Learning curve from crop to full frame

So I was shooting crop for about 4 years before switching to full frame recently with my purchase of the 6D. I'm thrilled with the obvious benefits of increased clarity and resolution as well as the unbelievable low light shooting. But with that being said, the switch also came with some adjustments that were unforeseen. One that I'm running into is with framing and MFD. When I was shooting with my 7D my sigma 35 was an amazing walk around lens. I could even use it almost as a macro lens due to its relatively small MFD. But with the 6D it feels like the description (wide angle). Shots that I would normally go to the 35 for I find myself reaching for my 85. I think that a 50 prime which I found redundant with my 7D would be a help but its just an adjustment.

The other thing I've been running into is that in order to get the same framing that I would get with the crop on the 35 I find myself moving in much closer, very near the MFD. Which creates other issues like a VERY shallow DOF since I am closer to the subject to create that tighter framing. I'm sure that these are things that I'll get used relatively quickly but I thought I'd start a thread to find out if these are things other people on POTN have run into in the past and if there was anything that helped them combat this.

You need more lenses. I suggest starting with something cheap like a 28-135 ($200-$250) until you get a feel for which focal lengths you like on FF.

You already got good glass. For macro get a macro lens IMHO.

If your longest lens now is an 85, I'd recommend getting a 70-200; since going from crop to FF, I use mine a lot more.

And don't worry, it won't take that long to get used to the new framing and such of a FF. Going from a 40D to a 5DIII was awesome.

If you really enjoy 35mm on crop, all you need is to replace it with a 50mm on ff...simple as that.

Really don't see what the real issue is.

kin2son wrote in post #16240729
If you really enjoy 35mm on crop, all you need is to replace it with a 50mm on ff...simple as that.

Really don't see what the real issue is.

This.

The adjstment is mainly mental - getting comfortable with different focal length numbers to equate to a given angle of view from one size sensor to the next. The other issue may be that you lack lenses or a zoom that provides the angles of view you like to shoot when mounted on full frame. In that case, more/different glass is needed. 50mm's are cheap fortunately - the nifty fifty 1.8 can be had for $100 or less used and $250 should net you a 50 1.4.

FWIW, I shot 35mm film cameras for over 30 years and am not comfortable with focal length numbers on a crop sensor. Not a biggie, but still feels unsettling at times. Old dogs and all that.

That need to get closer which narrows the DOF is one of the primary reasons people choose full frame cameras.

kfreels wrote in post #16240852
That need to get closer which narrows the DOF is one of the primary reasons people choose full frame cameras.

That statement does not make any sense to me. Could you please elaborate on the idea?

Thanks.

SkipD wrote in post #16240858
That statement does not make any sense to me. Could you please elaborate on the idea?

Thanks.

Skip,
Folks may be afraid to elaborate on topics such as the difference between FF and crop with respect to framing, DOF, and focal length. Why would they be hesitant to do so? Well, because you are famous for quoting them, then telling them how wrong they are! Nobody wants to have that happen, so they don't elaborate. I know that's the reason I am not writing anything about this in this thread, even though I have extensive experience with both a full frame and a 1.6 crop body, and use each on a daily basis. The things you write on these topics are very often "spot-on", but nobody likes to be told how wrong they are - especially me.

For others that want to know the answer in a short and fairly concise fashion:

When a person moves from a crop to a FF, and wants the same subject framing they had before, they have 2 options: move closer (which changes perspective though too, so the relative subject material won't look similar) or use a longer focal length.

Either option will narrow the DOF from what was shot with the crop body, as long as the aperture remained the same from the crop to the FF shot.

