Going all full frame, will I miss the crop sensor?

Hello everyone,

I would like opinions on yet ANOTHER “what should I do” scenario. Currently my gear list is:
I’ll type it out since the items in my signature will change from what’s currently shown in the future.

- 5Diii
- 7D
- 35L
- 70-200L 2.8 IS ii
- 17-55 2.8 IS
- *soon*24-70L 2.8 ii (I need to save for a couple more pay periods before buying it)

I travel a lot for work and find myself shooting landscapes, cities, people and touristy things. When at home, I generally shoot all the same stuff but I haven’t really formed any style yet so I pretty much take pictures of everything. 95% of the time I have been using the 5D with the 35mm and the 7D gets the 70-200mm. If I need something wider, I put the 17-55mm onto the 7D.

My friend would like to buy a 7D and 17-55. We talked and concluded with the possibly of him purchasing mine. I feel pretty comfortable doing that as I would turn around and buy a 6D for use as my second body. In that case, I envision my combination turning into 24-70 on the 5D and the 70-200 on the 6D. The only thing I think I may regret is the loss of the “extra reach” of the crop sensor with my 70-200.

I have used the 70-200 on my 5D but not very often as I generally keep it locked to the 7D. So I don’t really know if I would want more length off the top of my head. Last night I did some comparison shots in the hotel room and the difference is definitely considerable. So I am trying to decide if it’s worth going all full-frame and picking up a 1.4 converter (if desired down the road) or to just keep the 7D body and not have yet another item to drag with me?

Has anyone that went from crop sensor to full-frame experienced anything similar?
If so, how has the change to FF been?
If not, what made you decide to stick with the crop?

I am sure that this has been discussed ad nauseam over the years. I tried searching but I couldn’t come up with any results that applied to my question. I have begun reading the 4.7 billion pages of tele-converter threads but there’s sooooo much. Ultimately, I see this as a “go full-frame or not” thread so I posted it here. If it should move, please let me know.

Advice, anecdotes, links to other threads and good jokes are welcomed.

Thank you,
Ben

The 7D does nothing that your 5D3 can't do. You could keep it as a backup, but unless you're into birding/wildlife, I see little reason to keep it. If, in the future you want to have a crop body for whatever reason, chances are used prices will have dropped significantly by then.

My reasons to stick with crop: budget and interest in wildlife.

I like having the choice of using FF or crop, but I tend to shoot wildlife occassionally & the crop factor is handy for this. Also one of my all time favourite lenses is my macro 60mm ef-s, which unfortunately cannot be used with FF.

Hi, Ben. Welcome to POTN. I spent a good part of the last year pondering and experimenting with FF. I decided not to, primarily because of the cost. I can afford (barely) a 5D3. My problem is that I cannot afford to replace my excellent 10-22 and 15-85 with the 16-35II and 24-70II on top of paying for the 5D3. I have been playing with a 5D for a year. I bought a 28-135 and 20-35, used, just to see what's up with FF. For what I do, it really doesn't matter. I sold all the lenses I bought specifically for FF and now just use my 5D/28-75 as a mess-around camera.

One thing I do like about FF is the way my 70-200 OS works. That is much more useful lens on FF. I can also use my 100-400L on FF, but why bother? If I am after reach, mount it on the 60D and I've got as much reach as I can afford.

I will go full-frame when I can afford to go whole-hog: 5D3, 16-35II and 24-70II. I don't see either the 17-40 or 24-105 as being as good on FF as my 10-22 and 15-85 are on APSc. That said, if I had the money, I'd jump to all FF in a minute. In my opinion, if you can afford it, go completely FF. The only advantage the 7D has over the 5D3 is burst rate. If burst rate is that important, buy a 1Dx.

I went from the 7D to the 1DX, since the 7D can take images quicker than the 5D Mark III can do. Now I'm really lacking nothing from the 7D, except that part about "reach". But having to choose between either the 7D + WFT-E5B + Kensington BT adapter + Wayfinder GPS + EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM or the other alternative, 1DX + GP-E1 + EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EF Extender 1.4X III, then I've found that I use the latter all the time.
I could use the GP-E2 on the 7D, but that requires a USB cable which tends to get in the way all the time.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16428471
I don't see either the 17-40 or 24-105 as being as good on FF as my 10-22 and 15-85 are on APSc.

