Would you upgrade to FF if price drops???

should have said a bigger keyboard (input device)

Ha Ha Ha

--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/

Yeah,

A full size IBM style keyboard verses one of those little minature keyboards. ;-D

Cal Dawson said:

should have said a bigger keyboard (input device)

Ha Ha Ha

--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

--
Derek

Yes,

$2K seems like a really good price point for FF. I am looking forward to the price becomeing more affordable. I think this will drive the crop bodies down in price as well.

Nikon competition is also helping this price reduction evolution.

-Derek

grablife said:

As for a computer larger computer screen, I recently upgraded from
a single 20" crt to a dual 20" lcd with a spanned desktop and never
looked back. Editing and sorting photos are much easier with the
increased real estate.

I would jump at the opportunity to buy a 5D in the $2,000 range
even if it had the same exact performance and features as the 30D.

Pat

DotCom Editor said:

Upgrading to full-frame will not make me a better photographer any
more than a computer with a bigger screen will make me a better
writer. Thus, full frame or not full frame, to me, is irrelevant.
Your mileage, of course, will vary.

When I bought my 20D, I did not wake up and say, "Gee, I think I'll
go out and by a 1.6 factor digital SLR." When I shopped for my
camera, I bought a product that I thought best fit my needs and
offered the flexibility for which I was looking. I paid no heed to
FF vs. crop, even though I could have afforded a 1Ds.

For my next camera, I'm more interested in its response, its
autofocus capability and accuracy, ability to shoot at 5 FPS or
faster, its methods of metering, and other features. If it's FF,
that's just swell. But if it's a crop, then so be it.

In the end, to me, there's really only thing that matters: Does it
make good pictures?

Just my $0.02.
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'

Click to expand...

--
--
http://www.PatYuen.com

Click to expand...

--
Derek

...or should I say your DOFMaster is wrong? The smaller the sensor, the greater the DOF. Just look at the P&S digicams, you can hardly take a picture with narrow DOF even with the lenses wide open. People either love or hate FF because of the narrow DOF. It is great for portraits when you want to blur the background, but not so great for landscapes when you want very large DOF.

--
Greg
http://www.pictureroanoke.com

Photography is a journey, not a destination.

Larger sensors inherantly have more depth-of-field than small sensors. Put the same lens at the same place on a larger sensor and you'll get more depth-of-field, not less.

The reason larger sensors are known to have less depth-of-field is that, for constant framing , you need to either move in closer or use a longer focal length on a larger sensor. It turns out that either of these not only compensate for the natural tendency of a larger sensor to have deeper DOF but over-compensate giving the larger sensor shallower DOF:

20D, 100mm, f2.8, 20 feet, DOF=1.29 feet
5D, 100mm, f2.8, 20 feet, DOF=2.04 feet
5D, 160mm, f2.8, 20 feet, DOF=0.79 feet
5D, 100mm, f2.8, 12.5 feet, DOF=0.79 feet

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

Larger sensors inherantly have more depth-of-field than small
sensors. Put the same lens at the same place on a larger sensor
and you'll get more depth-of-field, not less.

The reason larger sensors are known to have less depth-of-field is
that, for constant framing , you need to either move in closer or
use a longer focal length on a larger sensor. It turns out that
either of these not only compensate for the natural tendency of a
larger sensor to have deeper DOF but over-compensate giving the
larger sensor shallower DOF:

20D, 100mm, f2.8, 20 feet, DOF=1.29 feet
5D, 100mm, f2.8, 20 feet, DOF=2.04 feet
5D, 160mm, f2.8, 20 feet, DOF=0.79 feet
5D, 100mm, f2.8, 12.5 feet, DOF=0.79 feet

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

All the reading I have done here, nobody has explained it like that. So in reality FF does have more DOF, but in practical use it has less DOF. Clear as mud. :> D

--
Greg
http://www.pictureroanoke.com

Photography is a journey, not a destination.

LOL...

Thanks for the explanation Lee Jay.
--
Derek

I don't see any single reason to go FF. I might consider to upgrade to 1.3x crop if Canon introduce 24-70 F2.8 IS or simular EF lens.

Interesting...

The answer to this original question regarding a FF upgrade/addition in the Canon cropped body forum seems pretty split overall.

Some have no interest in the potential benefits of FF. While others are ready to go FF when the price drops below a reasonable level - i.e.- $2000.

I would have thought many more would have said 'No Way.'

I actually wasn't really interested in FF beyond a casual glance until I started shooting more landscapes. Then I started viewing the results being achieved with FF bodies. I have to admit I was impressed. That is not to say great results are not also achieved with a cropped sensor bodies. I am just liking the benefits I am seeing with FF more and more.

However if I was doing a lot of birding, wildlife, etc... I may not even care about FF.

--
Derek

...like to shoot wide angles...REALLY wide angles.

You're also talking about quality and the FF sensor will give you the best quality possible....

