Some questions for Full Frame users (any model) with previous APS-C experience

I don't want to start another thread or a war between what's best between APS-C and Full-frame cameras. The questions are intended basically for all the people who currently own and use a full frame camera and who also have have experience, and owned or still own an APS-C.

1. You own a FF and use it intensively for your current work/art. Would you go back to frequently use an APS-C camera? If no, can elaborate a bit on your reasons why not.
2. Do you still own an APS-C? if yes, how often you still use the aps-c? If you don't own the APS-c, what's the reason for getting rid of it. (seems obvious but still want to know).
3. Based on your experience with both systems. Do you find any quality differences between the previous APS-C and the current FF? (I assume that most of the differences, if any, are perceived. No looking for scientific tests or long technical explanations about the quality differences).

I believe there is a perceived quality difference between the two systems and personally, in my case, after owning both systems for several years now, I would never go back to an APS-C system, unless I would have to for financial or health reasons.

The difference for me is such that I sold my APS-C system (now selling the last remaining lenses). Some people believe that a FF system is not worthy the money and that good images can be taken with any camera. I disagree and I believe there is a reason why more and more people when giving the opportunity, move into FF and once they see by themselves the differences, they barely ever look back.

Unexpressive wrote in post #15969842
I don't want to start another thread or a war between what's best between APS-C and Full-frame cameras. The questions are intended basically for all the people who currently own and use a full frame camera and who also have have experience, and owned or still own an APS-C.

1. You own a FF and use it intensively for your current work/art. Would you go back to frequently use an APS-C camera? If no, can elaborate a bit on your reasons why not.
2. Do you still own an APS-C? if yes, how often you still use the aps-c? If you don't own the APS-c, what's the reason for getting rid of it. (seems obvious but still want to know).
3. Based on your experience with both systems. Do you find any quality differences between the previous APS-C and the current FF? (I assume that most of the differences, if any, are perceived. No looking for scientific tests or long technical explanations about the quality differences).

I believe there is a perceived quality difference between the two systems and personally, in my case, after owning both systems for several years now, I would never go back to an APS-C system, unless I would have to for financial or health reasons.

The difference for me is such that I sold my APS-C system (now selling the last remaining lenses). Some people believe that a FF system is not worthy the money and that good images can be taken with any camera. I disagree and I believe there is a reason why more and more people when giving the opportunity, move into FF and once they see by themselves the differences, they barely ever look back.

With those two statements a flame war will occur

I have both and use each depending on the situation. My lens behave slightly differently on each body and I use that to my advantage when out shooting subjects.

I only just upgraded a couple months ago, after eight years on crop. While I tend to be as much a pixel-peeper as the next guy when I'm researching and buying gear, I will then go years just shooting/processing/pu​blishing and not really obsess over minor details of sharpness, etc.

So far, I definitely see a noticeable and worthwhile improvement for the type of images I shoot. I have always tended to use ISO 100 and a tripod as much as possible. But even those images often need heavy processing due to dynamic range, and the benefits of FF are significant there.

I think the upgrade in capabilities really hit me last week when I shot a sunset out my car window using ISO 2000 to get a hand-holdable shutter speed. I wouldn't have even bothered with anything above ISO 800 on crop. When I got home and processed the image with some moderate NR in ACR, it looked about as good as an ISO 200-400 exposure from my old crop bodies.

Without a doubt, there are some gearheads who spend 95% of their time fretting over specs and red L's and far too little time shooting worthwhile subjects. But on the other end of the spectrum, you also have a rather obnoxious contingent who reminds us ad nauseum that "it's the photographer, not the equipment." The truth is almost right in the middle. The photographer, the camera sensor, the lens, and the post-processing can all be bottlenecks in creating a quality image. If you feel your skills are reasonably well-developed, upgrading the equipment is likely to yield better results. I don't consider myself an expert at all, but I can say with confidence that the 6D is giving me better images in many situations than my 450D did.

