Man, full frame: Talk me off the ledge?!

The Dark Knight wrote in post #15065206
I thought I got over it, but that FF bug is biting me again. I purchased a brand new 60D last month and it's been great and definitely giving me the type of pictures I can be happy with right now.

But the recent 5D Mark II price reduction, along with the fact that I could return my 60D with no restocking for another 3 days (checked with the seller), is REALLY tempting me.

What's holding me back obviously is price. Spending an extra $1000, which is what this would cost if I return the 60D and pick up the 5D body only, is already scraping the limit of my budget comfort.

Frankly, you simply don't have the budget to do full frame right. Not yet, anyway.

You might think that, but to be honest, your 60D can shoot fabulous portraits. In fact, I'd argue that with the sole exception of group portraits where you want to isolate the subjects from the background but still have to use a relatively wide angle (or relatively large distance), your 60D will shoot better portraits than a 5D2. Or, at least, make it easier to achieve the same quality.

Why? Because with your 60D, you have a wider spread of autofocus points in the frame, and they're all cross-type. If shooting portraits is your thing, you're probably looking to nail the focus on a specific area of your subject, or you're setting your depth of field deep enough that it doesn't matter.

In the former case, you're going to want to shoot in servo mode (because you and/or your subject are moving, even if a little) and use the appropriate focus point in the frame to cover the target area of your subject. That's where the better frame coverage of your autofocus points comes in handy, as does the fact that they're all cross-type.

In the latter case, the subject isolation capability of full frame winds up doing you no good anyway.

And it's not like the 60D is lacking in resolution, either, at 18 megapixels. You'll be able to print to 36x24 all day long, even at ISOs as high as 3200 (and even 6400 if you do your part to nail the exposure and are careful in postprocessing).


So what I'd do is keep the 60D and get some really good lenses for it. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS is a killer lens for these 18 megapixel crop cameras, and costs about $620 (Amazon's price). The only advantage the Canon 17-55 has over it is full time manual focus. The Sigma is reportedly even sharper than the Canon at the center of the frame, even wide open. You can pick one up used on the buy/sell forums here on POTN for about $525.


If you do find yourself at the point where you can really afford to go full frame properly (meaning, you can afford the lenses you'd need to get the maximum advantage from it), you can then rent a body and lens to see if it really is for you. If you really like it, you can sell your crop-specific lenses for what should be a relatively small loss. But by that time, you may have enough experience with your 60D and postprocessing that you find that full frame's siren song no longer tugs on you the way it does currently.

That's the case for me, as it happens. For the longest time, I'd intended to go full frame, but the camera was never really right. Not until the 5D3 came out. But before that happened, the 7D came out. For me, that was a game changer. There is nothing it doesn't do really well, and I've been able to get spectacularly good (in my humble opinion, of course) shots with it. Suddenly, the prospect of moving to full frame is no longer compelling, because my gear is capable of doing whatever I ask of it, as long as I do my part.

Use really good, sharp glass and use a really good postprocessor (such as Lightroom), and there will be very little you won't be able to pull off with your 60D. That includes extraordinarily detailed landscapes, stunning portraits, spectacular action, compelling candids, and amazing macro. The current generation of crop cameras is so good that except for very rare situations, it really isn't the camera that's the limiting factor anymore -- it's the photographer, the lens, or the light.


One last thing: if full frame's image quality advantage really were that great, then everyone here would be singing its praises. And yet, the opinions are very mixed. That should tell you something.

Don't forget you'd need to budget for a flash as well if you went full frame. You did mention you like to take pictures of people.

i wouldnt get a 5d2. get a 6d . or get a d600.

Also your 60d is fine. use it and save till u can get a 5d3 like me. i ave a 400d and go look at my flickr. some shots are comparable to peoples 5d3 shots.

photography is 90% down to the person behind the camera. never forget that. a 60d will still produce u shots that u are 100% capable of producing.

Invertalon wrote in post #15065513
I won't go back to crop only, but they are very useful for getting more reach with telephotos. Honestly that is probably the only benefit along with cheaper prices.

well, lots of folks want shallow DOF, but lots of OTHER folks want the opposite.

that's the only REAL reason to decide format, as it's a matter of optics that can't be overcome via technology.

Less DOF? easy, adjust apparture up to gather less light. want more DOF? sorry, , the max apprture u can have is what is stated in the specs of the lens!

I honestly can't tell the difference in image quality between FF and crop.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=913638

jonneymendoza wrote in post #15068719
Less DOF? easy, adjust apparture up to gather less light. want more DOF? sorry, , the max apprture u can have is what is stated in the specs of the lens!