I've seen you said this a couple of times.

Fact is a mediocre ff kit beats best of the best corp combo, that is 5D3 with 17-40 and 24-105 beats APS-C + 10-22 and 15-85 at any focal length and aperture.

Just see it yourself....

60D + 10-22 vs 1DsIII + 17-40 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

60D + 15-85 vs 1DsIII + 24-105 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

There's simply no comparison, the ff combo is better in every way.

What is the singular reason I keep my 650D? The ability to shoot with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.

Well I went from the 7D to 6D and have not once missed it. Reach maybe a little but mostly he af. The jump was drastic for me because I've never owned full frame so the difference in iq was pretty substantial. Since you already have the 5d3 I'd say stick to the crop. It offers a different approach and different options. Maybe look into the 70D? Or wait it out for the 7D2. Don't look at the tests, they're useless. To me anyway. As soon as I get my hands on a lens, those charts and graphs go right out the window.

kin2son wrote in post #16428509
I've seen you said this a couple of times.

Fact is a mediocre ff kit beats best of the best corp combo, that is 5D3 with 17-40 and 24-105 beats APS-C + 10-22 and 15-85 at any focal length and aperture.

Just see it yourself....

60D + 10-22 vs 1DsIII + 17-40 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

60D + 15-85 vs 1DsIII + 24-105 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

There's simply no comparison, the ff combo is better in every way.

I agree with you. Full-frame will beat APSc every time. Where I take exception is with your last statement. FF is most certainly NOT better in EVERY WAY. Some of us, myself included, must consider price. This is where the APSc has the advantage. As mentioned, I agree that FF is better, IQ-wise. But the price for that last 10% or 15% is staggering. 60D new was about $900. 5D3 is $3400. While that gets you better IQ, it is VERY EXPENSIVE. 10-22 vs 16-35ii is a similar argument. Same with 15-85 to 24-70II, or even 24-70 f/4. The ROI for a hobbyist/amateur is just not there for FF. Better IQ? Sure. Worth what it costs for lots of us? No way. This is where APSc is better.

i like the crop bodies
but after buying and trying the 5D2 , 5D3 and the 6D
i feel i cant go back to the crop
when i need a crop photo just crop it from the FF photos and with better result too

but like yashica said
i can get a great photos from the 60D with less cost

When I upgraded my 60D to a 5D3, I just 'shot as usual' as I already had all L glass + an 85 f1.8. Other than the jump in size & weight (both cameras gripped), the loss of extra 'reach' with the 60D wasn't noticable. Actually, I preferred being closer in for simlar shots. But the big surprise I got was that my 16-35 f2.8L ii now spends a lot more time in the bag. I used that for a fair number of indoor shots at church events as its field of view was effectively that of a 25-55 lens. The 24 end of my 24-105 is now sufficient for 'wider'. Having deduced that, it came as no surprise my 80-200 f2.8L (magic drainpipe) spends more time mounted than it used to on the 60D.

The longest lens I have now is the 70-300L. I will eventually be getting one of the 400mm lens, probably the 400mm f/5.6 L because of price. That is the drawback of a full frame camera for me...... the cost of shooting wildlife. The price jump from 400mm to any of the longer offerings is staggering, for me, at least.

As Yash stated, given unlimited funds, there would be no contest...... but some of us have a more limited budget.

I kept my 7D after buying a 5D3, but the 7D is now only used for wildlife using a 100-400L lens. The 5D3 is used for everything else. I still find the 7D useful enough for trips where I will be shooting both wildlife and landscapes -- such as this past summer when we spent a week in Glacier National Park. I could hike around the park with the 7D + 100-400L and 5D3 + 24-105L (or 17-40L) and was prepared for any shooting situation without changing lenses.

Before adding the 2nd body, in past trips I would need to leave the telephoto lens mounted as we traveled or hiked, and switch to my landscape lens whenever I came across a landscape scene, then switch back to the telephoto again. That is a lot of lens changing that I now avoid. This was required because waterfalls and mountains will wait for you to change lenses, but grizzly bears, wolves, elk, moose, etc. will not.

