FF back to crop. Anyone made this journey?

It seems that everyone who has moved to FF from a crop camera is very pleased with the results. I'm just curious. Has anyone here gone to FF and regretted it? If so, why? Did you go back to your cropper?

This may be a silly question but I just wonder if there is more to be told than has been.

I have a full frame camera - the EOS 6D. I also have every intention of keeping my sub-frame 60D. There are several reasons for that. My 100-400 is 1.6x longer on the 60D. The 17-40 is a step down on full-frame compared to the 10-22 on sub-frame. No way the 16-35 II is worth my 10-22 and $1,200 more. I mostly shoot the 10-22 from f/8 to f/16; f/2.8 doesn't appeal to me at that focal length.

I didn't go "back" to a crop body. Actually, I started with full frame, and used it, along with a 1.3 crop 1D2, for a couple years. Then I picked up a 1.6 crop 50D, and was blown away at how much better the results were, for the vast majority of the situations I was shooting in.

So the 50D very quickly became my main body, with my 5D being relegated to backup duty. I've since moved to another 1.3 crop (1D4), which fits my needs quite nicely.

I can not imagine ever switching back to full frame, at least not until they make one with the same pixel density that the croppers have. The croppers - both 1.3 and 1.6 - simply give me better results with more resolved detail, all other factors being equal.

I went from a 50D years ago to a 5D II. I still have the 5D II, but I carry around my EOS M more and more since I can literally put it in my pocket with the 22mm f/2 lens. I guess I didn't "go back", but the Canon mirrorless does get more action due to its small, unobtrusive size.

No way I'm going back to a crop DSLR...

However a crop mirrorless is a possible future (yes I'm looking at you, Fuji X-T1 + 23 1.4 + 56 1.2)

I like the crop factor. If I bought ff, I would still use the crop side by side wih it.

I have used both FF and 1.6x crop for several years now. I wouldn't want to be without either, unless Canon produce a FF with the same pixel density as the crop sensors.

FF is better at many things, but the crops can be better for wildlife and birds due to the extra reach from the higher pixel density. I do use the crop bodies less now that I have a 5DIII though, as previously the better AF (compared to the 5Dc) and frame rate etc., made the croppers better for any sort of action work as well. However, the 5DIII has closed the gap and makes for an excellent sport / action camera, and also does well for birding and wildlife until I need that extra bit of reach.

For some people (such as Tom Reichner above) I can see that a crop body will be better than a FF, if they shoot the sort of things that the crops do better than FF. The two types are different rather than one being "better". They are different tools and have different strengths and weaknesses, you choose the right tool for the job you want to do.

I've been full frame for about three weeks after shooting crop for about seven years.

I'm here to stay as far as I can tell. The images are just too easy to get compared to the crop (for me).

The full frame has a LOT more forgiveness when I underexpose or over expose, and I hardly ever think about sharpening. I could shoot in Jpeg and probably do fine. But I continue to shoot raw.

6400 ISO is not a problem at all. I don't even have to think about ISO anymore the way I shoot. Just stick it in auto and let it do what it wants.

And mediocre lenses (like the 28-135 that most people question) is right at home. I'm getting the best images I've ever gotten.

Keep in mind, however, that most of what I shoot is people within five to ten feet of me, or I shoot architecture and landscapes. I never need a long lens, and if I really need one I can always rent (although the only time I might think about it is to shoot surfing on the rare occasion I'm near the coast).

For the first time (remember, this is just my experience) I can look at my monitor and it looks as if the person is right there in front of me, lines, pimples, hairs, etc. Very sharp and detailed. Good color.

But there are a few challenges for me (light falloff being one), but using RAW i'm able to pretty much bend the sliders quite a lot compared to before.

OK, reading some of the other responses has prompted me to alter my answer a bit. I went from MF 6x6 in the 1960s, to 35mm film (full-frame) in the 1970s, to subframe digital about 6 or 8 years ago, to full frame digital in 2012. All along the way, I've had smaller 'pocket' cameras from tiny 35mm film cameras, to Kodak 110, to Canon "A" and "SX" models. There was even a super-zoom bridge camera in there somewhere. I don't see any of it as going 'back'. I use the tools I have available to accomplish different tasks. Though at this stage, I doubt if I'll ever go back to MF.

