allstar7610
Member
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 10
Is it seriously worth purchasing a 6d or a 5d mk2 or mk3 if you want full frame on a budget. I have a 77d and a g85
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Full frame
- Thread starter allstar7610
- Start date
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
If you want full frame on a budget, I would go for a refurbished RP or R, rather than a 6D, 5DII or 5DIII. I got a refurbished R last December from Canon for about $1100 (after adding the Canon loyalty discount to the already low price).
tony field
Forum Pro
The 5D Mark III Canon is an excellent choice for full frame with very high image quality. Useful in studio work, low light, sports, candid work, scenic etc. Lenses for this camera are excellent if you choose to buy L series of lenses.
I am a bit biased here because I very much dislike mirrorless cameras
I am a bit biased here because I very much dislike mirrorless cameras
Alastair Norcross
Forum Pro
LOL
John Crowe
Veteran Member
Judging by all the 24" x 36" prints on my walls the 5D II is still worthwhile. I have since moved onto the 5DSR though.
Gato Amarillo
Forum Pro
Having bought (and sold) three FF systems, I'd say go for a high MP camera or don't bother.
For more than 10 years my main system has been Panasonic m4/3. Over that time I have bought, then sold, three full frame systems -- Sony A99, Nikon D800, and Sony A7r. Comparing the 24MP Sony to my 20MP Panasonic there was no clear advantage to the full frame. Shooting circumstances and my technical skill made more difference than the sensor size.
With the 36MP Nikon and Sony there was some advantage in resolution, but only a little. While I could see a difference at high magnification on the computer screen, in a print on the wall the difference was utterly tiny - I print up to 1116x20. And of course at web size there was perceptible advantage. For me, not enough advantage to justify the size, weight, and cost of the lenses to make the most of it.
So my advice: If you really want to go FF, go all the way with a high MP body and be prepared to spend some money on top-grade lenses.
Gato
Note: Lest you think I'm richer or more foolish than I really am, with all three systems I bought used and shopped hard. My total loss over all three l was probably under $1,000. The biggest loss was on the A7r -- I kept it too long, a new model came out, and the price dropped like a rock. OTOH, I actually made a little money on a couple of the Nikon lenses.
SelrahCharleS
Senior Member
How 'budget' it will be is really going to depend on what lenses you already have.
Beyond that I'm a big fan of buying older used cameras. Some great deals to be had.
LeicaEye
Forum Pro
Sometimes we wake up and crave something, the OP wants a FF set up.. nothing to do with what he already has, he may or may not be a competent photographer, is doesn’t matter. To the OP - go buy your FF Set Up, enjoy the experience and please Post some of your FF images in the near future.. Regards L
Son of Thunder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,141
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 817
if you are going to go full frame D-slr go for the 5Ds the price has drop dramatically. If I didn't need more lenses for my R I would get one myself.
KAAMBIC
Leading Member
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 1,210
Or D600/610.
George1958
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,475
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,259
It’s a good place to start, but you also may wish to consider the 6D series, there are some bargains to be had.
of course the but that is rarely cheap are the FF lenses , again second had eases the cost.
speaking for myself I am more than happy shooting crop frames. There are so few situations where FF would make any significant differences over what I currently use.
of course the but that is rarely cheap are the FF lenses , again second had eases the cost.
speaking for myself I am more than happy shooting crop frames. There are so few situations where FF would make any significant differences over what I currently use.
newnorm
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 306
- Reaction score
- 259
yes
A pinhole lens will do.
It's not really.
Difference between those 3 camera sand his 77d
Better ISO at 6400 and over
More background separation with equivalent aperture lenses
That's it. Literally.
bigshledge
Leading Member
- Messages
- 609
- Reaction score
- 685
For me, it was worth it.
When I got a 6D, I was able to get clean shots right up to ISO 12800, while my previous 7D struggled at ISO 3200.
The DOF is narrower and looks better overall.
Lenses tend to look sharper due to the lower pixel density. If you have good lenses, corner sharpness won't be much of an issue.
Unless you want the extra reach with telephoto lenses, there isn't really any reason to not get a FF camera these days. They're getting incredibly cheap - a Canon RP for example can be got for less than 1k, for example.
When I got a 6D, I was able to get clean shots right up to ISO 12800, while my previous 7D struggled at ISO 3200.
The DOF is narrower and looks better overall.
Lenses tend to look sharper due to the lower pixel density. If you have good lenses, corner sharpness won't be much of an issue.
Unless you want the extra reach with telephoto lenses, there isn't really any reason to not get a FF camera these days. They're getting incredibly cheap - a Canon RP for example can be got for less than 1k, for example.
I had a D5300 and Found the 6d only one stop higher so 6400 VS 12800 and I never shoot in light so low I need 12800 but I guess it's good to have it if you need it
Only if you can;t get a faster lens for APSC. So say Canon 85mm F1.8, you need Fujifilm 56mm F1.2 to get the same
I haven't noticed this difference at all
Price, weight, size and lens cost,
It's the lenses that cost more.
Yes I shoot Fujifilm and some of their lenses are expensive but not the excellent f2 primes for example
The Canon R mount and Nikon Z mount lenses are very expensive and very large on the whole.
Loading…
camerasize.com
Last edited:
Funny that you linked to an example where the FF lens is 60% of the price of the crop one, plus it has IS...
bigshledge
Leading Member
- Messages
- 609
- Reaction score
- 685
At the moment, current APS-C cameras are lagging behind in noise by 1 stop at best. But again, the gap was much wider for me.
The 56mm f1.2 will be more expensive, however.
A 20mp APS-C sensor is going to have a higher pixel density than a 20mp FF sensor. This means any flaws in lenses are going to be more obvious.
If you don't notice the difference, the lenses you own must be already ridiculously sharp.
FF cameras can be easily got for less than 1k.
Weight isn't an issue when it comes to mirrorless FF cameras.
There are plenty of cheap mirrorless lenses, and you can adapt DSLR lenses.
Not really sure what your point is here?
Canon's RF 85mm f2 isn't... an expensive lens. It's not even THAT much bigger either!
Pair it with a Canon DSLR with an 85mm lens. The difference in size/weight is much bigger.
Loading…
camerasize.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum