What would you do? Crop or FF

[Promature]

The discussion about apparent depth of field in the upcoming APS-C announcements thread got me to thinking about maybe switching over to FF. I mostly take family pictures, so getting a nicer DoF would be welcome. So, here's how this would go down:
1) Sell T2i with 18-135 kit lens ($600 after Amazon cut)
2) Sell 17-55 f 2.8 ($650 after Amazon cut)
3) Buy Used 5DIII (LensRentals sale) or 6D and 40mm pancake ($2300).
Total cost of coverting: $1050.

I wouldn't want to spend any more money for a zoom (24-70 or 24-105), so the pancake would have to do.

So, what you would you do? Would it be worth $1050 and would you trade FF for the lack of a normal zoom lens?

 

[verysimplejason]

The discussion about apparent depth of field in the upcoming APS-C announcements thread got me to thinking about maybe switching over to FF. I mostly take family pictures, so getting a nicer DoF would be welcome. So, here's how this would go down:
1) Sell T2i with 18-135 kit lens ($600 after Amazon cut)
2) Sell 17-55 f 2.8 ($650 after Amazon cut)
3) Buy Used 5DIII (LensRentals sale) or 6D and 40mm pancake ($2300).
Total cost of coverting: $1050.

I wouldn't want to spend any more money for a zoom (24-70 or 24-105), so the pancake would have to do.

So, what you would you do? Would it be worth $1050 and would you trade FF for the lack of a normal zoom lens?

For family pictures, 5D2 or 6D(if you're willing to wait) might be enough. That way, you can afford a more flexible lens (24-105 or 24-70 mark 1) and a flash with some diffuser. I think having better lenses is the better way of doing it. You won't be getting your nice DOF with just 40mm. 40mm for an FF is too short to get some DOF.

Note: You can also retain your T2i or upgrade to 7D/60D and get a 50mm F1.4 or 85 F1.8 or their faster versions to get that nicer DOF than your present equipment.

 

[Promature]

For family pictures, 5D2 or 6D(if you're willing to wait) might be enough. That way, you can afford a more flexible lens (24-105 or 24-70 mark 1) and a flash with some diffuser. I think having better lenses is the better way of doing it. You won't be getting your nice DOF with just 40mm. 40mm for an FF is too short to get some DOF.

Note: You can also retain your T2i or upgrade to 7D/60D and get a 50mm F1.4 or 85 F1.8 or their faster versions to get that nicer DOF than your present equipment.

I already have the 85 f1.8 and 70-200 f4. My main concern is losing the wide end, the 40 f2.8 would fit that role. Another advantage of going FF would be that getting the 135 f2 for portraits would actually make sense, as right now with a crop it would just be too long for what I would want.

 

[gmrza]

For family pictures, 5D2 or 6D(if you're willing to wait) might be enough. That way, you can afford a more flexible lens (24-105 or 24-70 mark 1) and a flash with some diffuser. I think having better lenses is the better way of doing it. You won't be getting your nice DOF with just 40mm. 40mm for an FF is too short to get some DOF.

Note: You can also retain your T2i or upgrade to 7D/60D and get a 50mm F1.4 or 85 F1.8 or their faster versions to get that nicer DOF than your present equipment.

I already have the 85 f1.8 and 70-200 f4. My main concern is losing the wide end, the 40 f2.8 would fit that role. Another advantage of going FF would be that getting the 135 f2 for portraits would actually make sense, as right now with a crop it would just be too long for what I would want.

Rather than a 40mm f/2.8, I would also consider a 50mm lens - f/1.4 if you can afford it.

I wouldn't bother with a 7D or 60D, given that you have the T2i/550D, which has essentially the same sensor - so from a point of view of IQ, you don't get any improvement. The only reason to move to a 7D is if you need environmental sealing, better AF or more fps.

The jury is still out on the IQ of the 6D, but it will probably be a good camera. There is nothing wrong with the 5DII, but the AF system can become frustrating once you have been exposed to the 7D or 5DIII. If budget is a constraint, however, I would consider opting for a 5DII. - Also, there are 5DIIs going new now cheaper than the 6D will be at launch. The 6D will most probably have an advantage over the 5DII in low light however (if samples like the ones on DPReview can be trusted).

As a general walk-around lens, you probably can't go wrong with the 24-105 - and if going for the 5DII makes it possible to afford it, that may be worth considering. Just keep in mind that the bokeh of the 24-105 can be a little nervous at times - but you already have the 85mm f/1.8 for portraits.