My plan was to go for a 70-200 next, I tend to go with good glass up front as I understand the results it offers. Therefore regardless of how sharp and lighter weight the F4L is I'd probably save and wait for the F2.8L II. I tried to subscribe to the idea that you should be able to use what you have to the best of your ability and currently I don't feel like I have been with my selection due to the amazing images I've seen on FF with the lenses that I have. I think that the situations I've been in recently using the 6D haven't been the most conducive for my selection of lenses hence my frustration. (taking newborn pictures in a cramped house and trying to make the best of it with a lens that used to be more of a normal but is not more of a wide on full frame) Thanks for the opinions guys.

SkipD wrote in post #16240858
That statement does not make any sense to me. Could you please elaborate on the idea?

Thanks.

Not sure what doesn't make sense. I'll be glad to elaborate.

1.) Depth of field is controlled by two things - aperture and magnification. Shooting wider apertures will create a narrower depth of field. Getting closer to your subject or using a longer lens will create a narrower depth of field.

2.) A full frame camera has a wider field of view. Using one requires you to get closer and/or use longer lenses to get the same framing as you would have on a crop camera. This means that shooting a crop and a full frame camera of the same subject in the same conditions with the same aperture and the same subject framing, you will be standing closer or shooting with a longer lens on the full frame and thus will have a narrower depth of field.

3.) A good number of people find it desirable to have the narrowest DOF possible and because of that, this is the reason that they choose a full frame camera over a crop camera.

Does that help?

It's at least not always true, at least it wasn't for me.
The main reason I bought a full frame camera was that it was the only one which in every aspect had more performance than my 7D, and I thought I could afford it. So I got a 1DX. But I didn't feel the need to blur most of my image, saving only a smaller portion in focus. So that's not the reason for me. But in some cases it's a good idea, for action too, since it's easier to point out what's the primary subject. Or draw less attention to peripheral stuff, even if it's pretty clear that they aren't the primary subject.

A picture like this one would have been spoilt if the branch of a bush, that happened to partially cover the runner's face, also had been in focus. But with the 1DX, 200 mm focal length and an aperture of f/2.8 (I used the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM), you can see that the boy is deep in between the bushes, but you can still see his face through the bushes.

kfreels wrote in post #16240984
Not sure what doesn't make sense. I'll be glad to elaborate.

1.) Depth of field is controlled by two things - aperture and magnification. Shooting wider apertures will create a narrower depth of field. Getting closer to your subject or using a longer lens will create a narrower depth of field.

2.) A full frame camera has a wider field of view. Using one requires you to get closer and/or use longer lenses to get the same framing as you would have on a crop camera. This means that shooting a crop and a full frame camera of the same subject in the same conditions with the same aperture and the same subject framing, you will be standing closer or shooting with a longer lens on the full frame and thus will have a narrower depth of field.

3.) A good number of people find it desirable to have the narrowest DOF possible and because of that, this is the reason that they choose a full frame camera over a crop camera.

Does that help?

This explanation will be much more easily understood by those who didn't know the facts in the first place because this brings focal length into play as well as the distance option (which does affect perspective as mentioned above).

Thanks.

The narrower DOF of FF sometimes creates a quandary for me. Making pix of my boys indoors, I like to shoot wide open and enjoy the clean images the 6D produces at higher ISOs. However, wide open can produce too narrow DOF, so I have to stop down say two stops, thus negating the better noise performance of the FF camera (to have same shutter speed I would need to raise ISO two stops). Yes, I have the option of shooting wide with narrower DOF, but there is a price. I have adjusted my technique in these situations to try to increase my distance to subject. Distance affects DOF significantly. For example, 35 f2 at 4 feet has about 5" DOF. Backing up to 6 feet gives roughly 12". Granted, I am making a different photo and if I crop later to get the tighter shot, I am basically using my FF as a crop camera.

I am finding as time goes on it is less of an issue than I first experienced. My early shots were often sitting across a table from my boys doing an art project or playing a game and shooting distance was often under 4 feet.

Of course, this assumes I want both faces reasonably sharp. The narrower DOF option of the FF makes it much easier to isolate just one face or the project or game itself.

Thoughts?