Downgrade to crop

[Loswr]

Do you actually own those lenses?

I have a 600mm f/4L IS II. The "1200mm" is the 600 II + 2xIII, the "1344mm equivalent" is the 600 II + 1.4xIII on APS-C.

 

[The Bad Duck]

Haha it seems many of us think alike.
I would miss (no particular order):

1. The big viewfinder with a better possibility to focus manually (I changed the focus screen or whatever it is called). I can look through my viewfinder for a long time without getting tired.

2. As Neuro said, the option go get really thin DoF. Although I do not use it unless I want that look, there is something that make your portraits pop when you use high quality ultra fast primes on a FF sensor. Not always suitable and sometimes hard to get right.

3. A twist of number 2 above is that on FF, f/4 gives rather thin DoF so the 70-200 /4 is in a way equivilent to the f/2.8 version, minus one stop extra light = pump the ISO if needed or use flash. Same goes for 17-40 instead of 16-35. That saves money and bulk.

4. Better wide angle. The samyang 14 is really really wide! Perhaps I should have gotten the sigma 12-24 instead but I´m pleased with the samyang.

Those are the most important differences for me. IQ is great on newer APS-C cameras aswell and depend on more than the camera. Of course the final image is mostly about idea and content anyway.

However, there is no reason to naturally want to get a FF camera. There is absolutely nothing wrong with APS-C and you can get great results. It depends on what you want to do. Right now I am investing in flashes, not cameras and lenses.
And yes, I do take much better photos now compared to when I was using my 30D. Why? Way more practise and more studying of photography on the net, books and videos, and more photographing friends/amateur models. Oh and selling photos is a great motivation to constantly improve my "products", the same goes for competing in my local camera club. Also... I have better lenses and light-equipment now.

 

[sandymandy]

Oh yes bigger and brighter viewfinder is definitly a reason why i wanna go FF as soon as possible. Anytime i jump on my analog EOS im like...ehh....this camera costs 15 euro but has a nicer viewfinder than my digital one...

But i think only 5D and higher got "pentaprism" which is brighter than "pentamirror" that 6D uses if im correct.

If i was you i would go fullframe and get 1,4x TC. Sure u lose light but FF camera lets more light in and 6D or higher offer really good high ISO so it doesnt matter.

The main reason why im annoyed of my APS-C sometimes is that its so hard to get the lenses i want. Sure, there are many lenses but i always gotta calculate the 1,6* factor and suddenly some lenses become not what i really wanted :'( If i want 50mm i get like ..44mm or 56 or something like this e.g.

 

[aj1575]

Same boat. If I could only find a 24-105 f/4 equivalent for my 60D,

How about the 15-85? It has no constant aperture, but IQ seems to be great. I have heard very little complaints about that lens (I will buy one, if my next body is APS-C). That one, or the new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. I'm looking forward to see that lens, the new 35mm f1.4 from Sigma looks like a real winner, having better IQ wide open than Canons 35mm 1.4 L at a much lower price.

 

[Loswr]

But i think only 5D and higher got "pentaprism" which is brighter than "pentamirror" that 6D uses if im correct.

Sorry, you're incorrect. The xxxD/xxxxD bodies have a pentamirror, but the 60D and 6D both have a pentaprism. However, the VF generally gets more coverage and higher absolute mag as you go up the lines.

 

[Jay Khaos]

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

Well, we've had this discussion before. The reach only matters if your output demands it. A FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ - the only thing you're really giving up is megapixels. So, if 7-8 MP is sufficient (which it is for web, slideshows, and prints up to ~12x18" - and I suspect that covers most people's needs), then a cropped FF shot will do just as well as an uncropped APS-C shot.

But last time the conversation was comparing a 10D with only 8 megapixels or w/e it has, which made sense. But cropping the inner APS-c FOV of a 6D wont giver you as big of a difference between the 60D right? As far as comparing a current APSC to a current full frame, that argument doesn't apply. If I shot sports or wildlife, I would definitely wait for the 7DII over buying a 6D.

I do love my 5D3 though... and the low light performance is definitely noticeable over my t2i. Although I'm also using an 85 1.2L where I used to use a 50mm 1.8, so that definitely contributes. Personally I dont see the 6D as worth its price... I'd save a little more to jump to 5DIII with way better AF, low light, build quality... slightly better everything, and you can get it for around $2500. If you can afford the kit up front and feel comfortable with ebay, you can make guaranteed profit off reselling the kit lens to chip away at the price.

