Contemplating Full Frame-edness

I was thinking down the road this is what I'd want (or now, if I won the lottery)

5D
Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6
Sigma 24-70/2.8
Canon 35/2
Canon 85/1.8
May upgrade to the 50/1.4
Plus everything I already own (not really interested in tele so I don't really need/want a 70-200/2.8)

Now I'm thinking if full frame is really WORTH it. I'm sure the 5D is an awesome camera. But it's really quite pricey. The number one reason I want full frame is this: WIDE ANGLE. 12mm on full frame is soooo dreamy. And the 24-70 is an awesome length for PJ-work on a full frame camera.

But now I'm thinking I could just invest in a REALLY WIDE prime for film, because honestly I wont take *THAT* many ultra wide shots. With my Drebel I have pretty much the same as the list above... except replace the Sigma 12-24 with a Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22.

10mm on 1.6x crop is *only* 16mm. I know 16mm is wiiide but considering the 12mm on full frame is just... wow.

What are your main reasons for going full frame? 1Ds/Mk2 owners and 5D owners please!

I don't really care for speed (I don't shoot sports and AI focus isn't really an issue for me). Low light capabilities are nice, but I'm happy with the sensor in the 300D. Build quality is another reason.

Thoughts?

Your thinking is not for me, but it may be just right for you. If I were going to spend that much money on an outfit I would either pay a bit more and get the 1D Mk2n or save some of that money for really nice glass by getting the 20D. By really nice glass I mean Canon's 10-22mm and 24-70L.

I have the 5D and all L glass...your right...it's dreamy.........don

Ah I found another reason for full-frame-edness lust. Viewfinder! I peeked at my friend's 10D and a 17-40L attached and Oooh'ed/Aaah'ed at how much larger the VF was.

The Drebel VF is really a postage stamp at the end of a dark tunnel. I could only dream to imagine how big a 5D is.

Makes manual focus for that Sonnar a lot easier =)

Might sound silly but i realy don't want FF. I guess it all depends on one's needs. If you really need a huge MP count then FF is worth the compromise. But for those such as myself who are fully satisfied with 8MP, I see no point in accepting the optical downside.
5D 16-35mm f/2.8
http://digitalcamera.i​mpress.co.jp/06_01/aut​h/toku1/60108002.jpg
5D 17-40mm f/4
http://digitalcamera.i​mpress.co.jp/06_01/aut​h/toku1/60108004.jpg

Check out the corners and edges. Even the EFS 10-22 delivers much better results on my 20D. FF? For my need? No thanks! Not about to accept such corner/edge performance any time soon. As for the viewfinder: i'm fully satisfied with 20D. I wear glasses and looking through the viewfinder of a Canon F1 (vw-s don't get any bigger than that) i was vey turned off (i don't like having to take of my glasses for every picture in order to view the entire frame.)

Seriously its just mainly what you are shooting. FF is great for Landscape and effect shots. With crop FOV you get "longer" reach....

Just all depends what you needs are.

Doesn't sound silly to not want FF - there are positives and negatives to each format. I'm not sure that the following is an accurate demonstration of the type of ultra-wide performance one would expect when matching their aperture properly to the situation, though.

5D 16-35mm f/2.8
http://digitalcamera.i​mpress.co.jp/06_01/aut​h/toku1/60108002.jpg
5D 17-40mm f/4
http://digitalcamera.i​mpress.co.jp/06_01/aut​h/toku1/60108004.jpg

Check out the corners and edges. Even the EFS 10-22 delivers much better results on my 20D. FF? For my need? No thanks! Not about to accept such corner/edge performance any time soon.

Shooting landscape/cityscape images with considerable depth at wide apertures has that effect - particularly at full open aperture, and especially when viewed at 100%. The Nikon at 12 mm shows similar effects, though to a somewhat lesser extent. But it also has a narrower field-of-view and has a deeper depth-of-field wide open than the 16-35 (partly due to the smaller aperture, and partly due to the smaller format).

I wear glasses also, and don't see that problem. Different strokes, I guess.

As I say over and over, there's some benefits to each format, just as there are advantages and disadvantages to medium and large format. Choose the format that best fits your desires.

APS and FF sensors both have their place.
I got my 5D for (a) w/a, (b) brighter viewfinder and (c) image size/quality.
Im sure the 30D (whatever) will close the gap on (c)

I'm wondering how much the current attraction of FF is based on image quality rather than angle of view. Once the pixel chase has finally run its course (when you can get a noiseless 15~20 mp on an APS chip), will there be any real market for a 5D mk III ?

