Time to go FF?

The shallow depth of field with the same lens is not as huge a difference as people make it out to be, it's only 60% narrower. Now if you were comparing a S95 to a 7D then you'd have a point. In fact the only real time you would really need that difference in depth of field is when you need more of it, say for product photography for example or macros. Perspective is hardly a valid point as you can just use an equivalent lens, and even if you did use the same lens it's still not a huge difference.

The 5DII with the 24-105 kit would fit nicely into your gear. The only thing missing would be a fast prime to take advantage the FF DOF. I'd go with the 24L, as it works really well on FF or crop, in my opinion.

The Ran wrote in post #13042244
The shallow depth of field with the same lens is not as huge a difference as people make it out to be, it's only 60% narrower. Now if you were comparing a S95 to a 7D then you'd have a point. In fact the only real time you would really need that difference in depth of field is when you need more of it, say for product photography for example or macros. Perspective is hardly a valid point as you can just use an equivalent lens, and even if you did use the same lens it's still not a huge difference.

I guess your definition of huge is different to mine.
Huge to me means, being able to shoot an F2.8 Zoom on FF as if it's a F1.8 Zoom on a crop.
Imagine how much people would be prepared to pay for a 24-70 F1.8 or a 70-200 F1.8?

And let's not forget most decent lenses are geared towards FF focal lengths...

Edit:

Or even better being able to shoot an F1.8 prime like it's an F0.8 lens, remind me how much F1.2L lenses cost again?

f/2.8 to f/1.8 might sound huge, but it is still just a 60% difference in depth of field. If you can get a 2cm depth of field what difference is 1cm more going to make? Likely nothing practical. As for an f/1.8 zoom, it would be awesome for it's low light abilities, not it's slightly narrower depth of field. Also the smaller sensor and thus image circle required allows for faster constant aperture zooms, just look at the ones available for 4/3s with a constant f/2 (and I think there's one even faster, or a non-constant that starts off faster).

It's time.

The Ran wrote in post #13042376
f/2.8 to f/1.8 might sound huge, but it is still just a 60% difference in depth of field. If you can get a 2cm depth of field what difference is 1cm more going to make? Likely nothing practical. As for an f/1.8 zoom, it would be awesome for it's low light abilities, not it's slightly narrower depth of field. Also the smaller sensor and thus image circle required allows for faster constant aperture zooms, just look at the ones available for 4/3s with a constant f/2 (and I think there's one even faster, or a non-constant that starts off faster).

You obviously haven't been ruined by FF yet, or you dislike bokeh (yes these people exist)...

rhys216 wrote in post #13042423
You obviously haven't been ruined by FF yet, or you dislike bokeh (yes these people exist)...

I assume you're using bokeh to refer to a narrow depth of field, because I do actually have an interest in the appearance of the out of focus areas (and thus why one of my favourite lenses is also the best performing in this area). I also like a narrow depth of field when it's appropriate, and I don't mind it when shooting wide open in low light, but I'm not one of these people that obsesses over it.

For those that want a tutorial on sensor size issues:

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …al-camera-sensor-size.htm

rhys216 wrote in post #13042423
You obviously haven't been ruined by FF yet, or you dislike bokeh (yes these people exist)...

Bokeh is almost all a result of the lens, not the body.... Just so we are clear.

How is 60% not a HUGE difference..?

The 5D2 isn't far from the 7D here in Sweden it's about 33% more expensive.
However i found a store where one can buy a 580EX2 for half the price if one buys the 5D2.

I'm tempted, but i want a better AF and metering system

1d MKIV anyone? lol, JK.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #13043210
How is 60% not a HUGE difference..?

Because it's not in the case of depth of field. A 60% price increase on a car is huge, a couple centimetres more on your narrow depth of field shots isn't. The only time it does become relatively huge is also when it doesn't matter, when you already have a large depth of field.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #13043210
How is 60% not a HUGE difference..?

You gain it at the wide end, you lose it at the long end... FF is indeed a give/take decision. You get the thinner DOF because you have to use a longer FL or move closer (and change your perspective) with the FF, otherwise there is no difference.

There are advantages to going FF, but as long as one is aware of what they give up in relation to what they gain, then the decision is a good one.

I fully expect Canon to announce a dual FF/crop combination in the next year or so.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #13043216
1d MKIV anyone? lol, JK.

I'd be happy with a 7D metereing and AF but a 1D shutter in a full frame body.