Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 03 Oct 2017 (Tuesday) 03:06
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

switch from canon 60D to FULL FRAME

 
kmilo
Member
kmilo's Avatar
123 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Post has been edited 14 days ago by kmilo.
Oct 03, 2017 11:23 |  #16

Bassat wrote in post #18465227 (external link)
Forgive me, but that is the weirdest upgrade reason I have ever heard. The 60D is a perfectly fine camera. By itself, it can control two groups (A/B) of Canon flashes. For less than $25 (used prices) each, you could have upgraded any old EX flash units to radio (RT) with YN 622 gear. Let us assume you had 3 flashes. For roughly $100, you could have moved completely to radio flash with an -TX & 3 -c 622 units.

Instead, you first buy a camera that will use radio control (80D) for about $800. Since you are moving to radio control flash units, you also need to buy those, at ~$250 per (or $450 per for the 600 version). According to my rough estimations, you could have upgraded to RC flash for about $100. Your chosen path cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $1500. Please allow me to suggest there is more to this story.

Oh, and the 622's can do the remote-firing thing, too.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but respectfully, I completely disagree that 3rd party alternatives would have been the way to go. If someone rarely uses a flash, then fine, go cheap ... but the benefits of sticking with canon's system are a big deal for me. I have had, and still own, 3rd party triggers ... and I would only recommend them to people on a tight budget. There's always going to to be a work around or a cheaper way to get from A to B, but speaking specifically about speedlites, I'll stick with Canon's system.

edit to add: it's one of the main reasons I upgraded, not the ONLY reason.


Kris
I can barely afford this hobby

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,284 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Oct 03, 2017 11:27 |  #17

kmilo wrote in post #18465247 (external link)
You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but respectfully, I completely disagree that 3rd party alternatives would have been the way to go. If someone rarely uses a flash, then fine, go cheap ... but the benefits of sticking with canon's system are a big deal for me. I have had, and still own, 3rd party triggers ... and I would only recommend them to people on a tight budget. There's always going to to be a work around or a cheaper way to get from A to B, but speaking specifically about speedlites, I'll stick with Canon's system.

I certainly respect your opinion. I was just curious about 'the rest of the story'. As you hint, I do very little flash work. The Canon IR system, supplemented by the occasional use of YN gear works fine for me. It is good to know that someone who uses flash a lot has faith in the Canon RT system. Thanks for responding.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Likyawarrior
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
Likyawarrior's Avatar
2 posts
Joined Oct 2017
Oct 03, 2017 14:38 |  #18

Dear all,

Thanks a lot for all your advices!

For your information: my name is Farah, and I'm from the Netherlands. Dutch forums are quite limited and you are a more active community, therefore I come on this forum.

Let me clarify some points. This might reassure some people. I realize it was not present in my initial post. It's the first time I post on a forum, so sorry for that.
First of all, I intended anyway to purchase good quality lenses before the body. But still, I would like to have an idea of where these lenses woud end, and that is why I wonder about the body.
Some other details about my uses:
- One of my main needs in upgrading is regarding landscape. I understand one can perfectly make his/her whole life good pictures with crop sensor. But still, for landscape, FF seems better to me and I'm disappointed by my cropped sensor when it comes to wide-angle pictures (I think it's quite common). Even with a 10mm lense, I wish to have full frame for wider pictures (I sold this lense for this).
- Portrait is an incidental use for me (ex wedding, family or friends). Really not frequent (maybe until I get better gear...). But in a recent wedding in church, I saw the limits in terms of ISO, and with the best technique possible (not that I have it), there are some technical borders impossible to overcome. So here also, I think higher quality body with high ISO would help.
- Birds (and wildlife). Thanks a lot for pointing out the factor of pixel density. It's something I overlooked, indeed, and to take into account. However again the ISO is an advantage to increase shutter time, and reduce noise.

I know technique is fundamental, and that I have to do my part; but still a good equipment can help, right? I have been saving money for years for this, and I do not intend to get all this equipment in once.
An all-round lense of good quality is my first target.
I decided quite firmly to adopt the "buy once, cry once" technique, and I come here so that you help me to buy once and cry once!