I haven't sold off my 450D yet, and I probably won't, since it's not worth a whole lot anyway. But, to be honest, it's likely to sit on my shelf collecting dust just as an emergency backup if I'm ever without my 6D. I initially thought about going to a two-body setup (sticking my 70-200 on the 450D, since I use telephoto less often), but I don't think I can accept the IQ hit.

Unexpressive wrote in post #15969842
1. You own a FF and use it intensively for your current work/art. Would you go back to frequently use an APS-C camera? If no, can elaborate a bit on your reasons why not.
2. Do you still own an APS-C? if yes, how often you still use the aps-c? If you don't own the APS-c, what's the reason for getting rid of it. (seems obvious but still want to know).
3. Based on your experience with both systems. Do you find any quality differences between the previous APS-C and the current FF? (I assume that most of the differences, if any, are perceived. No looking for scientific tests or long technical explanations about the quality differences).

1. Not likely. Prefer DoF control of full frame, noise is better overall, the appearance of bokeh is indirectly changed by switching sensor sizes (due to framing) and I prefer the look of full frame bokeh better than crop sensor bokeh.

2. Yes I still have one, only because it isn't worth enough to sell it.

3. Image quality is different. Files are better at high ISO and higher resolution/detail overall for full frame IMO.

have you read this thread? Read post #8 it might fill in a few holes.

Canajun wrote in post #15970000
have you read this thread? Read post #8 it might fill in a few holes.

Thanks canajun for the reply. I read the other thread but rather than technical discussion or theoretical explanations, -that are plenty on the internet and every where- what try to do is gauge the experience of photographers (of any skill level) who currently own and use full frames in real life and who also have (or have had) experience with aps-c.
Is is more in line with a marketing research called the BBQ score, which measures how likely are people to recommend a company based on real experience in an informal setting/conversation, like a BBQ party.
I assume you own and use both systems, then your concise answers in very basic business English (to explain to my children tonight) are?

Thanks again for your interest!

I used APS-C from the original D30 till the 5D came out. I kept an APS-C, not because of the format but because of its pixel density, for my birding where I rarely had a long enough lens to fill the frame of the 5D and getting more pixels per duck gave me more reach and better bird pictures. For landscape and other types of shooting, where I can fill the frame with the desired composition, I prefer the FF - now a 5D2 . For birding and wildlife, I will get out the 7D. Before the 5D2 came out, I also used to shoot 4x5 for landscapes - now that really is FF (except to 8x10 shooters, that is ) If Canon makes the hypothetical FF with 46 MP, then that camera would have the same "reach" as the 7D and I would only need one camera again (like in the A2e days!)

FF not so important to me
i can live with the small compact camera such as the panasonic DMC-LX5
but i need to shoot macro photos and this means sharp images and good details
and day after day you will see yourself buying some L lenses

Unexpressive wrote in post #15969842
Some people believe that a FF system is not worthy the money and that good images can be taken with any camera. I disagree and I believe there is a reason why more and more people when giving the opportunity, move into FF and once they see by themselves the differences, they barely ever look back.

But good, even great images CAN be taken with any camera, its the truth, sorry.

Sure, one camera might be equipped to handle certain situations better then another, but that doesn't mean the lesser camera can't take a great picture in situations where its fully capable.

The fullframe vs apsc debate is overblown, especially now that several apsc cams are pretty much on par with fullframe in terms of absolute performance.

I've owned a t2i, a gh2, a 5d mark II, and now a 5d classic, and really, the differences are subtle and only come out when the limits are pushed. Its usually pixel peepers that notice miniscule differences that don't really matter anyways.

Honestly, I only have the 5d for when digital is the right tool, and I'm debating getting rid of it for a fuji X camera, because I know I would use that camera more. Medium format film is my preference.

