~ Your reasons for not going f u l l f r a m e ~

Both just lenses I want to have and use.
17-55 IQ, speed and IS.
With FF the 70-200 would be a lot "shorter".

Meshwork said:

Firstly, I'm not a troll. I'm merely interested in your personal reasons for not moving to full frame given the more minimal pricing differences, relatively speaking these days, between crop sensor cameras and ff cameras.

I'm a landscape only photographer who currently uses the 40D and 50D. I haven't gone to the 5D Mk11 (yet!) because I still frequently use my 10-22 EF-S lens - and it was indeed an expensive lens.

No doubt many of you have diverse reasons, such as the extra telephoto length of your crop camera, its frame rates and your EF-S lens collection - or is it still perhaps cost?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and whether you're entertaining the idea of making the transition, either now or further down the track. BTW, I don't work for Canon!

Many thanks

--
Mesh
Australia

5% lighting, 5% composition. 90% location. Get there.

Click to expand...

jsmiller said:

Condor99 said:

Full frame sucks. It is massively overhyped. It turns my 640 mm lens into a 400 mm lens.
--
Tom Seiler

Click to expand...

No, It's still a 640 mm lens, but you get an extra wide field of view. The crop camera doesn't bring you any closer, it just crops the picture in the camera because the sensor is smaller. You could achieve the same effect with the FF camera by cropping it in the computer.

Joe

Click to expand...

You did not understand what I said. I have a 100-400 mm lens. On a crop camera it is a 160-640. If I put it on a FF then it turns it back into a 100-400.
--
Tom Seiler
My portfolio:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio

pros:

• great AF improvements
• FL reach
• 8 fps;
• built-in flash
• 100% OVF coverage
• weather seal
• bulk & heft

cons:

• no possibility to EV when on auto-ISO in M mode
• waste of resources on video
• worse low ISO performance

jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
wildlife, macro, B&W, and 'interactive' street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

I also will be following this path: 20D/450D -> 5D2 -> 7D or 60D (though I'll certainly be keeping the 5D2).

What I've found is that some lenses and subjects are better served by different formats. The 24/1.4II and 135/2 are just phenomenal lenses on FF, but don't really work that well for me on crop bodies - still plenty sharp, but the 24 becomes too long for landscape and the 135 too long for portraiture.

By the same token, though, I have found my 300 and 500mm lenses, and wildlife photography in general, works better (at least for me) with crop bodies.

So, there isn't a "one size fits all" answer. For some lenses and subjects the 7D is a better camera, for some, though, it's gotta be FF.

I've become very comfortable with the 1.6 crop bodies after shooting tens of thousands of slides for years. Probably the biggest advantage for me is using full frame lenses on the crop body when possible. It's important to me to have sharp corners and even brightness across the frame.

That said, your EFS10~22 (which I also own) on a 50D or 7D is probably equal to the 16~35f2.8L on a 5D2 when considering the entire frame. You don't get f2.8 and have to deal with a variable aperture but the L lens is not that good in the corners wide open anyway and the newer version actually degrades in IQ compared to the older model above 24mm. For landscape work you'll also need to stop down about 1-1/3rd stops more with the 5D2 to achieve the equivalent DoF at the same FoV and subject distance. That extra 1+ stop alllows for faster shutter and or lower ISO if needed.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

I spent quite a while vacillating on whether to upgrade to 7D or 5DII. In the end, the better AF and longer reach won out for my uses. (Better video was a bonus, but I don't really use video, so it wasn't a deciding factor.)

I'm not good enough for the somewhat better IQ from full frame to matter. So why spend more money for an older feature set and focus system? However, I do like working with narrow DOF and very low light. So I regret that two of the favorite lenses among portrait photographers (85/1.2 and 70-200/2.8) don't really suit my tastes on a crop body (too long a reach).

Ultimate would be to get both cameras and leverage lenses between them. But I don't have that kinda money to throw at a hobby, so I went with the 7D and am happy with it.

Yeah, the AF was the single most important factor, but you know what, the second most important factor was simply that the 7D is So Much Fun to use.

