To switch or not to switch?

[daniemare]

Hi All

I am currently on my second Rebel body, but with the decreasing price of the 5D Mark II, I am starting to consider going full frame, otherwise it will be the 60D or its successor. The switch is not that easy for me, because my 2 most used lenses are crop only.

Background, I am an enthusiast only, and most of my photo's revolve around family and the trips we make. Photo's are thus a mix of landscapes, indoor/outdoor architecture and family (groups mosthly)

So I want to solocite opinions:
1 - Why people (non-pro's), similar to my use, made the switch (outside of weddings and studio photogs)
2 - Why people DID NOT make the switch

Negatives I am concerned about (due to my expected use)
- Lack of pop up flash for quick fill flash
- Size and weight compared to Rebel and 60D

Positives I have identified
- Better low light performance
- Better "apparent" depth of field
- Have some weather sealing

Again for my use, the lower quality AF and burst rate are not important (I am used to a Rebel), but maybe this played a big role for people who didn't switch.

I am mostly aware of the pure technical differences between the 5D and 60D. I am more concerned with actual experience using it. I.E. was it everything it was made up to be when you switch. Or what is bothering you with the 5D. Or what specific qualities are stopping you from switching (apart from price off course)

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

 

[Axilrod]

Hi All

I am currently on my second Rebel body, but with the decreasing price of the 5D Mark II, I am starting to consider going full frame, otherwise it will be the 60D or its successor. The switch is not that easy for me, because my 2 most used lenses are crop only.

Background, I am an enthusiast only, and most of my photo's revolve around family and the trips we make. Photo's are thus a mix of landscapes, indoor/outdoor architecture and family (groups mosthly)

So I want to solocite opinions:
1 - Why people (non-pro's), similar to my use, made the switch (outside of weddings and studio photogs)
2 - Why people DID NOT make the switch

Negatives I am concerned about (due to my expected use)
- Lack of pop up flash for quick fill flash
- Size and weight compared to Rebel and 60D

Positives I have identified
- Better low light performance
- Better "apparent" depth of field
- Have some weather sealing

Again for my use, the lower quality AF and burst rate are not important (I am used to a Rebel), but maybe this played a big role for people who didn't switch.

I am mostly aware of the pure technical differences between the 5D and 60D. I am more concerned with actual experience using it. I.E. was it everything it was made up to be when you switch. Or what is bothering you with the 5D. Or what specific qualities are stopping you from switching (apart from price off course)

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

I think most people that haven't switched will tell you that they are waiting on the 5DIII. I switched from a T2i to a 5DII a little over a year ago and I love it. Most people switch bc it's full frame (which means better high ISO performance, more shallow depth of field, and all your lenses will feel wider on it).

I think the menu may be a little intimidating compared to a rebel, but aside from that I think you'll be fine. I wouldn't worry about the flash, out of the 20k pictures or so I've shot in the last year I used a flash less than 1% of the time (then again I have a bunch of large aperture primes).

But yeah, the FF sensor will allow you to shoot in lower light than you would normally be able to. With the 60D/7D you can shoot stills at ISO 1250-1600 with somewhat acceptable results (although I try not to go over ISO 800 on APSC), but with a 5DII 1600 still looks pretty damn good.

If you want to get a feel for it, just rent it for a bit and play around, see how you like it.

 

[EYEONE]

I haven't made the switch but I'll tell you the main reason why I'm going to.

1- Focal Length. I have the 24-70L and it's a great lens. But I'd love to use it at it's designed focal length. Time and time again I have problems with 24mm on a cropped body. I know I could get a EF-S lens that would give be the focal length I want but buying the quality just isn't there except for a few (17-55, 10-22). I'd rather go Full Frame and use the lenses the way they were intended on a 35mm system.

There are other reasons line ISO performance and such that are also very important but mainly I want to get the most from my lenses. I'm not concerned about the "extra" reach. I'd rather have the "correct" reach.

What are the two lenses you use the most?

Edit: I know that might not be useful to you since you have EF-S lenses but it might still be important information.

 

[skitron]

Hi All

I am currently on my second Rebel body, but with the decreasing price of the 5D Mark II, I am starting to consider going full frame, otherwise it will be the 60D or its successor. The switch is not that easy for me, because my 2 most used lenses are crop only.

Background, I am an enthusiast only, and most of my photo's revolve around family and the trips we make. Photo's are thus a mix of landscapes, indoor/outdoor architecture and family (groups mosthly)

So I want to solocite opinions:
1 - Why people (non-pro's), similar to my use, made the switch (outside of weddings and studio photogs)
2 - Why people DID NOT make the switch

Negatives I am concerned about (due to my expected use)
- Lack of pop up flash for quick fill flash
- Size and weight compared to Rebel and 60D

Positives I have identified
- Better low light performance
- Better "apparent" depth of field
- Have some weather sealing

Again for my use, the lower quality AF and burst rate are not important (I am used to a Rebel), but maybe this played a big role for people who didn't switch.