 

[sawsedge]

Something isn't an upgrade if it doesn't improve your situation. Likewise something isn't a downgrade if it works better for you. Lots of folks use both types.

 

[Steve Todd]

My first DSLR was the 5D back in 2005. I chose it because I had over 35-years of shooting Film SLRs and felt it was the logical step into the world of digital photography/imaging. I purchased the 5D Mk II when it came out and then a 1D Mk IV in Feb 2010. After using both the 5D2 and the 1D4 for a few months together (shooting the same subjects with both bodies), the 5D bodies stayed home and I shot exclusively with the 1D4. I never regretted or missed the FF bodies. In fact, I purchased another 1D4 body in Nov 2010, to allow me to carry one with big zoom and the other with a 20-35 wide one. I also bought a 7D, which I liked for the long lenses. However, I never really found myself using it much over the 1D4s. I sold it (7D) and one of my 1D4 bodies to purchase a 1DX. I really like the 1DX, however, I am really glad I kept one of the 1D4 bodies. I now carry the 1DX for general work (24-105) and the 1D4 for all other stuff, mostly with either a 70-300L or 100-400 attached. To me, having both the FF and the 1.3 crop bodies, fills all of my current needs. However, if I had to choose only one body for all my needs, it would be the 1D4!

 

[KyleSTL]

My main reasons:

1. Viewfinder (big, pentaprism)
2. Primes (selection thereof)
3. Selection of wide angle

Here's a comparison of viewfinder sizes (normalized):
1Dx, 1Ds3 - 0.76x
5D3 - 0.71
1Ds2, 1Ds, 5D2 - 0.70
6D - 0.69
5D - 0.68
7D, Nikon D300, D300s - 0.63 (biggest crop VF yet)
60D - 0.57
Rebels - 0.48 to 0.52 (pentamirror)

Once you look through a FF viewfinder everything else just looks like staring through a dark hallway. Here's a comparison I used for someone looking into upgrading a little while back:

Looking through a 5D Mark III would be like looking at an 8x10 print at arms length in good, indoor light. A 7D would be like looking at a 7x9 print at arms length in the same light. A 60D would be 6.5x8 in the same light. A Rebel would be light a 6x7.5 with a lights dimmed to 80% (since it is a pentamirror).

 

[cayenne]

My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3. Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas. But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars.

I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV. Adding a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option. My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit. I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.

I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

C

 

[AprilForever]

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
Cheers

Your corners will become terrible. You will now have to buy much more expensive lenses (ef-s 10-22 vs 16-35... although, I recomend for crop the stellar Tokina 11-16 2.8...)... You will have to stop down pointlessly to get stuff in focus, especially at long end, which will require you to use higher ISO's and even TC's, thereby completely destroying any perceived image quality gains for many shots... It will be interesting to see what happens when Canon releases the 7D MK II...

 

[vargyropoulos]

I'm in the middle of making a decision for my next DSLR/Lens combo for wildlife... I was at my local camera store yesterday and I shot one of the pillars with the 400mmf/5.6L lens with the 5D3 and 7d. both shots taken at ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/500sec shutter. same lens, I was standing at roughly the same spot and these are 100% crops of the images. I'll let you make your own conclusions/decisions

 

[skitron]

I just sold my 5D2 and 50D and bought a 6D for it's low light. And as soon as the crop bodies catch up on the ISO dept I plan to purchase another crop.

For wildlife and macro, I'd much rather have a crop if the high ISO is there, since extra reach and wider DOF are both highly desirable for me in these situations. So when the high ISO is there, I'll be buying another crop and be back to two bodies.

Different tools for different jobs is my thought, even though either will work in place of the other in a pinch.

For my situation, I'd rather spend for a crop body than shell out for a 180L. Crop + 100L gets me close enough and gives me a lot more flexibility - especially in terms of two cam video capabilities.

 

[tortilla]

IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range.

Sure when lighting is right, technology doesn't matter. But outside of the studio it rarely is right

Having said this, I think neither noise nor IQ really differs between crop and FF, you basically just gain about 2 stops. Even DOF would be more shallow when shot with an APS-C and the 50mm 1.2 than in most FF-shots. In the end it's rather about which lenses one uses, than about sensor size.

As for the smaller viewfinder: This is really a plus for the FF's. But it doesn't have to be that small, the 7d viewfinder is only 10% smaller than FF viewfinders.

