overkill or different tool for different jobs?

gonzogolf wrote in post #16953456
Then you seriously need to rent/beg/borrow (but dont steal) a FF body. You are doing math based on other peoples opinions and the things you think are important, which may or may not be the case. FPS and ISO are factors, I dont mean to diminish them, but they matter little for the sort of photos you've expressed admiration for. It might be time to consider a 2 body solution. A high FPS for whatever you use it for, and a full frame of whatever vintage for when thats more appropriate. But for god's sake try the stuff.

hi there. i have to say - that i have seen multiple posts by you in many different threads and on different topics over the years and I have always thought your advice was solid and well-reasoned: so I will ask you this:

would you want a 5d3, 85II and 70-200 f4IS (this would mean having to get an UWA for the FF at a later date - or using the 7d + 10-22)
or a 7d, 85II, and 70-200 II?

Somedude18 wrote in post #16953455
Because the 135mm L is like 900-1000€ new and the Canon 5D Mark III is €2700.
I agree the 5D Mark III will provide him with better IQ, however the cost is almost three times as high as getting that lens. Then I would suggest getting a 6D just for portrait and IQ and keeping the 7D for action, but I personally would never do that.

hehe , read my maths :P

that 900-1000 could be saved by using 70-200 F2.8 that OP was going to get anyway on a full frame, that's money that could be spent on a FF

also he's paying 1000+ more for a 85L for worse effect than cheaper 135L on a full frame

add them up and there's your FF

Anyway, to OP:

Don't need to upgrade to 5D3, if I were you I'd even consider a usesd 5D classic for 500-600, considering you have never used a FF, actually using one will give all your current lenses a HUGE leap!

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16953497
hi there. i have to say - that i have seen multiple posts by you in many different threads and on different topics over the years and I have always thought your advice was solid and well-reasoned: so I will ask you this:

would you want a 5d3, 85II and 70-200 f4IS (this would mean having to get an UWA for the FF at a later date - or using the 7d + 10-22)
or a 7d, 85II, and 70-200 II?

I'm going to punt here and not answer the either or question. I would lean to the first if you had a gun to my head. But I think there is middle ground, a 5DII or 6D would allow you to keep the 7D and still fulfill your lens wish list.

Will Chao wrote in post #16953502
Don't need to upgrade to 5D3, if I were you I'd even consider a usesd 5D classic for 500-600, considering you have never used a FF, actually using one will give all your current lenses a HUGE leap!

I had owned the 7D, 5D, 5Dii, 5Diii. The 5D produces great photos. However if you shoot below f2.0 I would advice you to get a camera that has AF micro-adjust. Then you can begin the exploit even more out of your incredible collection of EF lens. Thus the 7D + 5Dii is a great combo for everything. I had this pair until I upgraded to a 5Diii. Now I have a 5diii + 50D pair. The 5Diii has a better AF system than the 7D. the 50D is for reach and backup. Both has micro-adjust which is needed for my 85L.

FF is a myth. Nothing wrong with a great crop body. Getting back to the original subject Lenses - Yes,l enses are specialized tools. And some of us have more than 1 50mm, etc. Gene

gasrocks wrote in post #16953604
FF is a myth. Nothing wrong with a great crop body. Getting back to the original subject Lenses - Yes,l enses are specialized tools. And some of us have more than 1 50mm, etc. Gene

Not a myth. I have a couple. They exist. You can argue the merits, but calling them a myth is well, pointless.

I'm sorry, I meant the advantages of shooting with FF is a myth. For the price there is little to be gained, IMO.

gasrocks wrote in post #16953616
I'm sorry, I meant the advantages of shooting with FF is a myth. For the price there is little to be gained, IMO.

Personally I am happy using either the FF or crop camera. However, with my current style of photography I prefer the FF because it does a better job with subject isolation within the framing of my compositions.

gasrocks wrote in post #16953616
I'm sorry, I meant the advantages of shooting with FF is a myth. For the price there is little to be gained, IMO.

Are we still having this argument today? Of course FF has it's advantages...that doesn't make it "better" for everyone but being unable to acknowledge the strengths of the larger format seems almost intentionally ignorant.

Although I've used mostly FF cameras, I'm not a rabid FF drum beater but I've found the format has these advantages for me:

-Ability to use lenses in their native FOV, particularly wide lenses. Lenses like the ZE21, 17/24 TS-e's, 24L, 24-70, etc. lose much of their appeal when they are used on crop because the FOV changes.

-Background seperation. No, this isnt inherent of the format per se, but in order to frame similarly you need to be closer which causes greater seperation.

