Time to go FF?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13043266
I fully expect Canon to announce a dual FF/crop combination in the next year or so.

Hah, i was about to ask you if that was a joke... then I saw you quickly edited it and added the smiley face, lol

I would wait.

Nothing wrong with the 7D.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #13043282
Hah, i was about to ask you if that was a joke... then I saw you quickly edited it and added the smiley face, lol

Not so far fetched, jump over to the rumors section.

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=7877​11&page=74

OP,

dont go full frame. You'll hate the amazing skin tones, extra dynamic range, guaranteed sharpness straight out of camera with little post processing, excellent forgiving exposure metering, excellent high iso performance compared to your 7d, more shallow depth of field when you desire it, more megapixel for cropping capabilities. This is why I bought two 5dmk2's. I still use my 5dc equally as much

Your 7d has fps and cross sensor AF points that puts the 5dmk2 to shame. Otherwise the 5dmk2 IQ wise is quite a noticeable jump in IQ.

I wont wait for a 5dmk3 since it will debut probably sometime next year I benefit now using a 5dmk2. Even if the 5d3 comes out it'll be on a back order list and probably require new firmware to get rid of bugs.

I used my 5dmk2 and 5d classic at a drag strip with no issues with center point AF. No real problem tracking a fast car. Infact my IQ was substantially better using the two full frames compared to my 1dmk3 that I sold.

AlanU wrote in post #13043503
dont go full frame. You'll hate the amazing skin tones, extra dynamic range, guaranteed sharpness straight out of camera with little post processing, excellent forgiving exposure metering, excellent high iso performance compared to your 7d, more shallow depth of field when you desire it, more megapixel for cropping capabilities.

1. Skin tones have nothing to do with the size of the sensor, it's all processing
2. 1/5 of a stop more dynamic range is nothing amazing and unlikely to make a practical difference
3. I'll give you the sharpness one, the slightly higher resolution combined with the weak AA filter will get you that
4. Not sure what you mean by "forgiving exposure metering" but I assume you're alluding to the greater dynamic range, in which case refer to 2
5. I'll give you that one as well
6. It's not a huge difference and it swings both ways, you'll need to stop down further when you need that bit more depth of field (which is more likely)
7. In the case of the 5DII I'll give you that one, however this assumes you're using lenses with an equivalent field of view. If he uses his old lenses then the 7D still have that telephoto advantage

So in conclusion, if you need the better noise performance, sharper images and more cropping ability (assuming you're going to replace your lenses with equivalent ones) get the 5DII. If you want the extra reach, better AF, faster continuous shooting, greater depth of field, more lenses choices, and that all important pop up flash then stick with the 7D.

You have two options as I see it.

Go FF, less money on lens.
Go crop, more money on lens.

More money on lens means that you'll get to keep it when you do decide to go full frame, IF you don't buy EF-S lenses.

Camera bodies change all the time, lenses don't. Keep that in mind.

The Ran wrote in post #13043547
1. Skin tones have nothing to do with the size of the sensor, it's all processing
2. 1/5 of a stop more dynamic range is nothing amazing and unlikely to make a practical difference
3. I'll give you the sharpness one, the slightly higher resolution combined with the weak AA filter will get you that
4. Not sure what you mean by "forgiving exposure metering" but I assume you're alluding to the greater dynamic range, in which case refer to 2
5. I'll give you that one as well
6. It's not a huge difference and it swings both ways, you'll need to stop down further when you need that bit more depth of field (which is more likely)
7. In the case of the 5DII I'll give you that one, however this assumes you're using lenses with an equivalent field of view. If he uses his old lenses then the 7D still have that telephoto advantage

So in conclusion, if you need the better noise performance, sharper images and more cropping ability (assuming you're going to replace your lenses with equivalent ones) get the 5DII. If you want the extra reach, better AF, faster continuous shooting, greater depth of field, more lenses choices, and that all important pop up flash then stick with the 7D.

Thank you for elaborating. #1 you are correct. I should have mentioned skin texture and tonal quality.