So as to avoid any confusion, note that most people use the term "more" and "less" with respect to depth of field in the opposite way of how you're using them here. Which is to say, "more" DOF (i.e., more depth of field) is generally regarded to mean that more of the shot is in sharp focus, and "less" implies the opposite of that.

I like to avoid that probably by saying "shallower" DOF and "deeper" DOF.

I think most here understand what you're saying here, and you're right: you can always get a deeper DOF by narrowing your aperture, but how shallow you can go is going to be limited by how wide you can open the aperture, and that's determined by your lens. Full frame cameras give you about 1 1/3 stops shallower DOF than crop cameras when the apertures and angles of view are equalized (e.g., f/1.4 for both cameras, and 50mm on the crop camera and 80mm on the full frame camera).

Usually that DOF difference isn't a deal breaker, but there are occasions when it can be, and for those rare occasions there is no substitute for full frame.

I am going ff very soon, kinda waiting on the 6d real life results, and then that or 5dii. I have spent hours looking at pics on here, and this is the bottom line. There are about 10-15% of shots in the 5dii thread that can not be duplicated, or at least I have not really seen (I am not arguing, this is my "feel") on the 7d thread in regards to the "feel" of the image. Like anything else, once something gets soo good, you start paying in heavy increments for minor benifits, this is the case here. I can buy a 5diii tomorrow and not be affected, but i am purposely being frugal as possible in this hobby as i know how hobbies go and what the real world gain of the money spent is. It sounds to me like the op should be enjoying his 60d and be out shooting or doing side work rather than needing to be talked off the ledge of financially sacrificing himself for a slightly better camera.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #15068719
Less DOF? easy, adjust apparture up to gather less light. want more DOF? sorry, , the max apprture u can have is what is stated in the specs of the lens!

smaller apertures are fine... IF you have surplus light.

there's a reason street shooters like small sensors.

aximrocks wrote in post #15068748
I honestly can't tell the difference in image quality between FF and crop.

you're in the wrong forum!
or at the very least the wrong thread

watt100 wrote in post #15068886
you're in the wrong forum!
or at the very least the wrong thread

Full frame gives you shallower depth of field and 1 stop ISO improvement, but you lose the reach. Check out the "5Dii vs 7D for landscaping" thread and compare the full res images. IMO, there's hardly any difference in IQ. I'd love to be proven wrong, show me the proof please.

aximrocks wrote in post #15069002
Full frame gives you shallower depth of field and 1 stop ISO improvement, but you lose the reach. Check out the "5Dii vs 7D for landscaping" thread and compare the full res images. IMO, there's hardly any difference in IQ. I'd love to be proven wrong, show me the proof please.

I can't prove you wrong. I'm just saying this thread is for lovers of full frame models, especially considering the OP wants FF for low light and portraits so who am I to talk him off the precipitous financial ledge of buying expensive cameras and lens

ride5000 wrote in post #15068830
there's a reason street shooters like small sensors.

Actually street shooters love ff sensors and rangefinders

It just really depends on what you are doing. If you plan to print really big prints then it would be worth doing. This could be for portrait or landscapes of course. If you need the wider field of view you get from full frame, and you feel it is worth the difference because you can save money on glass on the wide end where you shoot, then it would make sense as well.
But what I've found most people are most impressed with are the concept of the shallow depth of field and the better color gradation of the full frame cameras. Yet most of these issues can be easily compensated for. For example, on my 7D, shooting at 35mm at f1.4 at 6 ft is very close to shooting 50mm f1.8 at 6 ft on a full frame.
Now consider what you are giving up. The Canon 55-250 gives you a very sharp reach for $200 or so. To match that on a full frame, you would need to get something like the Canon 100-400 for about $1500.
A lot of what i see has to do with images that are straight out of the camera as jpegs. When comparing RAW images, there is a lot less of a difference. That has more to do with the algorithms used to make the jpegs in-camera. Here, you can use the picture style editor to create a style that you are happy with.
I occasionally go through the same thing. But then I realize that most of my shots are going to end up being viewed on facebook or flickr with crappy downsizing and/or will be viewed on non-color-managed broswers and the screens of friends and family which are most certainly not calibrated. All that additional benefit of the full frame sensor at that point is totally lost. So I spend the extra money on lenses.

aximrocks wrote in post #15069002
Full frame gives you shallower depth of field and 1 stop ISO improvement, but you lose the reach. Check out the "5Dii vs 7D for landscaping" thread and compare the full res images. IMO, there's hardly any difference in IQ. I'd love to be proven wrong, show me the proof please.

This sums it up for me. If I want to shoot wide and fast (24L), I'll use the 5D. If I want to narrow, I'll use the 60D. Everything in between is a tossup.