Sold my 7D but kept my mirrorless (APS-C)...FF for sports/mirrorless for travel unless i'm travelling for sports then i take both

sandpiper wrote in post #16712339
FF is better at many things, but the crops can be better for wildlife and birds due to the extra reach from the higher pixel density.

Then why not just use a crop mirrorless?

The new Sony a6000 looks real promising.

Sony a6000 key features
•24.3 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor
•Bionz X image processor
•Hybrid AF system with 25 contrast-detect and 179 phase-detect points
•Built-in flash + Multi-Interface Shoe
•11 fps continuous shooting with subject-tracking
•3-inch tilting LCD with 921,600 dots
•OLED electronic viewfinder with 1.44M dots
•Diffraction correction, area-specific noise reduction, and detail reproduction technology
•Full HD video recording at 1080/60p and 24p; clean HDMI output
•Wi-Fi with NFC capability and downloadable apps

And best of all, $650 body only!

Simply put, there's very little point to own a crop DSLR for 99% of shooters out there. And soon enough when FF mirrorless matured, DSLR will become extinct.

rgs wrote in post #16712209
It seems that everyone who has moved to FF from a crop camera is very pleased with the results. I'm just curious. Has anyone here gone to FF and regretted it? If so, why? Did you go back to your cropper?

This may be a silly question but I just wonder if there is more to be told than has been.

Heya,

I will always keep a crop. The extra perceived reach is serious and it gets more serious as you get longer on telephoto. That's my only reason. Because I spend a lot of time at the long end of a lens, be it the moon, or birds and fuzzies, crops just give that extra reach and it makes it very much worth it to me. My other photography doesn't need the superb ISO performance of a full frame sensor, except the night sky, but I live with that trade off. It's due to economy though. If I had endless funds, I would do it on a full frame probably, but I just don't think the cost is worth it for my level.

Bottom line is:

Crop + telephoto vs Full Frame + 2.0x teleconverter + F2.8 telephoto in terms of cost.

I really can't afford the F2.8 telephotos and the 2.0x teleconverter to get the reach, so I'd rather use less expensive lenses on a less expensive crop. Since I'm just a hobbyist I don't need the absolute best. I just like to play.

Very best,

I went from a 20D to a T2i (20D was stolen ) to a 6D then supplemented that with an EOS M and now I've just bought an X-E1 and I've got to say that I think I'm going to wind up using it more than the 6D... it's just so easy to carry around and feels alot less awkward when I'm using it out with friends.

It's actually kind of funny, right before I bought the X-E1 my friend bought a D800 and he brings it everywhere like I did with my 6D (and now do with my X-E1 or EOS M) and I can see all my friends and random people taking notice at how he has such a massive camera with him... nobody ever seems to give me a second glance. For example, we went to the bowling ally last weekend and he brought it, I could tell it weirded everyone out when he pulled it out and was snapping shots with his 24-70, nobody even seemed to notice me using the X-E1 with the 18-55 kit lens

kin2son wrote in post #16712315
No way I'm going back to a crop DSLR...

However a crop mirrorless is a possible future (yes I'm looking at you, Fuji X-T1 + 23 1.4 + 56 1.2)

I've been drooling over that X-T1... I'm not ready to jump ship yet, still love using an OVF and vintage lenses at their proper effective FL, but that X-T1 is one heck of a camera. Fuji's lenses are also amazingly competitive considering the optics you get for the price, I just ordered the 35/1.4, can't wait to get it

kin2son wrote in post #16712466
Then why not just use a crop mirrorless?

The new Sony a6000 looks real promising.