I still have my 5D and along with the 7D, but I also used to have a 40D as backup. Before I sold the 40D to get the 7D, I found myself time and time again reaching for the 40D over the 5D. Again, I just found the shooting experience so much more, well, fun. It seemed like a sports car, it just wanted to take pics, center point AF was so peppy, the camera just seemed to be so "crisp" and "responsive." I know that is totally subjective, it is just how it felt.

As with the 40D before it, I just love the performance and handling of the 7D. Its a lot of fun to shoot with, and the IQ is now on par or a tad better than the 5D, so, unless the shoot demands high ISO or wide angles, the 7D will be getting the call from now on.
--
http://www.pixelmap.com

Your lens is still a 100-400. It crops in camera the field of view. Typiclly the crop bodies have higher pixel density so they have more effective reach. But for example a 8 meg 30D has no more reach than a 5DmkII as you can crop the 5D2 down to 8 meg and have the same field of view. Another example would be a 1Dmk3 verse a FF 1DSMK2. They have the same effective reach even though the 1Dmk3 has a crop 1.25 sensor verse the 1DSmk2 FF sensor because the pixel density is the same. When the next 1DS the mk4 comes out it might be in the 30 meg range raising the pixel density up pretty high making crop bodies have less effective reach over it.

But since most crop bodies do have high pixel density saying a crop body has more reach is generaly true but its not quite as simple as saying all crop bodies have more reach. or saying its a 1.6 multiplyer.

BUT FF has some advantages most people dont realize. If a landscape shooter you can use a longer lens and have the same field of view a crop body has with a wider lens. So your now saying so what. Well the longer lens allows you to compress the scene making some things like mountains in the background much more pronounced. Now you might say just back up with a crop and use a longer lens. Well thats often not possable. I was shooting in the Grand Tetons and there were large groups of photographers and we all had to be in the same general line as to not block others view and sometimes you cant backup. The picture looks differant when using a wider angle on a crop even though the feild of view is the same. I much prefer the FF for landscape work. Wildlife crop rules for now.

Condor99 said:

Full frame sucks. It is massively overhyped. It turns my 640 mm lens into a 400 mm lens.
--
Tom Seiler
My portfolio:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/dc9mm

Condor99 said:

You did not understand what I said. I have a 100-400 mm lens. On a crop camera it is a 160-640. If I put it on a FF then it turns it back into a 100-400.
--
Tom Seiler
My portfolio:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio

Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you said. The lens has the same focal lengths on both cameras. The crop sensor camera simply "throws away" part of the image becuase it isn't big enough to get it all. It crops it, so that it may "look" more highly magnified, but it is only a cropped image. The FF image could have been simply cropped in the computer to give the same result. The FF sensor simply gives a extra rectangualr frame of extra pixels around the central cropped image of the cropped sensor. The size of the image on the sensor is determined ONLY by the focal length. As I said in another post, if the cropped sensor camera has smaller pixels, you may see finer details in its image with the same lens solely becuase of that, but the lens and focus and camera steadiness have to be up to it. In practice it may be hard to realize.

Joe

...also the slow burst mode on the 5D and poor low light focus, turned me off to that model....although I lust after the IQ and high ISO low noise performance.

a 1D is way out of my price, weight or need range.

Isabel
--



http://www.pBase.com/isabel95
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/

I'm often stretching the capabilities of my 100-400 and have not desire to fork over the $$ for a 500 or 600.

And I dispute the "minimal pricing differences". $1200 vs. $2400 every few years can buy a lot of long-lived quality glass.

If I went full frame I'd have to give up using my EF-S 10-22. I like that lens.

Was going to update to the 50DIi this Spring but after picking up the 7D decided to concentrate more on glass at this time and will replace the 50D with hopefully the 5DIII in a year or so and still keep the 7D. At this time, my lens collection will be substantially complete.

The 7D seems to be nicely providing me with the features and IQ I need.

Still too expensive and too big for me...

