At what point do you want a full frame camera

Ok this is not another is better I know each tool has its place. Right now I do Portrait, corporate headshots, and I have done some work for publishing companies. I am looking at getting a second camera, right now I have a 50D, and so far I have not had a need for anything else. All the work I do is because people like my Pictures, and my work ethics. At what point do you need a full frame camera. I am not asking if the 5D Mark II is a better camera, I’m asking what it brings to the table that would benefit my customers. At what point do I need a full frame camera. What justifies the cost? I know that a 5D might make the customer feel I am more professional, but I don’t want to but the camera for that reason I want to buy a camera that gives me the ability to give my customers what they need and if I can get by with a 60D I don’t see the need for spending the extra money. I hope I am clear on my question. Please don’t post your opinions I am looking for people that have the knowledge and can give me a good answer to my question. At what point do I need a Full frame Camera?

Thanks for your help.

You never need FF. If what you have is working for you than upgrading will not make a huge difference. However, it is impossible to answer your question if you do not want to discuss what makes the 5D Mark II a better camera as it's those characteristics that would benefit your customers.

I stink at explaining my self I do want to know what makes the 5D a better camera, I have read a lot of the VS threads and the only thing I got out of it is that the IQ is better, well at what point does that better IQ show, if my customer wants an 8X10 are they going to see the differance. it the IQ not going to show until I get to poster size prints, and is there any other qualities about the %D that would benifite me.

How about when you need a shallow depth of field more than a crop can provide at the same focal length? What about less noise that a FF sensor usually provides?

pbisfun wrote in post #13752695
At what point do I need a Full frame Camera?

Thanks for your help.

Only when you are producing prints that can actually take advantage of the extra Image Quality, and those prints are passed on to your customers. If they are already very happy with what you're producing then I'm not sure what you will gain from going FF to begin with. You might want to upgrade to FF to satisfy yourself that you are attempting to give the best to your customers, but then again, who are you satisfying (gear lust maybe).

Customers don't care what you shoot with, they just care about the final result. If you feel going FF is the only thing that will give them what they want then by all means invest in FF. Otherwise, I wouldn't be concerned with the format.

Best Regards,

David

For me doing landscapes, I many times want the big wide scene. To attempt that with a cropper, you have to get into 10mm or so lens where distortion is very noticeable and there are big problems trying to use CPLs. With my FF and 17-40 lens...I can get the wide shot without the distortion and problems using a CPL.

pbisfun wrote in post #13752695
...right now I have a 50D...if I can get by with a 60D I don’t see the need for spending the extra money.

I would ask what you are going to get out of a 60D that your 50D isn't providing? Maybe you don't need a new body at all. Instead, spend the money on better glass like a dedicated portrait lens. YMMV!

Dave

If you are having good success with a 50D then the 60D might be a better choice (bang for the buck) as your second camera. I don't think the average customer gives a hoot which camera you use as long as you produce the same kind of images you represented as your typical work....

John

I dont agree with get just better glass or get just a better body.

You need both if you're looking for that quality. I think anyone who's actively doing new projects be it video or photo with their camera quickly find that you need everything for every situation. One or the other isn't enough (if you care about presentation that is, and I do).

From my experience with a 50L, it doesn't look so hot on my 60D compared to my regular non-L 50mm. The images a 50L produces on a 5D2 though...yum.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #13752778
How about when you need a shallow depth of field more than a crop can provide at the same focal length? What about less noise that a FF sensor usually provides?

To get the same framing, you would have to change your distance too, if you leave the FL alone. Otherwise you will have to crop the 5D2 image down to the same FOV as the crop view, giving you much less overall resolution to work with. If you get closer to your subject or change your FL, that produces the thinner DOF, but the former also changes your perspective as well. It could be a big juggling act for some folks depending on what they are shooting.

I never needed one, got mine to play around with one and to see if the reports of those who use them having auras is factual. While I can't see my own aura, I'm told I have one when I'm out and about with a FF body. When I'm out with my 7D, the only thing surrounding me is a foul odor, usually associated with a gas produced by eating beans.

You probably dont need full frame to impress clients as most dont know the difference, and if they do, they probably arent hiring you based on gear but performance. Get a full frame camera if you need one. For me coming from a background shooting film it drove me nuts that my lenses werent the same on a crop as they were on my film cameras. So I went full frame as soon as I could.

Pbisfun, I looked at your portraits which look classic and well done, but I would suggest you rent an FF for a week and answer your own questions. I'm not sure anybody can verbally answer what you need to see and feel directly.

MCAsan wrote in post #13752794
For me doing landscapes, I many times want the big wide scene. To attempt that with a cropper, you have to get into 10mm or so lens where distortion is very noticeable and there are big problems trying to use CPLs. With my FF and 17-40 lens...I can get the wide shot without the distortion and problems using a CPL.

This doesnt make sense to me. The 10-22 has less distortion on a crop body than the 17-40 does on a FF body...and CPL problems occur due to the wide FOV, not the focal length - they apply equally to the 17-40 on a FF.

The 10-22 on crop is actually a better lens than the 17-40 is on FF...that doesnt mean the other benefits of FF dont make it worthwhile, its just that from a strictly optical perspective, the 10-22 is superior to the 17-40 on their respective formats.

The 10-22 is a great lens and most of the time answers the UWA issue for (Canon's) crop cameras with L quality performance. Not a great help for the OP's portrait work, though
The key issue for the OP is in the print size or for the occasional client perhaps who only wants their eyes, but not their nose, in focus