 

[M.ST]

Go for the upcoming 7D Mark II (70D). You don´t need a FF camera for private use.

Remember that a FF camera without high quality and expensive lenses is useless.

 

[Loswr]

You don´t need a FF camera for private use.

So...just a cheap point-and-shoot is all that's needed for private use, right? If you actually make money with your gear, you need the best. Personal pleasure from a hobby and/or creating memories of your kids' childhood is so much less important than money.

What an asinine remark...

 

[mjp_photog]

You could get a fantastic deal on a 5DII or just wait for the 6D, saving a bunch of money in the process that could be used for camera accessories or an additional lens. M.ST's statement about full frame requiring expensive lenses to generate good results is far from accurate. I use the 40mm pancake lens on a 5DII and it is fantastic, has nice depth of field, excellent iq and is perfect as a walk around lens for street photography, travel and general snaps of my family - it's also the perfect focal length for a full frame sensor. My ff camera is definitely not useless with this less expensive lens; in fact, it has become a lot more fun to shoot because of it.

Get the camera that suits your budget and shooting needs - not because it is the newest and supposedly best (remember, anything new that comes out is almost always going to be labeled "the best"). Cheers.

 

[Dylan777]

You don´t need a FF camera for private use.

So...just a cheap point-and-shoot is all that's needed for private use, right? If you actually make money with your gear, you need the best. Personal pleasure from a hobby and/or creating memories of your kids' childhood is so much less important than money.

What an asinine remark...

+1 with Neuro. I don't do photography for living. I use my camera gear mainly for family photos.

 

[distant.star]

Go for the upcoming 7D Mark II (70D). You don´t need a FF camera for private use.

Remember that a FF camera without high quality and expensive lenses is useless.

That's what I tell people who like to write but don't make money at it. Paper and pencil is all you really need. Those expensive computers and word processing programs are only for the pros.

My brother had a 32' boat for fishing. I convinced him to sell it since he didn't make any money fishing. Now he has a rowboat.

 

[Northstar]

The discussion about apparent depth of field in the upcoming APS-C announcements thread got me to thinking about maybe switching over to FF. I mostly take family pictures, so getting a nicer DoF would be welcome. So, here's how this would go down:
1) Sell T2i with 18-135 kit lens ($600 after Amazon cut)
2) Sell 17-55 f 2.8 ($650 after Amazon cut)
3) Buy Used 5DIII (LensRentals sale) or 6D and 40mm pancake ($2300).
Total cost of coverting: $1050.

I wouldn't want to spend any more money for a zoom (24-70 or 24-105), so the pancake would have to do.

So, what you would you do? Would it be worth $1050 and would you trade FF for the lack of a normal zoom lens?

5d3 would help improve your pics if you need the extra 2fps and much better high ISO for shooting "family kids sports". If you're shooting mostly portraits in good light, then you won't notice a big improvement in your IQ...IMO.(you will have some improv, but only you can decide whether the cost is justified )

Dpreview has a handy camera comparison tool..it's not perfect but might help you w/ your decision. You can input up to 4 cameras at various ISO's and move your mouse to select various parts of the image. You can also download the image to view full screen.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=true&headerTitle=Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=canon_eos5dmkiii&masterSample=5d3_5199&masterDisableCameraSelection=true&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_eos5dmkiii&slot0Sample=5d3_5199&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot1Sample=img_0038&slot2Camera=nikon_d800&slot2Sample=dsc_8318&slot3Camera=sony_dslra900&slot3Sample=dsc00025&x=-0.85652383245065&y=-0.9085714285714286

 

[Hesbehindyou]

No sports or wildlife, sufficient budget? FF all the way

1) Sell T2i with 18-135 kit lens ($600 after Amazon cut)
2) Sell 17-55 f 2.8 ($650 after Amazon cut)
3) Buy Used 5DIII (LensRentals sale) or 6D and 40mm pancake ($2300).
Total cost of coverting: $1050.

I wouldn't want to spend any more money for a zoom (24-70 or 24-105), so the pancake would have to do.

So, what you would you do?

I'd go for a second hand 5dmkII, the 50 1.8 and the Tamron 28-70 f2.8 (cheapest) or the Canon 28-135.

Why have I gone for cheap lenses? Because viewing on a monitor or TV isn't demanding of IQ, while even A3 prints will be fine. They won't allow for aggressive cropping, but you're not likely to do this.

Why do I include a zoom? Because the majority of the photographs will be spontaneous rather than planned out or staged. The flexibility of changing focal length also allows you to eliminate much of the distracting background by standing further back and using a longer focal length.