...but when I see the high ISO performance of the D3s sensor it makes me hopeful about future FF DSLRs with similar sensors in more compact bodies.

Bring 'em on!

If you really want to go really wide with Sigma 12-24mm or with very wide TSE 17mm.
I have 5D2 and Sigma. But I also just ordered 7D.

7d=5d2=1D4 in noise for any usable ISO settings. And I mean usable like no more than 3200. I tested and re-tested. And now Imaging Resources posted samples to confirm mine findings.
7D's 18mp is not very much less than 21mp.
7D is actually better than 5D2 in all other ways.
So for really really wide below 16mm go with 5D2 otherwise there is no reason.
--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Lee Jay

The release of the 7D is pretty much my reason for not going full frame.

• I find no perceivable difference between the 7D and 5D2 at large print sizes when shooting low to mid ISO. I spend 95% of my time at low to mid ISO. And I don't print very large that other 5% of the time.

• The 7D makes my telephoto lenses more useful to me.

• I can get corner to corner sharp wide angle glass cheaper for the 7D than for the 5D2. My 7D and Tokina 11-16 cost me $2,300. To match that with a 5D2 would have required the 16-35 L II at a total cost of $4,000 for no noticeable improvement in IQ. The difference in price equates to more lenses or a big chunk of the money I need for some of the photo trips I want to take this summer.

• The 7D is all around the better camera body with much better AF, 8 fps, better metering, wireless flash control, the new viewfinder and level, etc. Specifically, going with a 5D2 would have left me wanting a xxD, 7D, or 1D for sports any way. That would be more money to support a 5D2 purchase for...what?

The 7D is a knock out camera in terms of IQ, features, and build.

I will of course keep an eye on full frame and if Canon releases a 5D3 that would offer me significant improvements in IQ and print size for the price, I will consider it. But right now I feel no temptation towards full frame.

For my photography, the 5dii wouldn't cut it. Once you get used to the 7d's feature set it would be hard to use the 5d. I need a good travel/sports/street camera, the 7d is ideal for this. The only thing that the 5d offers is somewhat higher ISO. But the 5d isn't really an ISO killer, it's not optimized for that. Yes, it's better than the 7d, but not in proportion to it's sensor size increase.

So I'd have to go FF as in mk IV, but it's $5000 and still not FF. So, I'd have to wait for Canon FF sports/all around camera to come around at $6-8K. No, I'll think I'll stick w/my 7d for $1600.

I'd like to but at the moment I don't have the skill or take enough photos of the type a 5dII is good for to justify the cost. If I could sell my 30d and 50d for a good price I may be tempted.
--
Doug

http://douginoviedo.smugmug.com/

Brit said:

If they give the 5DIII the same AF feature set as the 7D and close to the same cost, there wouldn’t be much reason for anyone to buy a 7D…

Click to expand...

I disagree. First, "anyone" is a lot of people, and if you think everyone wants what you want, you must be very young...

Coming from film days (I bought my first 35mm SLR in 1968), I wanted a FF for some time (I've used an XT/350D since 2005), not because I was dissatisfied with aps-c, but because I assumed it would produce better IQ (and, I suppose, because of familiarity). After getting good lenses (17-55 & 10-22) and a higher-res cam (50D), and thinking about how, when I shot 35mm, I always wanted more DOF, not less, the appeal of FF faded, and now I have no plans to upgrade beyond a 7D.

IQ in crop cameras is now comparable to FF in all but the most demanding cases (poster-size prints which virtually nobody makes), so the only practical difference is shallower DOF. If that's worth another thousand dollars to you, go for it.

But assuming everyone secretly lusts for FF is... presumptuous.

Lars76 said:

The DR EVIL system is supposed to be great. I hear it has freakin´lasers. Sorry

Click to expand...

Wha..? Throw me a frickin' bone, here, people!
--



50D, XT/350D, EF-S 17-55, EF-S 10-22

Equipment Emeritus: First-generation F-1, FD 24 2.8, FD 35 f2, FD 50 1.4, FD 85 1.8