Sony a6000 key features
•24.3 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor
•Bionz X image processor
•Hybrid AF system with 25 contrast-detect and 179 phase-detect points
•Built-in flash + Multi-Interface Shoe
•11 fps continuous shooting with subject-tracking
•3-inch tilting LCD with 921,600 dots
•OLED electronic viewfinder with 1.44M dots
•Diffraction correction, area-specific noise reduction, and detail reproduction technology
•Full HD video recording at 1080/60p and 24p; clean HDMI output
•Wi-Fi with NFC capability and downloadable apps

And best of all, $650 body only!

Simply put, there's very little point to own a crop DSLR for 99% of shooters out there. And soon enough when FF mirrorless matured, DSLR will become extinct.

Sony definitely makes some very compelling mirrorless cameras, the problem is that the vast majority of their lenses are either downright bad or just "meh". The only really good lenses they have are from Zeiss, and many of those are also available in other mounts (I very nearly bought the Touit 32mm instead of the Fuji, but the Fuji is on rebate right now).

kin2son wrote in post #16712466

sandpiper wrote in post #16712339
FF is better at many things, but the crops can be better for wildlife and birds due to the extra reach from the higher pixel density.

Then why not just use a crop mirrorless?

The new Sony a6000 looks real promising.

Sony a6000 key features
•24.3 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor
•Bionz X image processor
•Hybrid AF system with 25 contrast-detect and 179 phase-detect points
•Built-in flash + Multi-Interface Shoe
•11 fps continuous shooting with subject-tracking
•3-inch tilting LCD with 921,600 dots
•OLED electronic viewfinder with 1.44M dots
•Diffraction correction, area-specific noise reduction, and detail reproduction technology
•Full HD video recording at 1080/60p and 24p; clean HDMI output
•Wi-Fi with NFC capability and downloadable apps

And best of all, $650 body only!

Simply put, there's very little point to own a crop DSLR for 99% of shooters out there. And soon enough when FF mirrorless matured, DSLR will become extinct.

That Sony may be the ideal camera for you, but does not interest me in the slightest. I am not knocking the camera, it just doesn't do what I want a camera to do.

Firstly, it is still a crop so would only be able to replace my crop body, I would still need my FF body for much of what I do. Why would I swap my Canon crop DSLR for a camera from another system which isn't designed to take all my Canon lenses and accessories?

Secondly, I hate EVF with a passion. Sure, the lag has reduced over the years since I first used one, but when following action and timing is critical, even the very slight lag of a modern EVF makes a difference.

Thirdly, it is too small. I am a big guy with big hands, I like a good solid lump to hold. Something like that, shooting handheld with a long lens would not give me the balance I need. In addition, I like to be able to change things easily with buttons and dials, which I can tap / turn without taking my eye away from the action. I can change my settings in a fraction of a second with a good DSLR, that Sony looks like I would need to stop what I am doing, take it away from my face and use the back LCD and menu to change some things I NEED to do on the fly, or miss the shot.

I know people who have mirrorless cameras, they ALL have a DSLR as well, for when they are doing serious shooting. The mirrorless is the one they carry to have a decent camera if something crops up suddenly, when they don't want to be carrying the main camera. I am sure a mirrorless is ideal as the only camera for many, many people, I am just not one of them as they do not meet my requirements.

That is not to say I would never buy one as an additional tool to add to my collection. An A7r, with adapter for Canon lenses, would be good to have for some things, primarily landscape and architectural work, but would not be suitable for the majority of my shoots. It would be in addition to my FF and crop DSLRs, not a replacement for either. Once again it is a matter of different tools for different jobs.

rgs wrote in post #16712209
It seems that everyone who has moved to FF from a crop camera is very pleased with the results. I'm just curious. Has anyone here gone to FF and regretted it? If so, why? Did you go back to your cropper?

This may be a silly question but I just wonder if there is more to be told than has been.

A handful of photographers remain who started with "full frame" cameras that used 35mm film. The only DSLR's available from Canon at first were so called crop cameras such as the D30.

When the D30 was new it was a revelation for what was considered near-film performance.

The time that has passed has emphasized that the most important element in a camera's performance is the photographer's ability and experience, not the size of the imaging surface.