I just ordered a 5D3 but will keep my 40D and the lenses I have for it, not worth selling and the extra "reach" can be handy at times. If I really see that I don't use my 40D at all anymore I'll have it converted to infrared. Or give it to my boy. Or use it in situations where I'd rather not risk the 5D3. Selling it makes little sense to me, I'd never get enough $ for it anyway, to me it's still worth what I paid originally.
I love my 40D.
I also still have my Minolta film camera that I bought when I was maybe 12

Unexpressive wrote in post #15969842
I don't want to start another thread or a war between what's best between APS-C and Full-frame cameras. The questions are intended basically for all the people who currently own and use a full frame camera and who also have have experience, and owned or still own an APS-C.

I have been shooting FF since the original 5d. I have always had a crop back-up.

1. You own a FF and use it intensively for your current work/art. Would you go back to frequently use an APS-C camera? If no, can elaborate a bit on your reasons why not.

I have the 40d as a back-up. I own it in case my 5d3 fails. the 40d collects dust.

2. Do you still own an APS-C? if yes, how often you still use the aps-c? If you don't own the APS-c, what's the reason for getting rid of it. (seems obvious but still want to know).
3. Based on your experience with both systems. Do you find any quality differences between the previous APS-C and the current FF? (I assume that most of the differences, if any, are perceived. No looking for scientific tests or long technical explanations about the quality differences).

let me answer that in another way. I would prefer the 5dc to the 7d.

I believe there is a perceived quality difference between the two systems and personally, in my case, after owning both systems for several years now, I would never go back to an APS-C system, unless I would have to for financial or health reasons.

same for me.

The difference for me is such that I sold my APS-C system (now selling the last remaining lenses). Some people believe that a FF system is not worthy the money and that good images can be taken with any camera. I disagree and I believe there is a reason why more and more people when giving the opportunity, move into FF and once they see by themselves the differences, they barely ever look back.

now there's a can of worms . FF owns hi ISO performance. that in itself is worth the price of admission to me. if I needed a teleconverter I would get a cropper with more pixels like the 7d.

Unexpressive wrote in post #15970032
Thanks canajun for the reply. I read the other thread but rather than technical discussion or theoretical explanations, -that are plenty on the internet and every where- what try to do is gauge the experience of photographers (of any skill level) who currently own and use full frames in real life and who also have (or have had) experience with aps-c.
Is is more in line with a marketing research called the BBQ score, which measures how likely are people to recommend a company based on real experience in an informal setting/conversation, like a BBQ party.
I assume you own and use both systems, then your concise answers in very basic business English (to explain to my children tonight) are?

Thanks again for your interest!

My apologies. I misread your question and no I do not own a full-frame.

The trouble with any argument in favor of crop cameras is that, if a 1.6x crop is good, why not go to a 2x crop like the 4/3 cameras? And then if 2x is good, why not just use a 6x crop Bridge camera?

If you can afford it, "Full Frame" 24mm x 36mm is the way to go. Just keep in mind that if you need lots of reach it can get VERY expensive.

Going the other way, you could also discuss the merits of 24mm x 36mm "Full Frame" vs 40.2mm x 53.7mm Hasseblad digital.... http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …d_H5D_60_DSLR_C​amera.html

$40,000 Hasselblad H5D-60 Medium Format DSLR

namtot wrote in post #15970083
But good, even great images CAN be taken with any camera, its the truth, sorry.

Sure, one camera might be equipped to handle certain situations better then another, but that doesn't mean the lesser camera can't take a great picture in situations where its fully capable.

It seems you're arguing with a point that no one is making, then. Everyone would agree that even a phone camera can take good pictures in the easiest of circumstances. As elements of the scene, like available light and dynamic range, become more challenging, the range of cameras capable of getting a great image narrows. Therefore, for people who frequently shoot challenging scenes, the following are true: a) a higher-end camera may be necessary (even FF, in some cases, like night landscapes), and b) the saying "it's the photographer, not the equipment" is bogus.