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,008 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Oct 03, 2017 15:53 |  #19

Likyawarrior wrote in post #18465365 (external link)
- One of my main needs in upgrading is regarding landscape. I understand one can perfectly make his/her whole life good pictures with crop sensor. But still, for landscape, FF seems better to me and I'm disappointed by my cropped sensor when it comes to wide-angle pictures (I think it's quite common). Even with a 10mm lense, I wish to have full frame for wider pictures (I sold this lense for this).

You need to fully understand what a Wide Angle lens does to the items in the frame:

  • things that are closer to the lens are made quite large, relatively speaking
  • things that are far from the lens are made very small, relatively speaking


In comparison, a longer FL does this...
  • foreground that are closer to the lens are made somewhat large
  • things that are far from the lens are made very LARGE relative to the subject

    IOW, the longer FL accomplishes some 'distance compression'.

    So if you attempt to shoot with a super wide angle lens, yes you will capture a very wide expanse of the distant objects but these details will be VERY SMALL so that you cannot really see the detail of those items!!!

  • You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
    Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    repete7
    Member
    repete7's Avatar
    Joined Nov 2010
    Oct 03, 2017 19:16 |  #20

    Wilt wrote in post #18465414 (external link)
    You need to fully understand what a Wide Angle lens does to the items in the frame:

    • things that are closer to the lens are made quite large, relatively speaking
    • things that are far from the lens are made very small, relatively speaking


    In comparison, a longer FL does this...
  • foreground that are closer to the lens are made somewhat large
  • things that are far from the lens are made very LARGE relative to the subject

    IOW, the longer FL accomplishes some 'distance compression'.

    So if you attempt to shoot with a super wide angle lens, yes you will capture a very wide expanse of the distant objects but these details will be VERY SMALL so that you cannot really see the detail of those items!!!
  • I'm agree with this. I would add that you might consider doing a panorama using a longer focal length if for example you want to show the expanse of a mountain range, but make the mountains seems close. This article mentions this under #7 https://digital-photography-school.com ...es-with-a-telephoto-lens/ (external link) Here's an example I shot at 50mm.

    IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5199/29582489614_2a5e92e088_b.jpg
    [IMAGE'S LINK: https://www.flickr.com .../album-72157626695105437/] (external link)
    Flatirons Panorama (external link) by repete7 (external link) on Flickr

    Of course, if you're shooting landscapes with interesting foregrounds and you are up close, wide angle can be really helpful.

    Anyway welcome to the forums Farah! And I can't believe these guys are encouraging you to spend less money. It is usually the other way around! Good luck and happy shooting!

    Karen Flickr (external link)
    Canon 6D2|Canon Eos-m|Canon SL1|Canon ef-m 11-22|Canon ef-m 22|Samyang 14mm f/2.8|Canon 24 stm|Canon 40 stm|Canon 50 f/1.8 stm|Canon FD 50mm macro|Canon Macro 100L|Canon 10-18 stm|Canon 55-250 stm|Canon 24-105L IS USM II|Canon 70-300 IS II USM|Canon 100-400L|

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    davesrose
    Goldmember
    2,774 posts
    Joined Apr 2007
    Atlanta, GA
    Oct 03, 2017 21:49 |  #21

    I like having wide angle in my arsenal, as well as telephoto. It is true that longer FLs can be more appropriate for certain landscape shots. And I don't try to use a real wide angle when stitching photos for panoramic. But you can get some neat effects: especially if you take advantage of the perspective differences of objects close up vs far away. I'll purposely get distortions for some close-ups of objects, or to be at a low angle when shooting landscapes.


    Canon 5D mk III , 7D mk II
    EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
    smugmug (external link)

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    ejenner
    Goldmember
    ejenner's Avatar
    Joined Nov 2011
    Denver, CO
    Post has been last edited 14 days ago by ejenner. 2 edits done in total.
    Oct 04, 2017 00:49 |  #22

    I haven't used a 5D IV. I regularly print 16x24 and occasionally larger. I do quite a bit of low-light indoor shooting (ISO6400), but that tends to be events where IF I print they will be generally 8x10, occasionally 11x14 (sorry only know inches). To give some perspective, I didn't like shooting over ISO800 with my 7D, which is very similar to the 60D noise-wise.

    I also do birding, mostly with the 7DII, but also with the 5DIII if they are close enough. AF on the 5DIII is fine for this.

