FF not better than crop for typical setup?

I am considering moving to full frame from a crop camera, mostly trying to improve low-light shooting (e.g., parties). However, I realize that FF may not help me. Currently I have a 17-55/2.8 IS Canon lens on a crop camera. With 5D, typical good popular lens seems to be Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. However, if I get it, seems like I won't gain anything -- I now have only F4 from F2.8, so full frame does not help. Yes, I can probably get a 50mm lens, but would like to stay with zooms, as a single focus lenth is too limiting.

Suggestions? Perhaps Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L, but it's not IS.

It sounds like you need a lens more than a new camera. For the price of the 5d Mark II, you could buy yourself:

35 f/1.4L
135 f/2L
580 EX II

These will deliver far better results at lower ISOs than any body could give you. And The only reason I can see for getting a 5d is for video really.

Since you only have one lens by the looks of it you might want to expand in the wider direction for ambiance.

Ef-s 10-22
85 f/1.2L
580 EX II

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gariepyjeanmichel/show/

If you have a bunch of full frame lenses then going FF makes sense.

In the old days, guys with lenses from their film based system lost any meaningful wide angle coverage in the advent of DSLRs, hence the clamoring for FF.

But now with good wide angle coverage for cropped sensors, I see no compelling need for people to make the huge investment necessary, FF demands top quality glass!

I've just bought the 5DMkII, moving from a 30D with 17-55 f2.8 IS. There is no equivalent lens in the full frame lineup, and that is an absolute shame. The nearest equivalent is, as you say, the 24-70 f2.8L, but it lacks IS and that extra bit of zoom. It's also much heavier and larger than the 17-55.

I am currently using the 24-105L and 35L, swapping from the zoom lens during the day to the prime at night. I shoot a lot of candids and ambient light photos, so the 35L works very well here. But I miss having a relatively light setup for general purpose photography, which the 30D + 17-55 gives me.

On the plus side, I have image quality and resolution which I've never had with the 30D. I have superbly usable ISO1600 and even 3200 in a pinch. I don't regret going full frame.
--
Archiver - Recording the sights and sounds of life
http://www.flickr.com/photos/archiver/

AOlkhovets said:

With 5D, typical good popular lens
seems to be Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. However, if I get it, seems
like I won't gain anything -- I now have only F4 from F2.8, so full
frame does not help.

Click to expand...

Ironically, not liking primes "limits the choices" ;-) Yes, the lens loses a stop in aperture, but the sensor makes up for it (especially in the case of the 21MP 5D2 - each of those pixels at 20D/30D + light gathering ability). It is also wider and longer. Of course, the price difference is significant, so I don't know if it really is worth it in the long run. There are many reasons to go for FF, but the existence of the 17-50/2.8IS makes upgrading for a "standard zoom" less appealing.

--
-CW

Yes, you will lose (kind of) the ISO advantage because there are no comparable fast lenses available. However, you will get less depth of field with full frame (the 24-105mm f/4 is about equivalent to the 17-55mm f/2.8), so to get a similar photo you would have to use more than one stop smaller aperture anyway, and thus have to use one stop higher ISO to keep the exposure time the same.

Basically, the one-stop ISO advantage comes from having a larger sensor, and this same advantage is eliminated when considering the DoF difference (1.6x, a bit more than one stop).

But, assuming narrower depth of field is desired (and thus ignoring the DoF difference between crop and FF completely), and again assuming you prefer wide angle over tele, you would get some advantage with full frame and wide lenses (while losing DoF). In practice you will not, because there is no comparable f/2.8 zoom lens available -- you would have to use primes or the obsolete 24-70mm f/2.8 (without IS).

If you prefer wider DoF and more tele, crop is clearly the better choice. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens and IMO there's no reason to buy full frame just to get higher ISOs (especially if you prefer zooms). You will get more megapixels with a 5D II, but the image corners will be softer.

For example, with 10-22mm using 10mm and f/3.5, you would have to use 16mm and f/5.6 to get the same framing and DoF, and assuming you want the same exposure time, you would have to use higher ISO with full frame.

On the other hand, if you want to have very narrow DoF, you could use 50mm f/1.2, and there's no way you can get an equivalent DoF with a crop camera)

There are rumours that Canon would be bringing an updated 24-70mm f/2.8 IS to market, but this same rumour has been brought up year after year. The lens would very likely be much more expensive than the 17-55mm f/2.8, and availability would be non-existent for a long time.

lekkousa said:

But now with good wide angle coverage for cropped sensors, I see no
compelling need for people to make the huge investment necessary, FF
demands top quality glass!

Click to expand...

I think its the opposite way.

Pixel density is higher on cropped sensor cameras which demands more resolution from lenses.

With new high resolution 36x24mm cameras one can crop edges out and use only center part image vs. using FF lens on APS body.

I had a 40D and a 450D for travel
I sold the 40D and replaced it with a5d2

Photography is not really mathematics...