 

[rpt]

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

Well, we've had this discussion before. ...

Yes we have

That was when my PixelRithmetic escaped me. But I have a handle on it now.

Where I am coming from (and jrista shot my dream down some months back - brought me back to reality...) is "I have a dream. That some day soon I (not my kids or grand kids; but me, myself and I [all three of us]) will have an APS-C sensor in my camera that will have atleast 24 megapixels. And these pixels will be super photon absorbers. And their configuration shall best the best FF sensors of today. I have a dream!"

 

[K-amps]

I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).

DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range. Sure, Images from a FF look really nice. I compared the pictures from FF to APS-C on The-Digital-Picture.com, and the the FF looks much better (no surprise), but then I looked at the comparison tool at dpreview and there the verdict was not so clear anymore. Sure FF is always better, but by how much?
If you are a pro, then it is easy to deceide, but as an amateur I'm still asking myself if it is worth to upgrade.

I owned a 350d... a gem of a Camera, I have a lot of footage from it. I own a 5d3 now. The difference in IQ is amazing, the 5d3 files are just so much cleaner... (6D might be even more so with it's larger pixel pitch).

 

[rpt]

I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

C

As always there are two answers:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The APS-C brethren are trying (very hard) to make their camera look (actually the output of the camera - but then you knew that - right?) better than FF brethren.
[*]Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP. However, if you had an APS-C sensor with 16MP, you would have more pixels per unit area and therefore more "reach"...
[/list]

 

[mortadella]

The benefit of moving from APS-C to FF, or FF to APS-C should be a decision based on two factors.

First, what do I intend to shoot and in what conditions?

Secondly, how much money do I have to spend?

There are better tools for the different conditions. I find the high ISO capability of the FF to come in handy lots of times, and for many reasons. Ultrawide angle lens options are much better I believe on FF. Unfortunately, the affordable sub $3000 FF options leave a lot to be desired from an AF perspective.

APS-C, on the other hand, give you a bit more reach with full resolution than the FF and you can get a much better AF system in the 7D than you can with a more expensive FF option.

So if the sky isn't the limit in your budget, think about what attributes are most important to you. A 2-4 stop improvement in high ISO noise vs better AF, a 1.6x factor on your zooms vs shallower DoF with similar framing etc.

It's easy for some to say if you shoot wildlife and sports outdoors in good light than you are better of with the APS-C, and for landscapes, people, and lower light conditions get a FF. The problem with that is most enthusiasts/hobbyists do a bit of everything so its always going to be a tough trade off to give up something when you want everything. That's why so many questions are always posed regarding the upgrade or new lens issue, this stuff isn't cheap and you really want to get the most out of your purchase. That's bound to happen when you are limited by budget...it sucks that we can't all have 2 1DXs.

 

[Loswr]

But last time the conversation was comparing a 10D with only 8 megapixels or w/e it has, which made sense. But cropping the inner APS-c FOV of a 6D wont giver you as big of a difference between the 60D right? As far as comparing a current APSC to a current full frame, that argument doesn't apply.

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

Answer to both of these is the same. From an IQ standpoint, there's not going to be a meaningful difference with contemporary sensors (for example, when I compared the 5DII cropped to the 7D, with no processing the 7D image was a little bit sharper and a little bit noisier...and some NR would reduce the noise and the sharpness as well). What you're giving up is megapixels...the cropped 5DII image is 8 MP, vs. 18 MP with the 7D. So the real question is, what image size do you need, and that depends on what you'll do with the images. If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins. If you'll print 8x12" for a coffee table book, there's no real difference...in which case, I'd pick the FF for the much better IQ when you don't need to crop, or can use a longer lens.

Keep in mind, also, that the above applies only when 'focal lentgh limited'. If you can use a longer lens, the FF wins, hands down. Back to the 7D vs. 5DII cropped comparison, I also compared the 7D + 85/1.2L II vs. the 5DII + 135/2L (basically the same framing and DoF at a given distance). The FF won, no contest...

Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP.

You and Rithmetic. You need to get better acquainted with each other. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.62 = 10 6.25 MP. Thus, a 6D's 20 MP image cropped to APS-C framing would yield a 7.8 MP image.

 

[unfocused]

So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies. That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules. Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes. My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry.

Three pages later and nothing has been added. This thread could have stopped with Scotty's response and covered about everything that needs to be covered.