    Although a 5DIV would be 'nice' (always nicer to have better), I finally got to the stage where the 5DIII really is good enough for anything I want to do. AF is certainly fast enough for your sigma - I thing you are going to need a 500 f4 II or better to test the AF of a 5D IV or better. Culd be wrong, but I think the lens is going to be the limiting AF factor there. My guess is that cropping the image from a 5DIV will be better than the 60D. For the 5DIII that may not be quite so clear cut. The extra pixel count of the 5DIV might be a factor to consider for this usage.

    If you have the money, or really think the extra pixels will make a difference for wildlife sure 5DIV, but a used 5DIII if you can get one in NL would be my suggestion. If you have extra, I would spend it on lenses and then if you still decide the 5DIII is not quite good enough, you can upgrade (yes, I agree with buy once, cry once, but I think more lenses, e.g. some fast primes, might help more).

    So just on the landscape portion, personally I agree that the EF-S lenses are not that great for landscape. Even stopped down. They are OK, especially compared to 10-15 year old wide angle lenses, but the 16-35 F4 is a significant jump better (although only as wide as your 10mm on crop). IMO the 'best' way to get wider than 16mm on FF is the TS-E 17mm and stitching 2 shots. Usually you have one direction you want to be wider in (vertical to include more sky or horizontal to include more landscape), at least that is my experience. I'm probably biased on that one though because not only did I go FF to be able to use that lens, I actually started with Canon DSLRs for that specific lens.

    IMO indoors in low light FF rules. I know Teamspeed and others can do magic with ISO6400 shots from crops, but it takes me quite a bit of work. Just shooting birthdays and kids indoors, I've enjoyed the FF so much more.


    Edward Jenner
    5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
    http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
    https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    BigAl007
    Cream of the Crop
    Joined Dec 2010
    Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
    Oct 05, 2017 09:05 |  #23

    repete7 wrote in post #18465532 (external link)
    I'm agree with this. I would add that you might consider doing a panorama using a longer focal length if for example you want to show the expanse of a mountain range, but make the mountains seems close. This article mentions this under #7 https://digital-photography-school.com ...es-with-a-telephoto-lens/ (external link) Here's an example I shot at 50mm.

    QUOTED IMAGE
    [IMAGE'S LINK: https://www.flickr.com .../album-72157626695105437/] (external link)
    Flatirons Panorama (external link) by repete7 (external link) on Flickr

    Of course, if you're shooting landscapes with interesting foregrounds and you are up close, wide angle can be really helpful.

    Anyway welcome to the forums Farah! And I can't believe these guys are encouraging you to spend less money. It is usually the other way around! Good luck and happy shooting!


    If you shoot a panorama using a longer focal length lens your resulting image will have the same perspective appearance as if it had been taken as a single shot with a lens with a focal length appropriate to the final field of view. This will always be the case since perspective is only dependant on the relevant locations of the camera, foreground, and background components of the image.

    What will be affected is the depth of field, and those changes will be complicated by the fact that the resulting overall DoF should be dependant on the final reproduction ratio of the image, and the absolute diameter of the aperture used, not the f/ratio. Of course practicalities will get in the way, using a very long focal length lens, with very narrow DoF, will result in interesting effects.

    Personally I don't do a lot of panoramic stitches, but when I do I prefer to use a lens with a focal length slightly longer than normal. I find they allow a good combination of field of view combined with low levels of distortion. So not too many shots needed, and they stich well too.

    Alan.


    My Flickr (external link)
    My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    amfoto1
    Cream of the Crop
    10,217 posts
    Joined Aug 2007
    San Jose, California
    Post has been edited 12 days ago by amfoto1.
    Oct 05, 2017 15:29 |  #24

    Likyawarrior wrote in post #18465055 (external link)
    ....
    Background: I use now a Canon 60D with the following lenses:
    - Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 Contemporary (for bird photography)
    - Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (all round)
    - Canon EF-S 60mm 2.8 USM (macro & portrait)

    The set I intend to constitute:
    - 14mm 2.8L II USM or 16-35mm f2.8 II USM (landscape)
    - 24-70 f2.8L II USM (all-round & portrait)
    - Eventually 70-200 f2.8 II USM in the future
    - I will keep the Sigma 150-600C for the birds.
    ...
    I’m hesitating between the following cameras:
    - Canon 5D Mark iii
    - Canon 5D Mark iv
    - Canon 6D Mark ii

    ...a versatile camera and subjects, from nature to portrait, I don’t know which specifications are the most important.
    If I look at max ISO, Megapixels, fps and AFP (except with the 5D M iv), I don’t see a huge difference between these cameras. Is it then really necessary to spend that much more for the 5D Mark iv?
    The 6D mark ii and 5d mark iii are less expensive, but I’m scared to be limited for landscape and nature (i love to capture birds). ...

