Just moved up from a 40D / 70-200mm F2.8 to 5DS MIII / 70-200mm F2.8 IS and the immediate thought is WOW'ser. Been an extended dry period for upgrading but decided to move. Kicked it back and forth whether to go large format and lose the X1.6 aspect ration but that proves to be a small investment with large returns. Primarily using for family activities and my son's last year in high school band as they go to the nationals. Hope to travel once the kids are both in college and use for architecture overseas. Can't wait to get proficient on this new product although it appears Canon has smiled kindly upon those of us who don't upgrade very often.
i'm granting this product 5 stars because I've never been let down going with Canon DLSRs.
Yeah, there is a big difference in the full frame vs crop. People all over the internet claim it's a myth and that it's not that big, but it is. It does ruin you though because when you try to shoot with a crop again after a few years you forget how big of a difference the ISO and colors/contrast look.
Shouldn't need to upgrade for a long time. I'm thinking about staying a generation behind to save money myself. The 5D Mark IV may end up with better dynamic range, but I bracket my landscapes and don't need more for portraits. I'm not doing video so I don't care about the 4k or not. 28 megapixels more than likely, 6 more megapixels isn't gonna make much difference. More cross type points, probably 61, 41 is more than enough. -3 EV AF sensors, really nice but I'm not usually in a situation where that's going to matter.
There are people still creating amazing images on the 5D and 5D ii. But the pull to upgrade is those poor focusing systems. Once you have 41 auto focus points, it's hard to imagine that they can anything that would feel essential to upgrade for. Except for those that feel they absolutely need more dynamic range, FPS, more video options, etc.
You'll probably like the 24-70 2.8 ii on the full frame too. It's extremely sharp and very light weight.
While I also prefer full frame, I think you're overstating things quite a bit. The only real advantages of FF are lower noise, the ability to isolate your subject at wider apertures, and the potential for higher MP sensors. There is no colour depth advantage (that can be measured, and when it is, we find that there is no difference). Lower noise is achieved with larger photosites on the sensor, and FF currently has about a 1 stop advantage over APS-C.
DOF, well, that's a bit of a double edged sword. Do you want shallow DOF, or deep? There's no right answer, because it depends what result you're looking for. Having to stop down further to get deep DOF (and improve the corner performance of many lenses) isn't an advantage for FF.
Lastly, you have the "pixels on target" effect of different sensor sizes. If you're focal length limited at the long end, APS-C simply has an advantage. I did think for a while that a 5Ds would obviate the need for a 7DII (frame rate aside), because the pixel pitch is the same, but actually, the 7DII performs better (in terms of noise) than the 5Ds on a per-pixel basis. The same goes for the Nikon D810 vs it's APS-C pixel pitch partner, the D7000. Cropping down to APS-C or beyond is completely pointless with a FF camera, so you better have lenses that allow for ideal framing of your subject. Depending on what you shoot, that could be costly!
So yes, sometimes FF has the advantage. Sometimes not. Personally, I wouldn't want to be without either.