If you do not shoot wildlife, though, you may not find much use for both a crop and full frame body, unless you just want to have a backup.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16428471
Hi, Ben. Welcome to POTN.
<snip>
I will go full-frame when I can afford to go whole-hog: 5D3, 16-35II and 24-70II. I don't see either the 17-40 or 24-105 as being as good on FF as my 10-22 and 15-85 are on APSc. That said, if I had the money, I'd jump to all FF in a minute. In my opinion, if you can afford it, go completely FF. The only advantage the 7D has over the 5D3 is burst rate. If burst rate is that important, buy a 1Dx.

Thanks for the welcome. I’ve been hanging out for awhile but finally decided to join.
After I get the 24-70ii, I don’t see myself buying the 16-35; more likely is a 14mm prime. The 24mm on FF is as wide as I will want for most of what I do. I am however in love with the 14L 2.8 after renting it a few weeks ago. I feel a 14mm prime would scratch my UWA itch very nicely whether it is the 14L or the Rokinon.

dscri001 wrote in post #16428518
Since you already have the 5d3 I'd say stick to the crop. It offers a different approach and different options. Maybe look into the 70D? Or wait it out for the 7D2.

If I don’t sell the body+lens I would just keep the 7D as it has been a great camera for me so far. It’s not necessarily about getting a new body but more about what to do if I decide to save a good friend some money. Not to repeat myself but if I don’t sell it to him, I will keep the combo. Not singling you out, please no offense intended. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to respond. I just wanted to make that clear to anyone who may like to offer further suggestions.

bratkinson wrote in post #16428670
When I upgraded my 60D to a 5D3, I just 'shot as usual' as I already had all L glass + an 85 f1.8. Other than the jump in size & weight (both cameras gripped), the loss of extra 'reach' with the 60D wasn't noticable. Actually, I preferred being closer in for simlar shots. But the big surprise I got was that my 16-35 f2.8L ii now spends a lot more time in the bag. I used that for a fair number of indoor shots at church events as its field of view was effectively that of a 25-55 lens. The 24 end of my 24-105 is now sufficient for 'wider'. Having deduced that, it came as no surprise my 80-200 f2.8L (magic drainpipe) spends more time mounted than it used to on the 60D.

Thanks for this. I am thinking many of the same things. I also feel that the 24-70 will be plenty wide and having the 70-200 ready to go on another FF body could be a great thing. I found myself putting the 17-55 onto the 7D when I needed that wider shot but that will now be covered at all times by the 24-70mm.

Scott M wrote in post #16428746
I kept my 7D after buying a 5D3, but the 7D is now only used for wildlife using a 100-400L lens. The 5D3 is used for everything else. I still find the 7D useful enough for trips where I will be shooting both wildlife and landscapes -- such as this past summer when we spent a week in Glacier National Park. I could hike around the park with the 7D + 100-400L and 5D3 + 24-105L (or 17-40L) and was prepared for any shooting situation without changing lenses.

Before adding the 2nd body, in past trips I would need to leave the telephoto lens mounted as we traveled or hiked, and switch to my landscape lens whenever I came across a landscape scene, then switch back to the telephoto again. That is a lot of lens changing that I now avoid. This was required because waterfalls and mountains will wait for you to change lenses, but grizzly bears, wolves, elk, moose, etc. will not.
If you do not shoot wildlife, though, you may not find much use for both a crop and full frame body, unless you just want to have a backup.

I do not shoot wildlife often but what I do not like doing is: stopping, trying to find a low key spot to change lenses, grabbing the other lens, swapping, shooting, walking 5 minutes and realizing I want the other lens again. That is my main interest in having two bodies, exactly as you said above. I realize that swapping lenses is part of the game but if I can minimize it, I am much more likely to actually take the picture I want to take; instead of just being lazy. I do like the idea of always having the lens you need right away ready and swapping for things you have lots of time to prepare for. Solid logic.

To me, having the 24-70 and 70-200 each ready to go on a designated body at all time is an ideal scenario. Hence the upcoming purchase of the 24-70 . In my ideal world, I would only then have the added weight of a tiny little 14mm prime to lug around for 99% of what I do.

What I’m still trying to mentally wrestle with is whether or not to give up the crop sensor body. What other positives/negatives are there that haven't been thought of yet in the thread? I do realize that is nothing that a stranger on the internet can decide for me.
In regards to funds, I’m not yet married and no kids so I have some money to spend hehehe