I am mostly aware of the pure technical differences between the 5D and 60D. I am more concerned with actual experience using it. I.E. was it everything it was made up to be when you switch. Or what is bothering you with the 5D. Or what specific qualities are stopping you from switching (apart from price off course)

Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

I'm a non-pro that just bought one. The low light is better - can shoot most anything with a fast prime and no flash, the resolution is better, the AF is decent enough for what you describe (which is how I use mine), the overall IQ is better, but it isn't going to create magic if there is none in the shot. The shallower DOF may or may not be desirable depending on your shots, but you have the option to stop down if it's too shallow. Size not an issue, not much bigger than a 60D. I'm glad I bought it but now hesitating getting rid of my crop body. They both have their uses. I'd say it depends on what you have for glass, it might make more sense to upgrade there depending on what you have. A Rebel with L will beat a 5D2 with a junker lens hands down.

 

[bobthebrick]

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.

 

[DCMoney]

Not having a pop up flash is not a negative its a positive because it makes you buy a real flash or just not use it at all...

I wish my 7D didn't have a pop up flash.

I did not switch to full frame because other body's in my price range didn't have the AF or FPS I wanted for sport photography. Now with the 1DX specs out that's exactly want I want but being a hobbiest photog its out of my price range.

If the weight is too much get a better strap, my blackrapid sling makes walking for hours with my 7D gripped with a 70-200 f/2.8L II feel like nothing is even there.

With the type of photos you are taking it sounds like a full frame camera is exactly what you want/need.

 

[te4o]

I "tested" the 5D2 against my old 40D on a 70-200/4 IS:
For the same framing there's barely a noticeable difference even at 100%. My screen is an IPS panel...
Logically I couldn't test on 17-55 and 10-22. My non-pro facit was: why spend the money now on a FF from the SAME PRODUCTION YEAR AS A 40D ? Which I already have.
I am waiting for the next Gen. Even if costly it is hopefully worthier. I can't justify the 2k in front of my family - BTW I have similar uses to yours.
The 5D2 shines more than anything else currently available (except 1D4) ONLY with expensive lenses - there you'll see a jump in IQ to your APS C. I bought expensive lenses and enjoy the jump in IQ on my current APS C. And if I need wider landscapes I stitch in PS, and I have learned how to do PP - so plenty of work BEFORE you switch to FF.

The camera is not as important to photography for your and mine type of use! Take your time.

 

[smirkypants]

I have a 1.6 crop (7D) and a 1.3 crop (1D4). I use both in my professional work and I have to say that I have never had a client complain about image quality from either camera. Of course, I'm careful about the use of the 7D—I only use it with plenty of light or with strobes—but I have to say that even with portrait work the results are excellent. I personally think there's a lot of hype and presumption when it comes to FF, but if you have quality lenses, quality varies much more due to the skill of the shooter than the kit he shoots with. I have the 17-55 2.8 and the results are great. My Siggy 50/1.4 produces portraits that are amazing, just amazing. And of course the 70-200/2.8 2 is amazing on whatever you put it on.

Consider. A 7D and a 50mm 1.4 is more or less the functional equivalent of a 5D2 with a 85mm 1.4 in terms of focal length. The 7D costs about $600 less than the 5D2 and the Sigma 50 costs about $500 less than the Sigma 85 1.4. Both systems will give you killer image quality for portraits and the real world difference is really not that significant. I think the depth of field advantage 5D2 is a matter of millimeters. Take that $1100 and fly to Italy or something.

The 7D + Siggy 50 1.4 costs less than the 5D2 with a Canon 50 1.8. I'll take the 7D/Siggy ANY day for shooting portraits. The point is that the better glass on the slightly cheaper camera way trumps the cheap glass on the better camera.

I seriously have trouble telling the difference between LIT shots taken with my 1D4 vs. my 7D after minimal processing and I find myself choosing the 7D more and more simply because it's more convenient in a lot of ways. That's lit shots. The 1D4 is definitely better with natural light.

Like I've said, I've NEVER had a client complain about image quality. Mostly I just get gushing compliments, and that's a function of good glass and knowing how to light.

I'm sure there will be much disagreement.

 

[friedmud]

As someone that used to shoot with a Rebel (XSi) and recently wanted to step up, I found myself in a similar position. Personally, I love my 17-55 f/2.8 and didn't feel like shelling out the cash for FF L glass in that same range right now... so I went with a 7D.

Firstly, if you are more or less happy with your camera right now, I would wait until the next round of sensors comes out (5DIII, 7DII, 70D). The 5DIII is coming out very soon and I think the IQ improvement over the current sensors will be worth the wait.