I'm not certain if you've ever used a 5dmk2, 5d classic or 7d. I will say you can see a difference easily on a decent LCD monitor and especially on an IPS higher quality monitor.

If you've ever used a 5d or 5dmk2 its my experience that the metering is much more consistent in AV mode while riding EC. Recovering 1-2 stops is extremely useable on a 5dmk2.

If the OP had ever used a 5dmk2 for non fast action photography he/she would not be asking this question.

For the average 7D user I'd say they would see a major difference in IQ with their files. If they cant see a difference that is a blessing so stick with a 7d. After thoroughly testing a friends 7d I immediately sold my 1dmk3 and purchased my 2nd 5dmk2 after deciding the best suitable tool for me. I tried to love the 7D but couldn't tolerate the files is created.

I could never use an onboard flash. The limitation of a max sync speed of 1/250 with a low powered flash casting hard shadows is terrible. I couldn't ever imagine using an ND filter so I can shoot wideopen using an onboard flash either. I will carry a flash 100% of the time on my thinktank speed changer pouch. Thats just me...

If the op has never used the full frame body they have no reference between the two formats. Just think a person using a digital medium format camera is laughing at our pathetic RAW files the 7d and 5dmk2 creates.

Very likely my style I will not require a fast fps body. I'll gladly purchase another 1d 1.3 crop if I need speed.

The Ran wrote in post #13043265
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.

Why do you keep talking about this couple of centimetres thing?
What people care about is what's going on behind the point of focus, Doh!
i.e. Background = 60% (your figure btw)more creamy...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13043266
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.

, so there is obviously a practical difference, that's like saying this porsche is only faster because it allows you to accelerate faster, and brake later, otherwise there is no difference with a ford mondeo.

rhys216 wrote in post #13044490
, so there is obviously a practical difference, that's like saying this porsche is only faster because it allows you to accelerate faster, and brake later, otherwise there is no difference with a ford mondeo.

I thought it would be obvious that I meant "versus just cropping the ff to match the crop", but I guess not.

^^^
Have you sold off another 7D, or did you run out of room for your sig or something?

I'm holding out for the 5DmkIII just to see if things, like the auto focus has been improved. If not, then I'll just get a used 5DmkII.

But before anything though, I want to "earn" the 5DmkII, so I continue to shoot with my T1i.

I figured if people can get awesome results with the T1i, or even the xsi (see this http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157603744242729) then so can I.

I'm concentrating on more important things like working with light, and making sure my exposures and images are quality SOOC.

But I will go FF eventually, and won't look back when I do.

^^^
Yep, I'm switching out my D7K for a D700 next Saturday, however the D7K has served me very well for the short time I'v had it.
However it's true, you can't buy photographic talent, the below guy's work with his 500D looks more powerful to me than 90% of images taken by people shooting a 5Dii.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/soul2squeez/


And the guy does all that, while in a wheel chair, he's remarkable imo...

http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157603412131771

rhys216 wrote in post #13044928
^^^
Yep, I'm switching out my D7K for a D700 next Saturday, however the D7K has served me very well for the short time I'v had it.
However it's true, you can't buy photographic talent, the below guy's work with his 500D looks more powerful to me than 90% of images taken by people shooting a 5Dii.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/soul2squeez/


And the guy does all that, while in a wheel chair, he's remarkable imo...

http://www.flickr.com …/in/set-72157603412131771

Yeah Pollo is rad man. Not only are his pictures are rad, but he is a cool person. I've talked to him via flickr and basically he inspired me to up my game with the gear I already have.

I have free access to a 5d2 and enough money to buy one if I wanted one. I run around with the 7d.

The loss of reach has much more impact than the loss of control of DOF or whatever words you want to put it in. The difference just isn't that big. I placed a background object with text in my recent noise tests, see for yourself.

Plus, if you really want it you don't just want more blur. You want more beautiful blur. That is what a better lens gives you, the larger sensor camera just gives you more. But the larger sensor camera eats up your lens money.

If you are into portrait and you can already afford very good lenses, then it's time.