I have both the 20D and 5D, I got the 5D to get my wide angles back... I have the 17-40 f/4L and the EF 20mm f/2.8 prime and lovin' it...

Not right. You just get a cropped image, it doesn't extend your reach or focal length!

I played around with the 5D yesterday for quite a while in the shop, and I'll have to say, i wasn't at all impressed. I've been hearing raves about the bright view-finder and the improved build, but what I saw and felt was viewfinder that's not much better than the 20D (perhaps a bit bigger, but not any brighter), and a build quality that was also comparable to the 20D.

Of course, my perspective might be a bit skewed because I primarily use a 1D Mark IIN, but I am used to going back and forth between the 1D and the 20D.

I didn't get a chance to test the image quality. I was in the shop to check out a lens, not the 5D. But since the salesman mounted the lens on a 5D, I took the opportunity to check it out as thoroughly as I could in the time I got to play with it.

It makes sense to me to upgrade to a 5D for wide-angle FOV and increased pixel count, but for view finder and build improvements, it's a wash in my opinion.

Mark

Just talking FF versus APS,
The true advantages of FF are
Getting your full wide angle capability (true it is at the risk of light fall-off and corner sharpness - not necessarily a problem) and especially with the best lenses (AKA 16-35/2.8L).
and larger or more pixels versus what is available on a smaller sensor.

That's about it.

I got my 1DsMkII because I wanted the wide angle capability. pixels were a secondary consideration. I also think the light fall off/vignetting and corner sharpness issue is not a problem for me. I do glamour and portraits and for these that characteristic of the lenses versus FF actually enhances the shot in my opinion.

Now the above said, other then wide angle I don't know if the 5D is worth it for most people. If you need the wide angle then of course it is. if not then I doubt it. In my case I have the 1DsMkII and all of the other features of this camera just make it WOW compared to anything else for me. The 5D is a step down to the point I decided it would not make a significantly better backup then my 10D would. I suppose if I lost my 1DsMkII and could not otherwise replace it the 5D would be quite acceptable, but these days I definately prefer the wide angle capabilities of a FF camera.

As to lens choices, your list looks good, except I would change the 85/1.8 for the 85/1.2L even though it costs considerably more. Or better get both.

Just my opinion,

Hellashot wrote:
Not right. You just get a cropped image, it doesn't extend your reach or focal length!

If you can fill the viewfinder with the same lens from further away with a 300D than with a 5D, then 'longer reach' is a fair shorthand to describe the practical results from the two sensor sizes. Even if this is not what is actually happening optically - covered in a hundred other threads.

Now that cropping has been introduced into the debate, can I remind that a 300D image has about a million more pixels than the same subject area cropped fom the middle of a 5D image using the same lens

To all those who complain about wide angle: did you ever hear about the EFS 10-22? It's edge/corner performance on the 350/20D is far better than that of the 16-35mm f/2.8 on the 5D. If you said your bought the 5D for better noise performance, DoF and resolution you would have made a better point.

Here are my thoughts, as well as my experience with my 5D, which I have had since Oct 2, 2005.

First, I don't think you ought to put the sigma 12-24 on the 5D. It WILL show softness at the edges more than say a Canon 16-35. The Canon 17-40 is actually showing itself to be very well matched with the 5D, and would be in the same range as far as aperture, and would produce far superior images. Also, with a 12mm lens, you'll have trouble keeping your feet out of the picture on a FF camera. I am not kidding.

The Sigma 24-70 is a very capable lens. I have read many good reviews of it, but have never handled one myself. ( I do own two Sigma lenses, so am not a Sigma bigot) I do believe that the Canon 24-70 f2.8L is widely recognized as a fantastic lens, and I keep mine mounted on my 5D as my "standard" lens.

Everyone knows that the Canon 35 and 85 are excellent lenses on any camera, and they are up to the challenge on FF.

I absolutely LOVE my 70-200f2.8 on my 5D. I thought it was an excellent lens on my 10D, but now I LOVE it.

I find that the folks making the most noise about light falloff and edge softness on a 5D are crop-sensor babies. That is, they grew up with them, and know nothing else, so they see the difference as a shortcoming. I personally see very little issue with any edges in my 5D shots, and on those few where corner light falloff is slightly noticable, it takes exactly a second to correct it in PS, so what's the big deal, anyway?

Just as in 35mm film cameras, and just like all the older generation of photographers have been saying since the advent of digital SLR's, the lenses are where the money goes, and where the quality shows. Lesser glass will show problems sooner than good glass does. The tougher the assignment, the more true that is.