    It sounds as if you've recently won the lottery. If so, congratulations! :lol:

    Have you considered simply upgrading to a newer APS-C model and perhaps some "better" lenses?

    The reason I ask is that a recent model like 80D can be a significant step up in performance compared to your 60D, but at considerably lower cost and smaller size/less weight (particularly when it comes to lenses. For example, a 24MP 80D rivals a 5DIII or original 6D for image quality and high ISO performance. It's not far short of the new, 26MP 6DII, either.

    You don't currently have a particularly wide angle lens (18mm is only mildly wide), so I suspect landscape (or seascape, cityscape, architecture) are not a particularly high priority subject for you. Those are the types of subjects where full frame tends to be most useful. Of course it can also serve well for portraits and macro. I use FF for those purposes.

    BIRDING: For long telephoto work (sports, wildlife) a crop sensor camera such as your 60D or the newer 80D has a big advantage. It allows you to use less pricey lenses. It allows you to be more mobile, with smaller, lighter, more handholdable lenses. Particularly for your love of birding, I think you will be disappointed with a full frame camera.... On a full frame camera, your 150-600mm will be a MUCH shorter telephoto! So at a very minimum, keep your 60D for use with your longest telephoto(s). If you completely switch over to FF, you'd also certainly have to replace both your EF-S lenses (18-135 and 60mm macro). Less spent on the camera might give you opportunity to upgrade some lenses possibly including the Sigma 150-600mm "Sport" version instead of the cheaper, less capable "Contemporary".... or to a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 "Sport" with a matched 2X teleconverter. The new Tamron 150-600mm "G2" VC USD is also said to be pretty good. You'll have to research these possibilities, I don't use any of them, so can't really recommend one over the other. My longest zoom (which I use for sports and wildlife on 7D Mark II) is the EF 100-400mm "II". It's a superb lens that meets most of my outdoor, daytime shooting needs very well. When I need a faster lens for indoors I use either EF 300mm f/4 IS USM (handheld) or EF 300mm f/2.8 IS USM (on a tripod or monopod). When I need a longer lens, I use EF 500mm f/4 IS USM, sometimes with 1.4X teleconverter. (I have not use 1.4X with my 100-400mm II yet, but I understand the combo works pretty well.) If, in fact, you won the lottery... the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 IS USM with built-in 1.4X would be an amazing lens... if you don't mind it's size, weight... and price!

    LANDSCAPE: I will be upgrading my full frame camera eventually, primarily for landscape photography. While I already have some wide angle to short telephoto lenses, I would probably get EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and 24-70mm f/4L IS USM zooms, to keep my backpack reasonably lightweight. The latter lens also can serve for near-macro purposes, with it's amazingly high 0.70X magnification (the f/2.8 lenses can only do about 0.25X, if memory serves). If I need wider, I will take a hard look at the <$400 Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8 manual focus/manual aperture lens... versus the >$2000 Canon lens. IMO, manual focus and aperture control are no problem for landscape photography. For ARCHITECTURE: My dream lenses would be the TS-E 17mm f/4L, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II and the new TS-E 50mm f/2.8L. You didn't mention this type of photography, so tilt-shift lenses might be of no importance to you.

    But unless you make really big enlargements, there might be little real world benefit to full frame, even for landscape photos. Maybe instead you should consider one of the highly capable wide angle lenses for use on a crop camera. They can be smaller, lighter and less expensive than the full frame wide angles, too. The EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is a real bargain at less than $300. It's also one of the few with stabilization. The EF-S 10-22mm USM is an older model and about twice the price, but better built and still one of the best ultrawides made by anyone. I really like the Tokina ultrawides, too (12-28mm f/4 and 11-20mm f/2.8 presently... though I use an older model). They remind me of some Canon L-series wide angle zooms I've used in the past, though I think the EF-S 10-22mm I acquired more recently has slightly better image quality.