I suspect you will use the camera a lot, so better lenses would make a lot of sense. The 50 1.8 is awful for manual focus, the 28-70 lacks IS and the 28-135 is a little slower than the 24-105. If budget isn't limiting you then stretch for the better lenses.

Would I recommend the MkIII over the Mk II? Not if it meant you bought inferior lenses. If you're moving to FF to get shallow depth of field a more expensive body crowding out the fast glass is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Also remember that we're nearing the end of the current generation of Canon's sensor tech. Future stuff will be much better - better than the stop or two between the mk II and III.

disclaimer: I don't shoot as much as I like and find focal length more valuable over depth of field. My budget is also limited. It's crop for me.

 

[Marsu42]

I wouldn't bother with a 7D or 60D, given that you have the T2i/550D, which has essentially the same sensor - so from a point of view of IQ, you don't get any improvement. The only reason to move to a 7D is if you need environmental sealing, better AF or more fps.

... and better usability (lcd display, back wheel, more firmware features) which is a big plus - I wouldn't want to go below a 60d. But of course this is a bad time to get the 18mp sensor - the old 18mp cameras will be cheaper after the rumored 7d2 update.

3) Buy Used 5DIII (LensRentals sale) or 6D and 40mm pancake ($2300).

Unless you really want to shoot sports or track your kids imho the 5d3 would be overkill, the 6d has almost the same sensor (a tiny bit less mp but probably a bit better noise). You most likely don't need the pro-oriented features - the 6d is targeted exactly at your customer group, and even with some tracking might be working (wait for the reviews). Remember the camera body is the part that looses value fastest and the lens takes the pictures.

Would it be worth $1050 and would you trade FF for the lack of a normal zoom lens?

If you've got a steady income and can build your kit lens by lens, there is no need for a zoom if you are ready to change lenses if needed (i.e. you don't shoot events and have to quickly zoom in and out).

If you are struggling with this purchase and think "that's it", then think again - what situations do you shoot and what lenses are required, and esp. what additional items will you need (cf/sd cards, flash(es) + addons, tripod, filters, ...). The stuff next to the "core" gear will probably cost you more than you think.

 

[ScottyP]

Only you can say if that trade is a good one, especially as you will be $1050 cash in on the deal.

I am not sure losing a good zoom in exchange for a 40mm pancake is really all that great, and yes, you are going to be a little hard up on the wide end. Even adjusting for the wide-end help you'd get from the FF sensor, you'd still be missing out on whatever you used to do between 17mm and 25mm on your old lens/camera combo.

Perhaps you should also add in the cost of the wider glass you may find you will want to buy?

I am in kind of the same situation. I might like to go FF, and I probably would if it was "only" the considerable cost of the camera body. The kicker, though, is additional cost of the new walk-around zoom I'd need to shell out for (24-70 or 24-105 or something), or maybe 2 or 3 primes instead.

I agree with the others that say if you do it, do it right. You should be sure you have bought enough good glass to make the FF camera work well for you.

Good luck. Unfortunately no real camera deals on B&H "Black Friday."

 

[Loswr]

Unless you really want to shoot sports or track your kids imho the 5d3 would be overkill...

There's the thing... My 5DII had trouble keeping up with my toddlers. My 7D could, but when they were running around indoors, the high ISOs needed were too noisy. The 5DIII should address both issues (the 1D X certainly has!).

 

[Dylan777]

Unless you really want to shoot sports or track your kids imho the 5d3 would be overkill...

There's the thing... My 5DII had trouble keeping up with my toddlers. My 7D could, but when they were running around indoors, the high ISOs needed were too noisy. The 5DIII should address both issues (the 1D X certainly has!).

@ Marsu42 - Wonder if you have any kids? 61pts Advance AF system in 5D III is one of the primary reasons I switched from 5D II to III - perfect for active kids, indoor. Why I said that - I have two kids 1.5yrs and 4.5yrs.

6D AF tracking doesn't look very promise at all.

 

[Marsu42]

Unless you really want to shoot sports or track your kids imho the 5d3 would be overkill...

There's the thing... My 5DII had trouble keeping up with my toddlers. My 7D could, but when they were running around indoors, the high ISOs needed were too noisy. The 5DIII should address both issues (the 1D X certainly has!).

61pts Advance AF system in 5D III is one of my primary reasons I switched from 5D II to III - perfect for active kids.

