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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 02 Dec 2012 (Sunday) 08:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Upgrading 50D to full frame, what will surprise me most?

 
lsuber
Senior Member
502 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
     
Dec 05, 2012 12:10 |  #31

I know this isn't a CF/SD card thread, but I thought I'd toss in one other thought which is completely independent of the camera being used: the speed at which you can trasfer images off of the card is different between those two types. That likely doesn't really mean anything to most of us, but to some people that shoot a lot in the field and need to empty a card quickly to get it back in the camera, it may matter. Otherwise, its moot.

I went from a 40D to a 5D and then a 5D2. It's hard to describe the difference until you've experienced it, but there definitely is one. The move from 1.6X to FF takes a little bit of getting used to. As stated previously, lenses are different at full frame. You're using corners of lenses that you haven't used before on crop bodies, so one with corner softness becomes more pronounced. I noticed a difference in the AF systems between the 40D and FF models. The obvious things are noise levels, etc are much improved.


Canon 5D Mark II | 28-70mm f/2.8L USM | Σ 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS | 85mm f/1.2L USM | Σ 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM | 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro | LR5 | PS CS5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
d.tek
Senior Member
297 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Oct 2008
     
Dec 05, 2012 12:19 |  #32

I'm in the same boat really. I'm looking to upgrade to a 5D2 or a 6D (not certain yet). But what I'm aiming for is the better ISO performance and shallower depth of field (because it's fancy :P).

Reading these replies makes me believe I will be happy with the purchase.


Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roroco
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 05, 2012 12:39 |  #33

amfoto1 wrote in post #15315864 (external link)
1. 24-105 is a stop slower than your current walk-around 17-55. In some respects, a 24-70/2.8 would be a more comparable substitute. But, of course, that's bigger, heavier and more expensive than the 24-105.

Just on this point. A FF also has an extra stop of light than a crop body. So, his 17-55 f/2.8 will be equivalent to a 27-88 f/4 on a FF. The 24-105 will be a good match if he really likes the crop lens performance now. Especially, since you also get the benefit of going higher on the ISO side.

I am looking at the 5dmkIII as well and I am debating between the 24-105 and the 24-70. It is a hard decision, but I do like IS for video.


Roger
Gear List: 5D Mark III -- 50mm f/1.4 -- 85mm f1.8 -- 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro -- 17-40mm f/4L -- Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC -- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II -- 2.0X III TC

Lights -- Alien Bees B800 -- 580 EX II -- Yongnuo YN-560 II & YN-568EX -- Mother Nature -- RF 602s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 553
Joined Mar 2011
     
Dec 05, 2012 12:45 |  #34

d.tek wrote in post #15329695 (external link)
I'm in the same boat really. I'm looking to upgrade to a 5D2 or a 6D (not certain yet). But what I'm aiming for is the better ISO performance and shallower depth of field (because it's fancy :P).

Reading these replies makes me believe I will be happy with the purchase.

you will.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,114 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5889
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Dec 05, 2012 13:58 |  #35

Roroco wrote in post #15329762 (external link)
Just on this point. A FF also has an extra stop of light than a crop body. So, his 17-55 f/2.8 will be equivalent to a 27-88 f/4 on a FF. The 24-105 will be a good match if he really likes the crop lens performance now. Especially, since you also get the benefit of going higher on the ISO side.

I am looking at the 5dmkIII as well and I am debating between the 24-105 and the 24-70. It is a hard decision, but I do like IS for video.

I don't get this comment? Your lens comparison has everything to do with your equivalent view and DOF though.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roroco
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Dec 05, 2012 15:46 |  #36

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15330066 (external link)
I don't get this comment? Your lens comparison has everything to do with your equivalent view and DOF though.

A FF sensor is a larger sensor. Much more light hits it than does a crop sensor. That equivalent is one stop. Just like you multiple the focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent focal length of a lens from full frame to crop, you also should add a stop to the speed of the lens.

At least that is how I understand it.


Roger
Gear List: 5D Mark III -- 50mm f/1.4 -- 85mm f1.8 -- 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro -- 17-40mm f/4L -- Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC -- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II -- 2.0X III TC

Lights -- Alien Bees B800 -- 580 EX II -- Yongnuo YN-560 II & YN-568EX -- Mother Nature -- RF 602s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brianbar
Senior Member
397 posts
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Canada
     
Dec 05, 2012 16:49 |  #37

For a lot of people the built-in flash its not important, I've thought about upgrading from the 50D to a FF as well, but I know I would miss the built-in flash.
When you just need that little bit of fill flash, the pop up flash is all I need.
Some say they don't want video, so people say don't use it then, it's the same with a built-in flash, if you don't want it don't use it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nhglamour
Member
154 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
Dec 05, 2012 17:05 |  #38

I think the brokeh is nicer on a FF than a crop. I will be honest, I do miss the reach on a crop body.