    Below I mention the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM as a walk-around lens.... but it also goes wider than most of those (and there's a noticeable difference between 15mm and the 18mm you've already got). This might make an ultrawide such as above unnecessary for some folks.

    PORTRAITURE: Personally I don't find my 24-70mm f/2.8 ideal for a lot of types of portraiture on full frame.... the wide end serves little purpose for portraiture and the 70mm end of the zoom is too short for a lot of it. I DO like it for portraiture on crop cameras. With them I use that zoom for less controllable portrait subjects such pets and children... But I prefer a small suite of prime lenses for adult portrait subjects. And exception.... 24-70mm are popular among wedding photographers who often them on use FF cameras. That's because a lot wedding portraiture is full length and couples or small groups, or wider "environmental" portraits that show the person or people in their surroundings. An f/2.8 lens also might be important, since a lot of wedding photos might be done by available light. For "dreamy" effects, wedding photographers might supplement the zoom with exceptionally large aperture primes, such as the 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II and the 135mm f/2L.

    On full frame, for portraits if I'm not using the primes, I probably use a 70-200mm more often than a 24-70mm. FYI: The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM "II" is considerably bigger, heavier and more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM. Both are excellent... among the very best in their class. One reason is because they use a fluorite element... which is an ideal material for telephoto lenses, helping to keep chromatic aberration to a minimum. Canon has made extensive use of fluorite in their telephotos for decades, pioneered growing their own artificial crystals since it's rare to find large enough for optical elements in nature. They've also perfected working the rather fragile material into optical elements (and supposedly it's one reason they paint their long lenses off white, to reduce heat gain and metal expansion that might damage the fluorite element). Note: Nikon recently revamped many of their telephotos to use fluorite... but they are charging a premium for it. Their Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 "FL" costs almost 50% more than the comparable Canon.

    MACRO: For full frame your reasonable low cost and compact EF-S 60mm will need to be replaced with a full frame capable lens. The good news is that the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses are both truly excellent. They also both can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring, which I highly recommend. I do most macro work on a tripod or monopod and I kept my earler, non-IS version, never bothered to upgrade to the "L". I doubt anyone could ever tell the difference in images from either of them. And they are both very well built. Of course they work very well on crop sensor cameras, as well. See above note about the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens' near macro capabilities, too. Personally I don't care for macro lenses for portraiture.... IMO they can be too sharp, making for a rather "clinical" look. Also, most macro lenses have f/2.8 max aperture, at best. Sometimes I prefer larger apertures for portraits (I use several f/2, f/1.8 & f/1.4 lenses instead).

    GENERAL PURPOSE/WALK-AROUND: The full frame camera might come "in kit" with an EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM, 24-105mm f/4 IS USM "II" or a EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (depending upon which FF model). Personally I've never been all that impressed with any of the 24-105s. The far less expensive EF 28-135mm IS USM is just as good optically. Your EF-S 18-135mm rivals them too, in terms of image quality. The USM lenses are faster focusing though. (Note: you didn't specify which 18-135mm you have: The latest "USM" version is 2X to 4X faster focusing than the earlier "STM". Both of them are significantly faster, smoother and quieter focusing than the "micro motor" version. The latest uses Canon's new "Nano-USM", which is both fast and quiet... good for still photos including action photography, as well as video. It's also the only lens that can be used with the new PZ-E1 Power Zoom module.) I discussed the 24-70mm above under Portraiture... but if you were to stick with crop sensor and need a more low light capable lens, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM should be on your radar. It's smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8s for full frame. It's also got "L-like" image quality, fast USM focus and helpful IS. The 17-55mm range on crop is slightly broader, too (roughly equiv. to 27-88mm on full frame).

    To summarize, since birding seems to be one of your favorite types of photography, I think you really need to consider keeping a crop camera in your kit... Or just stick with an APS-C camera and upgrade very nicely from 60D to 80D. After all, birders say "there's no such thing as a 'long enough' lens!" Your 150-600mm will "act" considerably shorter on full frame, than it does on your cropper. Maybe supplement your cropper with a full frame eventually... or just get better lenses to use on crop and further improve.

