trying to decide

Looking to aquire a ff camera. I was thinking of buying a used 5d2. I currently have a 60D. I enjoy shooting both landscape and widlife. Would I be better off selling my 60D and my 17-55 and 10-22 and purchasing a 5D3 and a 17-40 ?

The mandatory question. Whats your current gear not doing for you?

Yeah it looks like you've got a pretty nice kit already. But if you do decide to go down this route, will you miss the normal range? Some people do not mind a gap from 40mm to 70mm, but others do.

I don't think you can go wrong with the 5D3.

Post #2 is by no means even close to mandatory. Maybe if you were doing it for a business- but really- a bunch of BS.
So you are going from 10-55 mm for a range- on a crop to a 17-40 on a full frame ?

A 17-40 on a full frame is the same field of view as 11- 25 on a crop !

The math is simple- you multiply by 1.6 going from a full frame to a crop- so the other way- is to divide by 1.6 to see what that range on a full frame is similar to on a crop.

My initial thoughts are:Your proposed full frame setup is limiting. A 24-105 would be a better substitute- it's similar to 15-65 on a crop. or a 24-70

edit: didn't notice your signature and the gear listed there.. oops.

CHUCK A wrote in post #14759032
Looking to aquire a ff camera. I was thinking of buying a used 5d2. I currently have a 60D. I enjoy shooting both landscape and widlife. Would I be better off selling my 60D and my 17-55 and 10-22 and purchasing a 5D3 and a 17-40 ?

Are you drinking FF cool aid? You will be loosing range. The 70-200 will give you more reach for wildlife shooting on the 60D. The 10-22 is more than wide enough for landscape on a crop sensor

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14764476
Post #2 is by no means even close to mandatory.
edit: didn't notice your signature and the gear listed there.. oops.

Doh!

If you want to get an upgrade to a FF body then why not. A lot of people ask "what way is your gear limiting you" but I say if you want to then go for it. I got a 7D and 5D2 combo, not that the 7D was holding me back at all, but my 5D2 was used loads more than the 7D did, I prefer the look of FF.

I sold the 7D and 5D2 and got a 5D3 just after they came out and just WOW. The 5D3 is way better than the 5D2, but the 5D2 is still an excellent and very capable camera and if you're serious about a FF body there's a lot of bargains out there now. I added a 60D to my 5D3 cause I like having 2 bodies and I actually prefer the 60D to the 7D, I find it handles noise better than the 7D and it gives me a better IQ SOOC.

wayne.robbins wrote in post #14764476
Post #2 is by no means even close to mandatory. Maybe if you were doing it for a business- but really- a bunch of BS.
So you are going from 10-55 mm for a range- on a crop to a 17-40 on a full frame ?

A 17-40 on a full frame is the same field of view as 11- 25 on a crop !

The math is simple- you multiply by 1.6 going from a full frame to a crop- so the other way- is to divide by 1.6 to see what that range on a full frame is similar to on a crop.

My initial thoughts are:Your proposed full frame setup is limiting. A 24-105 would be a better substitute- it's similar to 15-65 on a crop. or a 24-70

edit: didn't notice your signature and the gear listed there.. oops.

while you say post #2 is BS your post is also BS. focal length and FOV is not everything. there is more to FF cameras that not having the 1.6X crop factor.

there is a different look and feel in the images you get from a FF camera over a crop and i think you would know that

take a picture with your 5D3 and 7D and crop them and tell me which holds up better?

5 bucks says the 10-22 performs better on the 60D than the 17-40 will on the 5D3. Take some pictures, pixel peep them, check the corners, get a load of that sweet, sweet softness/CA and get back to me

Brian_R wrote in post #14766773
while you say post #2 is BS your post is also BS.

..and what's so BS about asking a question regarding the OP's original post? Post#2 question is especially relevent since the OP hasn't answered it?

You can say what you want about all the dreamy aspect's of FF. Some get so caught up in equipment they forget to actually get out and shoot with equipment they already own.

Brian_R wrote in post #14766773
while you say post #2 is BS your post is also BS. focal length and FOV is not everything. there is more to FF cameras that not having the 1.6X crop factor.

there is a different look and feel in the images you get from a FF camera over a crop and i think you would know that

take a picture with your 5D3 and 7D and crop them and tell me which holds up better?