Yes you loose the crop factor 1.6
But you come back to FF like at the film period
Means you get back the ability to effcetively play with DOF

Moreover cropping by a 1.6 factot your FF leaves you a 13 megapix image with better pixels than a crop sensor

The ability to crop and enlarge with the 5D2 is huge if not unlimited
The IQ is stellar

My old 28-135mm (bought in 2000) was still ok but the resolution basically unsufficient. I got the non HSM version of SIGMA 24-70mm at 400€

This lens gives stellar results (slightly better than tha canon) if you accept the non HSM AF engine Works perfectly, very well built and finished ( I also have got 2 Canon L lenses..) At that price ot's really a bargain....
(see photozone.de for the review)
The HSM version costs twice as much but it's smaller and lighter.

With the Sigma the ability for cropping is really amzing

Drawbacks : not IS, rather noisy AF engine if you consider to use in concerts, theatre, ..

Robert

Jari Karppanen said:

Basically, the one-stop ISO advantage comes from having a larger
sensor, and this same advantage is eliminated when considering the
DoF difference (1.6x, a bit more than one stop).

Click to expand...

In general terms full frame has a bit better ISO for similar technology crop camera to compensate for dof. And lenses have to resolve 1.6x less (or whatever crop ratio is). In short image quality is usually better with similar lenses and 'crop advantage' is slowly diminishing with as 20mpix+ full frames cost already less than $3000.

I can see it like this:

Main disadvantage of full frame is usually price , and sometimes frame speed compared to similar product (like 1DMKIII vs. 1DsMKIII). Body size advantage is neglible, especially at Canon dslr -lineup.

--
http://www.jussivakkala.com

Even if photography is not really mathematics, one should at least learn the basics. Cropping a 21 Mpix photo results in a 8.2 Mpix photo, not 13 Mpix. The sensor is two-dimensional.

The DoF difference is only a bit more than one stop -- you can play with DoF using crop cameras, too. And not all people prefer the razor-thin DoF, some people actually prefer that the ears and nose are within DoF, too. You can get really thin DoF even with f/4 lenses (like 70-200mm L). People photographing sceneries could care less about thin DoF. And some care about geometry distortions and sort corners.

Some people pay hundreds/thousands of dollars for simple HDMI cables where $5 cable would do just the same, because they do not understand anything about tech and simply choose to believe they can actually hear a difference. Similarly some people buy full frame cameras and L lenses, and brag about stellar image quality which is from a whole different world, whereas in reality the difference is quite minimal. They invent terms like "3D appearance" which are (surprise!) often unmeasurable.

I think the sensitivity difference is pretty much in line with the sensor area difference, i.e., 5D II can handle a bit more than one stop higher ISO than 50D. After all, they're using almost the same technology. (And I'm a little disappointed that dynamic range doesn't increase with full frame sensors -- there's only a small difference, nowhere near one stop). Color resolution seems to be better with full frame, but you have to shoot RAW.

Full frame image quality is slightly better when doing wide, and slightly worse when doing tele. There's no way 5D II can compete with 50D when using a long tele zoom, and there's no way 50D can compete with 5D II using a f/1.2 lens when narrow DoF is wanted.

Speed shouldn't be an issue, considering how fast Nikon D700 is. (Speed is not dependent on sensor size, just how the manufacturers choose to target their cameras marketwise).

I think the 5dII has about a two stop advantage on only crop camera in ISO, so even if you move to an f4 zoom you would get one stop, which is not to be sneezed at. And the overall IQ is marvellous; I can certainly tell the difference in A2 prints.

But having said that, for parties IS is not that much use; people move. Bettter to have IS than not, it must be said. And the 17-55 is lovely (I'm in the midst of selling mine as I have moved to 5dII and face the same questions). But since people move, maybe the 24-70 is what you need? Or the Sigma version which is good and much cheaper?

Have you considered the 70-200 2.8IS?

Actually for your use I'd use a fixed 1.4; but you did say you wanted to stick with zooms...

Jari Karppanen said:

There's no way 5D II can compete with
50D when using a long tele zoom, and there's no way 50D can compete
with 5D II using a f/1.2 lens when narrow DoF is wanted.

Click to expand...

Depends on how much you have to crop, how much to stop down etc. In practice bigger format usually produces better image per pixel. I used to have 30D and 5D paired a few years ago. For many situations I prefered 5D + 1.4TC rather than 30D with bare 500/4.

--
http://www.jussivakkala.com

Yes, I agree, bigger format does produce better per-pixel photos, depending on how much more sensor area there's per pixel (assumining similar sensor tech).