    Autofocus speed and accuracy are determined as much by the lenses as by the camera. Stick with USM lenses for the fastest. For video work, STM (a bit slower) or the new "Nano USM" models (so far, only the 18-135mm USM, 24-105 II and 70-300mm IS USM II). Avoid the "micro motor" models (all Canon lenses not marked either USM or STM).

    Low light performance is much better in more recent models, both full frame and crop. I used a pair of the original 7D for five years and about a quarter million shots. They use a slightly earlier version of the 18MP sensor in your 60D. I used those to ISO 1600 without concern, ISO 3200 needed a bit of noise reduction work and ISO 6400 was usable with more NR work in post-processing. Going on two years ago I updated to 7D Mark II. Those have a pretty modest increase in resolution to 20MP, but much better high ISO performance. Below is one of my first test shots at ISO 16000 (yes... sixteen thousand... not sixteen hundred)....

    IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1659/25860530783_b933736438_b.jpg
    IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1499/25860527623_5a5e0b01f2_b.jpg

    The above were shot by the light of a small window and a single, 60 watt CFL light bulb, both 8 to 10 feet from the subject. It was shot RAW (which prevents the camera from automatically applying NR) and post-processed through Lightroom with only the default noise reduction. Yes, there's some noise to be seen in the magnified detail. But when I make a print from an ISO 6400, 8000, 10000, 12800 or 16000 image, I always work it further in Photoshop, including additional NR with Imagenomic Noiseware plug-in.

    80D is even newer than 7DII and has 20% higher resolution, appears to have similar noise handling. Sure, a full frame 26MP 6DII or 30MP 5DIV might have even less, which would be apparent if you were making a five foot wide print and viewing it from 18" away. Is that worth 2X to 3X the cost for the camera, plus the additional size, weight and cost of the lenses a full frame will require.

    IMO, "versatile" = APS-C for most people... Particularly for anyone wanting to do powerful telephoto work. To me full frame are more specialized (unless you're a well paid pro with a couple assistants to help carry the lenses).

    But, only you know your priorities and can decide what's best for you. Have fun shopping!

    Alan Myers "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
    5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - EXPOSUREMANAGER (external link)

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    Bassat
    "I am still in my underwear."
    Bassat's Avatar
    6,284 posts
    Joined Oct 2015
    Bourbon, Indiana - USA
    Oct 05, 2017 16:51 |  #25

    I agree with a lot of what Alan (above) says. Going from aps-c to full frame will yield very little improvement in mid-aperture landscape results. I've had the Canon 10-18 and 10-22 lenses. Optically, they are essentially equivalent. The 10-22 has faster aperture and faster focus. Neither feature is much use in landscape shooting. For that, the 10-18 is a much better bargain. I sold both my Canon UWA zooms and opted for a Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8. I need the aperture regularly, and this lens is really good at f/2.8.

    I recently added an 18-135mm USM to my collection. Yesterday was my first outing with. It is hugely better, in every regard, than the original. It has the same glass as the STM version, and I am way impressed with the focus speed and accuracy on my 80. I like my 80/18-135 USM combo enough to sell my 24-105 STM. Nice lens, but STM focuses relatively slowly. This move will make my crop-sensor (aps-c) 80D my primary general shooter. Yes, I am moving FROM full frame to aps-c, for a significant chunk of my shooting. I'll still use the 6D for fast primes, and my 12mm & 12-24mm lenses.

    I think this has been mentioned previously in this thread, but it bears repeating. The 80D is a ton of camera for the money. Take a serious look at it before you make your decision.


    Tom

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    shane_c
    Senior Member
    607 posts
    Joined Mar 2007
    Halifax, NS, Canada
    Oct 05, 2017 16:54 |  #26

    I'm in a similar position as you. I've been shooting with my 60D for several years and will be upgrading soon. I've looked at FF in the past but decided that the 80D will be what I replace it with.

    Everything I've read says it's a huge step up from the 60D. I have shot a lot of BIF with my 60D when I had my 400 5.6 and the crop factor is great for that type of shooting. In addition to the 80D I also plan on picking up a 100-400 V1 or perhaps another 400 5.6 so I can get back into shooting birds and wildlife.