5D3 with grip | 7D with grip| 24-70 f2.8 L USM | 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM | 100 f2.8 L IS USM Macro | 24 f1.4 L USM II | Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE | 600EX-RT | 580EX | ST-E3 | ST-E2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markd102
Senior Member
Avatar
649 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 85
Joined May 2011
Location: S/E Victoria, Aus
     
Dec 05, 2012 17:08 |  #39

ender78 wrote in post #15315611 (external link)
Play around with the higher ISOs. You will be amazed by the low noise at ISO 1600/3200/6400

This was the biggest thing for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,114 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5889
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Dec 05, 2012 19:06 |  #40

Roroco wrote in post #15330495 (external link)
A FF sensor is a larger sensor. Much more light hits it than does a crop sensor. That equivalent is one stop. Just like you multiple the focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent focal length of a lens from full frame to crop, you also should add a stop to the speed of the lens.

At least that is how I understand it.

No, more light does not hit the sensor, the same amount of light hits each part of the sensor as any other sensor size. If you shine a flashlight onto a small rectangle and a large rectangle, and look at the light at the centermost 1cm x 1cm square, both receive the same amount of light. Just less of the flashlight circle gets cropped out by the larger rectangle.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vishnu
Senior Member
Avatar
703 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Houston, TX, USA
     
Dec 05, 2012 20:54 |  #41

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15331259 (external link)
No, more light does not hit the sensor, the same amount of light hits each part of the sensor as any other sensor size. If you shine a flashlight onto a small rectangle and a large rectangle, and look at the light at the centermost 1cm x 1cm square, both receive the same amount of light. Just less of the flashlight circle gets cropped out by the larger rectangle.

I would think that the answer is a little more complex than that. While the amount of light falling on a given part of the sensor is the same, the amount of light hitting the photosites would be larger in a fullframe because of the larger photosites. In other words the percentage of photosites area/total area on the sensor is larger in fullframe. This difference is somewhat reduced by using microlenses which focus a large part of the light onto the photosites, but still a 1-2 stop difference exists between fullframe and crop. This would be seen as lower noise at the same iso in full frame.


Learning to artistically capture the world through my lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,114 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5889
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Dec 05, 2012 21:00 |  #42

vishnu wrote in post #15331662 (external link)
I would think that the answer is a little more complex than that. While the amount of light falling on a given part of the sensor is the same, the amount of light hitting the photosites would be larger in a fullframe because of the larger photosites. In other words the percentage of photosites area/total area on the sensor is larger in fullframe. This difference is somewhat reduced by using microlenses which focus a large part of the light onto the photosites, but still a 1-2 stop difference exists between fullframe and crop. This would be seen as lower noise at the same iso in full frame.

That has nothing to do with aperture of the lens however. The only thing that this more complex description would do is improve the noise performance a bit.

Let's put it this way. Put an APS-C crop into manual mode, pop a 50mm f1.2L on it, set exposure to ISO 1600, f1.2, shutter 1/640th and take a shot. Do the same exact thing on a FF, and you get the same basic exposure on both. The FF doesn't expose a full stop more. The view would be wider, definitely, and the DOF will appear thinner, and possibly the noise levels will be a bit better, but that is it.

That is how Roroco made it sound with his comments, and that is what I was questioning.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vishnu
Senior Member
Avatar
703 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Houston, TX, USA
     
Dec 05, 2012 21:36 |  #43

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15331682 (external link)
That has nothing to do with aperture of the lens however. The only thing that this more complex description would do is improve the noise performance a bit.

Let's put it this way. Put an APS-C crop into manual mode, pop a 50mm f1.2L on it, set exposure to ISO 1600, f1.2, shutter 1/640th and take a shot. Do the same exact thing on a FF, and you get the same basic exposure on both. The FF doesn't expose a full stop more. The view would be wider, definitely, and the DOF will appear thinner, and possibly the noise levels will be a bit better, but that is it.

That is how Roroco made it sound with his comments, and that is what I was questioning.

Agreed on all counts.


Learning to artistically capture the world through my lens.

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

7,534 views & 0 likes for this thread
Upgrading 50D to full frame, what will surprise me most?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rondimar
1071 guests, 356 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.