With full frame sensors the pixels are currently so much bigger that if you crop enough to get equal framing with 1.6x crop sensor, even in the best case you're left with about half of the pixels compared to a crop sensor. IMHO it's better to use a sensor that does the cropping for you

(I personally seldom use tele and find that a 70-200mm lens is much more usable with a full frame camera, just because I rarely need anything beyond 150mm, and 1.6x 70=112mm is too much to begin with; Canon crop cameras are missing a nice zoom for the 40-120mm range)

--

one stop of noise is gained by the larger pixels of FF cameras of the same generation as the compared crop camera:

You should definitely consider getting faster glass than that 24-104 F4L for low light applications. A 84 1.8 for instance, or a 50 1.4 or a 35 1.4.

regards

baobob said:

Moreover cropping by a 1.6 factor your FF leaves you a 13 megapix
image with better pixels than a crop sensor

Click to expand...

You are too optimistic and missed the math: You´ll only get 8,2Mp if you crop the 21,1Mp 5DII-file by a factor of 1,6.

Z

Jari Karppanen said:

Similarly some people buy full frame cameras and L
lenses, and brag about stellar image quality which is from a whole
different world, whereas in reality the difference is quite minimal.
They invent terms like "3D appearance" which are (surprise!) often
unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

About stars and brags...

Well you can always write such things any time, anywhere.
The point is that I own and use the 2 types of cameras...

The 450D has got with the Nikon D90 and D300 the best 12 megapix sensor of the market.
It gives excellent results and it's a remarkable camera

That said, when you compare results between the cropped 450D and the FF 5D, there are essential differences that are precisely related to qualitative approach, I mean aesthetics, with this typical 3D pattern that is badly missing with cropped sensors

This has nothing to do with resolution and there are 2 fields where I do see these differences : portrait and landscape.

If you add that both Nikon D700 and Canon 5D2 have very high ability in low light, you then can easily watch the difference.

The stellar performance of the Sigma 24-70mm with 5D2 is real, very easy to compare shots bet ween cameras, lack of CA, sharper in the corners, and this enlargment ability which is definitly much more important than with cropped sensor

The actual question remaining, does this difference is worth the difference in price, but this is a pure individual matter...

ATB

Robert

If it is a 10 or 20D you might be better off going to a 40 or 50D - keep the lens and some more of the money you have now.

If your "typical" set up now is for parties, you might want to also consider a 1DMKII/N - you would still need new lens. It would give you LESS of a crop, still "good" low-light - but the added bonus of fast bursts for action/dance/fight sequences.

Another question would be, what do you do with the images you take? Are they for web or print? If for print, how big?

If they are for web or smallish prints there are more choices and some are cheap:
24-105 II
17-40 L
28-135 IS
16-35 I or II

Remember your 17-55 is the equivalent of 27.2 - 88 on a Canon crop.

You can always use primes and two bodies:
15 fish eye f/2.8
20 f/2.8
28 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
135 f/2 L

If you got the bucks:
14 f/2.8 L
24 f/1.4 L
35 f/1.4 L

Of course, you can always find more info here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111

AOlkhovets said:

I am considering moving to full frame from a crop camera, mostly
trying to improve low-light shooting (e.g., parties). However, I
realize that FF may not help me. Currently I have a 17-55/2.8 IS
Canon lens on a crop camera. With 5D, typical good popular lens
seems to be Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. However, if I get it, seems
like I won't gain anything -- I now have only F4 from F2.8, so full
frame does not help. Yes, I can probably get a 50mm lens, but would
like to stay with zooms, as a single focus lenth is too limiting.

Suggestions? Perhaps Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L, but it's not IS.

Click to expand...

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

Jari Karppanen said:

With full frame sensors the pixels are currently so much bigger that
if you crop enough to get equal framing with 1.6x crop sensor, even
in the best case you're left with about half of the pixels compared
to a crop sensor. IMHO it's better to use a sensor that does the
cropping for you

Click to expand...

Depends awful lot what you are doing. For stock photography and publications the more pixels the better. Most of times they are asking for proof uncropped pictures to evaluate different layout options. That is one of the reasons many professional photographers choose big resolution full frame.

Otoh action in photography it is very easy to clip too much in a very good situation. Those automatically cropped pixels can be quite expensive in case your main subject is clipped forever -> been there, failed with that

--
http://www.jussivakkala.com

Thank you all for detailed (and numerous!) replies. Most of you seem to say that by going to FF one gets better DoF control, which oftern results in more 3D-like look. However, a lot of that can be achieved with crop cameras now, using 50mm F/1.4 or something like that.

Some more details about what I shoot. All is just for myself and family/friends, not selling pictures. Mostly for web display, but sometimes print up to 8x10. I shoot general type pics - vacations, parties, events. My most difficult subject is my 1.5yr old son indoors. He is never still, so I often have to shoot at 1/125s or faster shutter speed, and have to use F2.8 and ISO 800 or even 1600 to support this high shutter speed. I try to avoid flash, as it may startle him. If I could, I would cranck ISO even higher and close aperture, as with him movements, F2.8 near 55mm is often too narrow DoF to catch him in focus. I have XTi and EX 380 flash.

Perhaps instead of FF I need a 50mm F/1.8 or 1.4 and a camera with better focus tracking? E.g., 40D/50D?