning. Why do you feel the quality of the pixels would be a bit better with the 100-400 II vs. the 400 f5.6.? Is that because you feel the new zoom is sharper at 400 than the prime? I'm not disagreeing, I just am not sure I'm following the reasoning.

In general, a prime beats a zoom, but the 100-400 II is a whole lot newer than the 400F5.6 with better glass and more precise manufacture. The prime has a lot of copy variation (got a bad one at work).... an updated 400F5.6 would be a completely different story.....

 

[Ian_of_glos]

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

It is always difficult to compare like with like in these situations, but I suggest we take one of the better Canon APS-C cameras with a magnesium alloy body (such as the 7D mark 2) with one of the best Canon EF-S lenses (the 17-55 F2.8) and compare it with a similar full frame set up - such as a Canon 5D mark 4 with a 24-70 F2.8L ii then there is actually not much difference in the size/weight.
7D mk 2 weight 910g
5D mk 4 weight 890g
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 645g
EF 24-70 F2.8L ii 805g
So overall the full frame setup is around 150g heavier - I would not even notice that in my kit bag.
However the difference in price is colossal:
7D mk 2 + 17-55 F2.8 in the UK is £2,198
5D mk 4 + 24-70 F2.8 ii is £5,248
a difference of over £3,000
Yes I know that the 24-70 F2.8L ii is a more recent lens and the 5D mk 4 is probably a better camera than the 7D mk 2 but even so the difference in price is huge. You could buy the APS-C setup twice and still save £800 on the price of the full frame system.

 

[ecka]

"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:

Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!

Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?

It is always difficult to compare like with like in these situations, but I suggest we take one of the better Canon APS-C cameras with a magnesium alloy body (such as the 7D mark 2) with one of the best Canon EF-S lenses (the 17-55 F2.8) and compare it with a similar full frame set up - such as a Canon 5D mark 4 with a 24-70 F2.8L ii then there is actually not much difference in the size/weight.
7D mk 2 weight 910g
5D mk 4 weight 890g
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 645g
EF 24-70 F2.8L ii 805g
So overall the full frame setup is around 150g heavier - I would not even notice that in my kit bag.
However the difference in price is colossal:
7D mk 2 + 17-55 F2.8 in the UK is £2,198
5D mk 4 + 24-70 F2.8 ii is £5,248
a difference of over £3,000
Yes I know that the 24-70 F2.8L ii is a more recent lens and the 5D mk 4 is probably a better camera than the 7D mk 2 but even so the difference in price is huge. You could buy the APS-C setup twice and still save £800 on the price of the full frame system.

The truth is they are not similar.
Maybe close to similar are:
70D/7D/7D2 + 17-55/2.8 ~ 6D/5D2/5D3 + 24-105/4L
But, honestly, I would prefer 70D over the 7D2 and 6D over any crop. There is no APS-C version of 5D4 and there is no EF-S version of EF 24-70/2.8L II. What you are trying to compare is just wrong.

 

[jeffa4444]

All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.

 

[rrcphoto]

All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.

best comment in 5+ pages.