NeonStar wrote in post #16235321Do any of you have any systems like this and do you ever feel like you are off balance or lopsided in someway?
Heck yes and heck no!
Yes, I have a system with different formats. No it doesn't make me feel "off balance or lopsided" in any way.
In fact, just the opposite. The two formats complement each other very nicely! I deliberately chose APS-C 1.6X crop with FF, rather than 1.3X APS-H and FF, because I wanted the greater differential between the two formats.
For most of my shooting I use a pair of 7D. But I also have a 5DII. These particular models complement each other very nicely.
At one time I used several 50D alongside 5DII and there were a few minor differences that never really were a problem, though initially I thot they might be.... For example the image erase button of one is in the same location as the image playback button on the other. The row of buttons on the top were a little different, too. The 50D also used a different battery than 5DII.
A 5D classic is most closely complemented by a 20/30D, though 40/50D are pretty close too. A 60D (and, it appears, 70D) would be nicely complemented by a 6D. As mentioned already, 5DII and 7D seem a pretty natural fit. 5DIII and 7D would be fine together, too. Eventually I imagine 7D Mark II and 5DIII will complement each other very nicely, as well.
It's much like the old days of film, when many of us had different formats for different purposes. At one point I used 35mm, medium format (70mm wide film mostly known as "120/220") and large format (4x5 inch and 5x7 inch sheet film), all at the same time and serving different purposes. With today's DSLRs it's in many ways much easier. Now, for the large part, I can share lenses between 7D and 5DII (only have a few "crop only" lenses). Back in the days of film you had to have lenses and other accessories for each system. There was very little interchangeability. My DSLRs also share memory cards, batteries, chargers, and of course other accessories such as filters, flashes, tripods, etc.
The 7D and 5DII handle so similarly, control layouts are very similar, as are menus and many functions, that it's no problem switching back and forth between them. In fact it's far easier than changing formats back in the days of film, since the cameras and lenses then often had wildly different specifications and control methodologies.
I tend to use the 7D for rapid action/sports shooting, where the 5DII isn't so great. I'll also generally use the croppers for other longer lens work, wildlife and such. The crop cameras allow me to be much more mobile... For example I can move a lot faster with a handheld 300/4 IS on a 7D, than I can with a 500/4 IS on my 5DII plus a tripod (or at least a monopod) to put them on. I ain't gettin' any younger, either... so any weight savings is much appreciated, too!
But for anything I want or need to print really large (upwards of, say, 16x24" or maybe 20x30")... or if shooting in low light... or shooting something where the larger viewfinder of the FF might give a better feel for depth of field... or wanting to use smaller apertures for greater depth of field with less risk from diffraction (at any particular print/image size)... I'll use the full frame camera.
I find I shoot about a 10 to 1 ratio.... About 10X as many images with crop, as compared to FF. Partially that's because I sometimes use the high frame rate of the crop cameras, but rarely take the FF out of single frame mode (which isn't all that fast anyway).
If I were only shooting full frame, I would have felt a lot of pressure to upgrade to the 5DIII for it's much improved AF system (among other things). But as the 5DII still meets the needs I throw at it well and I am able to use 7D for other things where a 5DII doesn't excel, I have not bothered to upgrade yet. Someday I will, but I'm in no rush and even when I do I certainly will continue using both formats.
If I could only have one camera, it would still be a cropper... That's because of what I shoot. It's more action/sports, wildlife, and other long lens work. I do a lot less scenic, cityscape, landscape, seascape, wide lens work (though some ultrawide lenses for croppers are darned good, such as the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24). I also don't do a lot of low light shooting (though crop cameras have progressed a lot with higher ISO capabilities and a fast lens is a fast lens, no matter what format you put it on). And portraiture and macro shooting, both of which I do a moderate amount of, really can be done with either format (though I have a bit of a preference to use FF). Of course, for other folks it might be the exact opposite. For their usage, FF might make more sense.
FF is also generally more expensive to shoot with. Mostly it's because a lens kit for crop can be smaller, lighter and potentially less expensive. FF also generally produces bigger image files... and that might call for bigger memory cards and hard drives, plus more powerful computers and softwares to work with the files (granted, FF doesn't always mean bigger files).
And FF has a bit less selection of lenses. Crop cameras can use both FF compatible and crop-only lenses. FF can only use FF compatible.... though there still are plenty to choose among in an extensive, well-established system such as Canon's (it's sort of ironic... this is thanks in part to Canon being a system with deep roots in film).
You can crop a 5D3 + 100-400 image to a 7D + 400mm equivalent and the ff image is still better.
There is simply no place for crop camera once you own a capable ff body such as a 5D3.
Sorry, but this is quite incorrect. The 7D's sensor has much higher density of pixel sites than 5DIII. It "puts more pixels on target". In fact, 7D has over 54,000 sites per square millimeter, while 5DIII has roughly half that or about 25,600 per square mm. If you crop a 5D3 image to the same dimensions as a 7D image, you will end up with an image that's less than 8.5MP, vs 18MP with the 7D. That's a lot of data loss. Now, the larger sites of 5DIII produce greater sharpness and accuity, partially because they don't require as strong an AA filter as the more crowded sensor of 7D, probably also because they tend to have less "cross talk" thanks to lower operating temps and more physical separation between them, so this isn't exact. You don't get a full 1.6X increase. But in reality with the 7D you get something between 1.2X and 1.4X "free teleconverter" effect compared to the FF camera. In other words, you get greater magnification or "reach", with no loss of light as would occur if using an actual teleconverter of the same strength on a 5DIII. This assumes too, that the teleconverter's optics would be absolutely perfect... That the extra glass between lens and camera would cause absolutely no loss of resolving power (though some are darned good, unfortunately there is no such thing as a "perfect" TC).
It really comes down to shooting needs... whether a particular format might be better for one's purposes than the other. Or if one might have use for both.