-SxN ratio's allow cleaner high ISO/long exposure images. 1.6/1.5x are getting better and can be mitigated with software further, but I've yet to see a current gen crop that can best a current gen 35mm digital in terms of noise, especially at high ISO, long exposure and/or large prints.

To the OP - I've always thought a slower 70-200/70-300 with a 135L was a great combo for any format. You get the lightweight and flexibility of the zoom when you need it but the background smashing ability of the 135L when you want it. I like the narrow FOV and speed you get with the 135L on a crop camera - the background seperation compares to a 200 2.8 on full frame but you get the shutter speed benefit of f2. I will say that your lens line up certainly compliments an upgrade to a FF camera, but if none of the benefits listed above are applicable for you, then you might be better off adding the 135 to your current kit.

MNUplander wrote in post #16953765
To the OP - I've always thought a slower 70-200/70-300 with a 135L was a great combo for any format. You get the lightweight and flexibility of the zoom when you need it but the background smashing ability of the 135L when you want it. I like the narrow FOV and speed you get with the 135L on a crop camera - the background seperation compares to a 200 2.8 on full frame but you get the shutter speed benefit of f2. I will say that your lens line up certainly compliments an upgrade to a FF camera, but if none of the benefits listed above are applicable for you, then you might be better off adding the 135 to your current kit.

This is exactly the approach I've taken, and it has worked out very well for me. The 135L provides great low light and/or shallow DoF when needed in a light weight package, and allows me to also have a more affordable and lighter weight 70-200. I have taken this approach will all my zooms, supplementing them with fast primes. Some people need both a faster aperture and the flexibility of a zoom in a single lens, but fortunately I can get by with an "either/or" solution.

I do also agree with gonzogolf that eventually getting to a dual body kit has major advantages. When I finally went full frame, I still hung onto my 7D. In my case, it has become exclusively a wildlife lens, allowing me to handle both wildlife and landscape shooting without changing lenses.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16953612
Not a myth. I have a couple. They exist. You can argue the merits, but calling them a myth is well, pointless.

+1.
I don't know where Gasrocks is coming from with this, he states that there is nothing wrong with a "Great Crop Body" - I agree but nobody has produced one yet. When they can make a crop body that gives clean shots at high ISO and the depth of field that full frame gives (impossible with current technology) then he may have a point.
Note I am a wildlife photographer where reach is everything - I still much prefer FF simply because I get better images.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16953497
hi there. i have to say - that i have seen multiple posts by you in many different threads and on different topics over the years and I have always thought your advice was solid and well-reasoned: so I will ask you this:

would you want a 5d3, 85II and 70-200 f4IS (this would mean having to get an UWA for the FF at a later date - or using the 7d + 10-22)
or a 7d, 85II, and 70-200 II?

For your stated uses I would suggest that the 5D3 is the better option. You will loose out a bit at the short end for now but in the long run I think the 5D3 will serve you better. Frankly the 5D3 is, probably, the best all round camera out there at the moment. For a specific purpose there are better cameras but overall it's hard to beat. Additionally you will get a slightly narrower DOF with your lenses and 2+ stops of ISO improvement + 6fps is fast enough for nearly all of us.

i feel like if you are buying fast L primes to use on a crop...you're after shallow DOF...if that's what you're after you would do better getting a FF, and not even having to get the L primes...

Go to a store like Costco or Best Buy and ask about a return policy. Often Costco has great ones for 30-90 days. Ask about a restocking fee, sometimes these are waived.
This may be a cheaper option than renting a FF camera.
Get one and test it out against your camera in the same light and same settings.
Compare that f1.2 dof on crop to that of the FF and decide what camera you like better.

I originally had the T4i and it was a great camera, I bought the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm
Eventually I even got the 24L II and 100L lenses. All while using the T4i (650D)
After using fast lenses wide open I wanted true DOF
I was also less and less satisfied with the high noise levels at 1600-6400 iso compared to a friends 5DIII
I saw the limitation in my gear at the time. And I don;t shoot fast sports, so I didn't need that AF system.
I decided on the 6D and immediately saw visually better images in low light. That was not a myth.
That difference was night and day. And the photos required far less of my time post processing noise.
The FF sensor helped, in part, to improve my final images. I think the difference is worth it.
I share my experience not to try to 'trick you' into buy a new camera, but hopes of comparing your own story.

gasrocks wrote in post #16953616
I'm sorry, I meant the advantages of shooting with FF is a myth. For the price there is little to be gained, IMO.

Even that is not true for example in my case.

I do a lot of low light photography. I had, and still have, the 650D which has one of the newer sensors in it. And even shooting at 1.2 with my 50L i couldnt get rid of all that noize above ISO 3200...

When i bought the 6D it opened a new world to me, so for me it was very worth the money...