1; The question in #2 is BS,imo. I guess I should have been a little clearer. Everyone says it is a mandatory question.. Changing out gear- from one camera to another- or changing formats- well- a lot of people do it for no rhyme or reason. Some people want to change their setup just because they are looking for something different or want to try it- not necessarily because something is wrong. Often- it's they hear its better- and want to try it. It's not that their current gear is limiting in any respect. So, in my opinion, asking what someone's current gear is not doing for them- and stating that it is mandatory- well- that's BS. Pure and simple. Sometimes, people change out gear for the sake of changing it out. Nothing wrong- just wanted to try something else. OK - sometimes people do change gear out because of a perceived benefit. A lot more - well- they don't.
The point of the 1.6x conversion was to bring out the point that a 17-40 is actually pretty narrow range- on a full frame- nothing more. Let's say that you replaced that entire range [10mm-55 mm] from a crop- going to a full frame setup [17-40]- thinking it is quite similar in range - well, you'd be in for a little bit of an awakening. Sure, a 17-40 on a crop- is sufficient- but on a FF camera- it's, what , wide angle- more towards ultra wide? Not normal range though- is it. Sometimes, it's helpful to know how to convert between the two- and often- it's not that obvious. Was I attempting to talk him out of it- nope- point out something- yes.

BTW: I added a lot of gear lately. 5D3. 70-200 IS II. 24-105L. I didn't change out. I figured that there are strengths to each format- where they are better than the other. Which was better? Depends upon what you are doing. Extreme crops- 7D. Moderate crop or no cropping. 5D3. If I can do it with the 5D3-- I'll take out the 5D3. But the questions beg- was it going to L lenses, or the 5D3, or both ? Still sorting things out...

I think you will find this interesting. I'm math-minded. While the math suggests that when cropping- on a crop vs FF- that the crop will win- 7D vs 5D2 or 5D3. Math suggests 2.2 times as many pixels supporting it. I should notice the differences between crop and full frame- the loss of 1.6x. Maybe, I am not pixel peeping enough. Prior to the 5D3, I had the 7D/sigma 70-200 OS and a 17-50. While I liked the new functionality of the 70-200 on FF, I did not miss the longer reach as much as I thought I would. Almost to the point I would say- I didn't miss it at all. Should have- but didn't. The only exception- was extreme distances-like moon shots, maybe bif, wildlife. extreme. that's it. On the 7D, the 70-200 felt too long for indoors. 17-50 - about right- but short going outside. Together- OK combination. On the 5D3, the 24-105 combo is surprisingly comfortable. The 70-200 on the 5D3- useful- surprisingly different - useful- even inside.. So, yes- you get a different feel from full frame and a crop.

The OP is nicely equipped, except for the wider /normal end- being ef-s glass- as the only real issue. Going to a 5D2 / 5D3 will be a change of pace- all of his other glass will be like having new stuff. Personally, I would go 5D3 just because the AF is awesome and feels like I think it should be- for that kind of expense. The 5D2 has the AF that is more similar to my old Rebel T1i- adequate- but for 2K- I would want something more- better. If I could jump, and I was the OP, I would jump. Chances are he won't miss the crop advantages- the differences in FOV, the extra perceived range. I thought I would- but reality was I didn't. The best solution- I think -is to keep both bodies- at least for a while- in case you feel that you need it- if you can. OK- yes- at time- I think about going 5D3 only- every now and again- but for now- I'll keep both.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14766785
5 bucks says the 10-22 performs better on the 60D than the 17-40 will on the 5D3. Take some pictures, pixel peep them, check the corners, get a load of that sweet, sweet softness/CA and get back to me

+1 if your gonna go ff then skip the 17-40 and look at the 16-35 II

If you have the $ and your family/dogs/cats aren't going to be homeless or starve if you spend it for a 5Dii or 5Diii, why not get it if you want it? The big question here, as others have noted, is mainly in what lens(es) you might want/need. The focus so far has been on wide angle, with some good comments about the limitations of the 17-40L compared to some of the alternatives. You've gotten some good suggestions there, so how about the long end for wildlife? Your 70-200 will be 1.6X "shorter" (with regard to field of view) on the full frame versus your 60D, so you might find that it's much more limiting for wildlife shots than you might expect. Have you thought about the need for a longer lens (300mm or longer just to match the FOV of your 200 on the crop sensor) as part of the upgrade package? A lot of people love the 300Ls (f/2.8, pretty high priced; f/4, not so expensive; both with IS), and there are plenty of proponents (including me) for the 400 f/5.6L (not IS, however) as giving great "bang for the buck" in terms of IQ versus price. If you got the 5Dii used instead of the 5Diii the $ savings would probably be just about what you'd need for one of these longer Ls.