Am I missing something here - I did write that to track your kids the 5d3 is the best body, didn't I? The "really" in "If you really want..." was meant as in "not just occasionally once a year".

6D AF tracking doesn't look very promise at all.

In comparison to the 5d3 - of course not. In comparison to the d600 - doh. But except for that, it really depends how the non-center af points on the 6d will do - at least it has 11 points (my 60d: 9) and the firmware does allow for tracking customization (unlike my 60d). We'll only know after the first real life reviews if the 6d will do for tracking in non-critical situations.

 

[gmrza]

I wouldn't bother with a 7D or 60D, given that you have the T2i/550D, which has essentially the same sensor - so from a point of view of IQ, you don't get any improvement. The only reason to move to a 7D is if you need environmental sealing, better AF or more fps.

... and better usability (lcd display, back wheel, more firmware features) which is a big plus - I wouldn't want to go below a 60d. But of course this is a bad time to get the 18mp sensor - the old 18mp cameras will be cheaper after the rumored 7d2 update.

To extend that comment: it is probably a good time for buying full frame bodies at the moment, but a bad time for buying crop frame bodies. You do however first need to make your decision whether you want full frame or APS-C.

Right now, we know what full frame bodies Canon is likely to have for the next 3 odd years. Canon still has to play its hand with respect to APS-C, and we will probably know what the next round of bodies will look like by about March next year. - Hopefully, at least, the 7DII (or the 7D's successor) will be known.

For me, I suspect that the 7D will be the last APS-C DSLR body I own. I do still see APS-C having a place for me in a smaller form factor - I am hoping that Canon will soon announce a more advanced EOS-M body - the current one doesn't cut it for me. That will hopefully provide a replacement for my G11.

Either way, it is worth remembering that current APS-C DSLRs are probably providing better IQ than 35mm film. In fact, when I got my EOS 350D and compared to the results from from EOS 650, it was clear that I was at least as well served with the 350D. (That doesn't stop me from shooting the odd film with the 650 for purely sentimental reasons.) We are at a point where we are very privileged in terms of the equipment available to us.

Oh, and for those who argue that you don't need a full frame DSLR for personal use, that is like arguing that that I shouldn't buy a road bike with a 105 groupset for commuting, but ignoring that I do ride 70km a day....

 

[AprilForever]

The discussion about apparent depth of field in the upcoming APS-C announcements thread got me to thinking about maybe switching over to FF. I mostly take family pictures, so getting a nicer DoF would be welcome. So, here's how this would go down:
1) Sell T2i with 18-135 kit lens ($600 after Amazon cut)
2) Sell 17-55 f 2.8 ($650 after Amazon cut)
3) Buy Used 5DIII (LensRentals sale) or 6D and 40mm pancake ($2300).
Total cost of coverting: $1050.

I wouldn't want to spend any more money for a zoom (24-70 or 24-105), so the pancake would have to do.

So, what you would you do? Would it be worth $1050 and would you trade FF for the lack of a normal zoom lens?

Or Buy a sigma 35 1.4. Total savings: a nice bit.

 

[verysimplejason]

Unless you really want to shoot sports or track your kids imho the 5d3 would be overkill...

There's the thing... My 5DII had trouble keeping up with my toddlers. My 7D could, but when they were running around indoors, the high ISOs needed were too noisy. The 5DIII should address both issues (the 1D X certainly has!).

61pts Advance AF system in 5D III is one of my primary reasons I switched from 5D II to III - perfect for active kids.

Am I missing something here - I did write that to track your kids the 5d3 is the best body, didn't I? The "really" in "If you really want..." was meant as in "not just occasionally once a year".

6D AF tracking doesn't look very promise at all.

In comparison to the 5d3 - of course not. In comparison to the d600 - doh. But except for that, it really depends how the non-center af points on the 6d will do - at least it has 11 points (my 60d: 9) and the firmware does allow for tracking customization (unlike my 60d). We'll only know after the first real life reviews if the 6d will do for tracking in non-critical situations.

Aside from a very good set of already published photos, I think the IQ of 6D is already a good sign that Canon did their homework. I hope Canon got it also with their AF. It's not how many AF points you put but how sensitive they are. As only the center one is a cross-point, I can only hope for the better for the other AF points.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I've been contemplating swapping out my 7D for this 6D or the 5D III. I had two reservations:

1. Low ISO dynamic range versus the latest Nikon offerings
2. Auto focus

I'm not really keen on in-camera jpegs at high ISO, but rather taking a look at the RAW file.


http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/