If you _really_ want to upgrade right now and you have EFs lenses you don't want to lose, I would go with the 7D.

Don't underestimate the high ISO capabilities of the 7D. Go read reviews, it does a great job at it.

Someone else mentioned the flash on the 7D. It's not there to be used as a flash... it's there to control remote flashes! For "family" photos I've already found that indispensable. Christmas morning I set my 430 EXII up as a remote flash over on the side of the room and was able to shoot as ISO 400 all morning with my 7D controlling that flash to give me fill light. By FAR the best Christmas morning photos I've ever taken, and without flashing in everyone's eyes!

The AF on the 7D is useful for more than just "sports photography" . Being able to instantly lock on to family members sitting around a fireplace with no other lights on is amazing. Following dogs and small children as they play is a snap. You quickly get used to just expecting the AF to work... and in all kinda of situations where I wouldn't have even thought AF was possible with my Rebel.

My hobby photography is Landscapes... and I will definitely say that a 5DII could help in that situation some. But now that I see the strengths of the 7D for everything else I've been shooting I know I made the right decision.

As for lenses: my personal plan is to slowly pick up more L glass with my 7D... Then, sometime in the future I will be able to make a much simpler transition to FF...

 

[te4o]

I am with smirkypants (what is smirky actually - for a non-english native) - i found out there is a lot more to learn about photography than simply jumping to a FF - I decided to slow down my "Add to cart" drive long ago and I am happy learner on an oldish APS-C. Lighting is one issue - I bought a SL 580 II and the next month the flash on my 40D broke - never needed it again. A speedlight is almost a must-have on (or OFF) ANY body.
As smirky says - the real world effects are not so spectacular as discussed in this forum.
BUT: I started planing my lenses ! I'll go FF some day. I streamlined my PP and bought computer, drives for backup, drives for RAIDs, NEC PA screens, colour calibrators, software (NIK, CS5...), I've been practicing to get some of the results on my photoshots which the Pro's post here - really amazing shots from justsomedude AK and dozens of others - THANK YOU GUYS, these are MY X-MAS presents from you! - and on fredmirandas/flickr/smug..etc. If you look at them - not everyone is shooting a 5D2 and still you are stunned! Even a 7D - marked down as noisy here - is a great tool with proper lenses, light, skills and PP.
A switch to FF should ripe, mine is riping another 6 months or so... :

 

[willrobb]

Not having a pop up flash is not a negative its a positive because it makes you buy a real flash or just not use it at all...

I wish my 7D didn't have a pop up flash.

Yep, with a 5DmkII and a decent flash you'll get much better photos of your family.

 

[friedmud]

Not having a pop up flash is not a negative its a positive because it makes you buy a real flash or just not use it at all...

I wish my 7D didn't have a pop up flash.

Yep, with a 5DmkII and a decent flash you'll get much better photos of your family.

But to control a remote flash you Either have to by an accessory or a 580 EX II... where its built in to the 7D...

 

[smirkypants]

I seriously do not understand how having a built-in flash is a negative. In an emergency it's at least something. You can put a flash gun on it (like a 580 EX II) and leave the pop-up down if you'd like, in which case it's exactly like the 5D2.

But seriously... it's a FREE ETTL flash trigger. On the 5D2 you have to buy a 580 EX II just to trigger the off-camera flash. With the 7D in a pinch you can take one strobe and have off camera ETTL flash. With the 5D you either need to bring 2 flash guns (at least one a 580) or way expensive remote flash triggers like Pocket Wizards. You can do cheap remote flash triggers, but they won't be ETTL.

Please explain to me how having this versatile pop-up available can possibly be better than nothing.

 

[bobthebrick]

I seriously do not understand how having a built-in flash is a negative. In an emergency it's at least something. You can put a flash gun on it (like a 580 EX II) and leave the pop-up down if you'd like, in which case it's exactly like the 5D2.

But seriously... it's a FREE ETTL flash trigger. On the 5D2 you have to buy a 580 EX II just to trigger the off-camera flash. With the 7D in a pinch you can take one strobe and have off camera ETTL flash. With the 5D you either need to bring 2 flash guns (at least one a 580) or way expensive remote flash triggers like Pocket Wizards. You can do cheap remote flash triggers, but they won't be ETTL.

Please explain to me how having this versatile pop-up available can possibly be better than nothing.

Exactly. If you don't want to use it, just don't. I wish the 5d had one, just for triggering and the odd occasion where you want an emergency fill flash. I don't normally take a massive flash gun everywhere, and sometimes a pop up flash is all you need, especially if you didn't expect to need flash and are tight on room.

Thomas.

 

[JR]

I switch to FF a year ago for:

- Better low light capability
- Better overall image quality
- Better DoF perspective

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.

Size difference with a 60D is not that material. In terms of weight, unless you use a heavy lenses, it feels really good in your hand.

 

[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.