...that's why I'll upgrade as soon as I have the money (which won't be for a while)

--
D e s o l a t e ~ M e t r o p o l i s
http://www.desolatemetropolis.com

Yes endus, I can relate to that.

--
Derek

I'd use 50mm F1.4 and stitch the images. No one single wide angle lens would even come close to the quality and resolution of such images.

Stiching and panos are definately another way to go with landscapes and I have done this with some scenes.

But not every scene is a good one for panos. Some having moving objects (i.e. - water, trees, clouds, stars, wildlife, etc...). Also if shooting a lot of landscapes I would rather cature the image in a single frame whenever possible. It is simply less time consuming during PP.

I do agree that nice landscapes can be achieved using this approach.

Al_10D said:

I'd use 50mm F1.4 and stitch the images. No one single wide angle
lens would even come close to the quality and resolution of such
images.

Click to expand...

--
Derek

I'd have to buy a 400mm lens instead of being happy with my 300. My 17-40 goes largely unused (24 or 28 is usually wide enough for me), so I don't see full frame being a benefit for me.

DerekSurfs said:

I am still using my old 10D which is going strong.

Click to expand...

So am I, except that I just sent my 10D into Canon to repair the shutter release (which started to intermittently fail over the last year). So in the meanwhile, I'll play around a bit more with my Elan 7 and shoot some film with my 15-30, 28-135 IS, 100 f/2.8 and 300mm f/4L IS just to get the feel of these lenses again on film.

DerekSurfs said:

Although I liked some of the new features in the 20D/30D, I was
never compeled to upgrade. I have focused more on getting quality
lenses which don't change so fast over time.

Click to expand...

So have I. Although quality lenses to me are more in the $400/$500 range and not in the $1000+ range (Ok, so my L lens is an exception to the $500 range, but I had to save up twice as long for that one)...

DerekSurfs said:

I do however really like the 5D. But it is currently out of my
price range. If the 5D price drops after new bodies are released,
I would seriously consider buying this older technology.

Click to expand...

Would you consider the 1Ds? The 1Ds is about the same going rate as the 5D, and you'd get the pro AF system. When the next 1D series camera is announced, you can bet that both the 5D and the 1Ds will drop in value another notch.

DerekSurfs said:

What would it take for you to upgrade?

Click to expand...

A price tag no more than $1,500. That's a lot of money to me. The 5D drops closer to that magical number every day. I still see this from the perspective that a 6MP DSLR with a 1.5x crop used to cost you about $20,000 - $30,000 and then the 3MP D30 DSLR came out at $3000 to be replaced by the D60 and 10D over 3 years and halving the price. DSLR cameras are dropping in price and gaining new features every year. We have competition between Nikon and Sony and Canon and Olympus (among others) to thank for all this great progress.

My expectation is that a used 30D will be worth about $600 in 2 years, and the 5D will be worth around $1,500 (or less), and new models will be roughly where they are, but maybe, the 6D will be $2,500, and the 7D will be $2,000... I'm hoping the price curve is about that... Because that makes a used 5D around $1,000 - $1,500 in 2 years.

-Mike
http://demosaic.blogspot.com

DerekSurfs said:

I am still using my old 10D which is going strong.

Although I liked some of the new features in the 20D/30D, I was
never compeled to upgrade. I have focused more on getting quality
lenses which don't change so fast over time.

I do however really like the 5D. But it is currently out of my
price range. If the 5D price drops after new bodies are released,
I would seriously consider buying this older technology.

Just like the 10D, the 5D seems like a camera that someone could
use for years regardless of the latest trends and new features that
Canon comes out with.

However with the new CMOS/CCD chip advancements, the new models may
really offer more (i.e. - greater dynamic range).

What would it take for you to upgrade?

--
Derek

Click to expand...

--
The wife approves the purchase

-andreas-

andreas_d said:

The wife approves the purchase
-andreas-

Click to expand...

Thank you,

I know what you mean.

Now that I have a wife and family my priorities have shifted. I definately have to adjust my toys wish list;-D

--
Derek

..expect the camera tonight via UPS. And I did wait for the price drop - from $3200 to $2795. I couldn't wait any more and had the ability to get it - which doesn't come very often!

I will still keep my 10D as a backup, though. Possibly keep my Sigma 10-20 on it so I'm ready for super-wide use.
--
Eric Sorensen
Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen

Eric Sorensen said:

I will still keep my 10D as a backup, though. Possibly keep my
Sigma 10-20 on it so I'm ready for super-wide use.

Click to expand...

The 10D will feel really slow after you use the 5D. I bought a 20D with the intention of using it with my 10D. But the AF speed, the write speed, the review speed, the different flash system, the different method of accessing AF points etc. made me not like that system. A 20D or 30D and a 5D make good complements to each other, but not a 10D.

I'd sell the 10D and 10-20. Then I'd buy a 17-40L and, if you want a backup, a used 20D.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

The 5d is just that good.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com