    Canon 60D - Sigma 17-50 (2.8), Tamron 90 macro, Canon 40 STM, Canon 70-200L F4 (non-IS), Canon 1.4x II
    My Instagram (external link)

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    wyntastr
    Senior Member
    wyntastr's Avatar
    Joined Mar 2012
    Bradenton, FL
    Oct 05, 2017 18:14 |  #27

    Why not a 1D Mk IV? Not quite FF but not APS-C either. Fantastic body at stupid prices right now. The money you save can be used on quality glass. 12800 native ISO rating for low light. 10 fps! Fantastic birding and wildlife body. Built like a tank. Color rendering looks fantastic.
    Then there's the intangible feeling of shooting a 1D body. I love my 1D mk III and will be looking to upgrade to a mk IV in the near future.


    60D - 1D Mk III - Rebel T3 - Rokinon 8 fisheye - Tokina 12-24 f/4 - 40 f/2.8 STM - 50 f/1.8 Mk I - 85 f/1.8 - 70-200 f/4L - 80-200 f/2.8L Magic Drainpipe - 300mm f/4L - 100-400L

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    Charlie
    Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
    13,446 posts
    Gallery: 2 photos
    Joined Sep 2007
    Oct 05, 2017 18:46 |  #28

    wyntastr wrote in post #18466811 (external link)
    Why not a 1D Mk IV? Not quite FF but not APS-C either. Fantastic body at stupid prices right now. The money you save can be used on quality glass. 12800 native ISO rating for low light. 10 fps! Fantastic birding and wildlife body. Built like a tank. Color rendering looks fantastic.
    Then there's the intangible feeling of shooting a 1D body. I love my 1D mk III and will be looking to upgrade to a mk IV in the near future.

    Consider her pricepoint and that she's shot with the 60D for many years, and has repeated the need for better details, a 1Dx/5Div/5Dsr are her best options. She'll have to decide speed vs details or a mix of both.


    Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    Phoenixkh
    a mere speck
    Joined May 2011
    Gainesville, Florida
    Oct 05, 2017 22:11 |  #29

    wyntastr wrote in post #18466811 (external link)
    Why not a 1D Mk IV? Not quite FF but not APS-C either. Fantastic body at stupid prices right now. The money you save can be used on quality glass. 12800 native ISO rating for low light. 10 fps! Fantastic birding and wildlife body. Built like a tank. Color rendering looks fantastic.
    Then there's the intangible feeling of shooting a 1D body. I love my 1D mk III and will be looking to upgrade to a mk IV in the near future.

    I love my 1D IV's... but I wouldn't call them low light cameras. I don't seem to do well above an ISO of 6400.

    I agree with everything else you posted. The colors are the best of any camera I've owned. Granted, I don't have any of the latest Canon gear so I can't base my judgment on them. But for me, dollar for dollar, at today's prices for lightly used 1D IV's.... they are a bargain.


    Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
    RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    Wilt
    Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
    Wilt's Avatar
    39,008 posts
    Gallery: 1 photo
    Joined Aug 2005
    Belmont, CA
    Post has been last edited 11 days ago by Wilt. 2 edits done in total.
    Oct 06, 2017 08:57 |  #30

    Bassat wrote in post #18466761 (external link)
    I agree with a lot of what Alan (above) says. Going from aps-c to full frame will yield very little improvement in mid-aperture landscape results. I've had the Canon 10-18 and 10-22 lenses. Optically, they are essentially equivalent. .

    From the SAME lens, FF will indeed be able to extract 1.6x better detail resolution (per millimeter of sensor) because it is magnified by 1.6x less, to make the same print -- assuming both FF and APS-C have the same pixel pitch (same number of pixels per millimeter of sensor). But you generally will not be able to detect that with your EYE until you are up over 13x19" print size at the minimum. Smaller print sizes and the human eye is simply incapable of detecting better resolution of one vs. the other from usual viewing distance.


    You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
    Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

    LOG IN TO REPLY
    sponsored links
    (this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

    6,606 views & 10 likes for this thread
    switch from canon 60D to FULL FRAME
    FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras


    Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
    Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


    AAA

    Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

    COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

    POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
    made in Finland
    by Pekka Saarinen
    for photography-on-the.net
    Spent 0.00116 for 6 database queries.
    PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
    Latest registered member is medividedbyyou
    892 guests, 427 members online
    Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016