The path of the full frame

Strahinja,

don't get me wrong, Full Frame is the way to go mid-term to long-term, but there are more things to consider than image quality.

I once moved from a 1000D to a 550D (great camera even today) and then subsequently purchased 5D Classic and 5D2.

In 2014, I sold all my Full Frame gear. Why?

I'm 40+ now and find it increasingly cumbersome to carry a heavy camera bag to scenic locations. Druid Arch and Angel Arch (Canyonlands The Needles) come to mind.

Unless Canon were to bring a SL1 sized FF camera, I'm done with FF. Yes, Full Frame can give You an edge in landscape photography, way better signal-to-noise ratio in every singe picture element, better high-ISO, better bokeh (with fast, expensive glass). But is it worth to break your back for it?

If You're a Pro, You have no choice but to go FF. Personally, I have found that with careful metering and technique, I can achieve great results out of today's APS cameras, and Lightroom is a great help to get the most out of the tiny pixels.

Don't start FF with an old 28-135 zoom lens. You have to always consider the very best glass You can afford in the first place, maybe a 24-105L or 24-70L2, later on a 16-35L-IS and a 70-200+L. It's an increasingly expensive hobby, and always has been.

One photog said to me, he went Full Frame after his hobby started to pay out. He makes enough money out of wedding p. and soccer-moms-p. to justify a slowly growing high-end collection of Canon's finest.
Lucky him.

I'm with you experiencing the Gear Acquisition Syndrome. (GAS)

Last year I bought a G1X, a 7D, 4 lenses, 2 flashes, and a tripod.
This year I have added another lens, and tripod and 2 camera cases.

Today I am wanting to buy a 5Diii and an 85mm f1.2 lens.
I see myself with 2 cameras around my neck. The 7D with the 85mm and the
5diii with a 50mm lens. The trouble with that is that I can achieve almost the same results with my 70-200mm Zoom on my 7D.

I am resisting the temptation by keeping my savings where it takes a couple days to get my money out.

Oh well, I'll go to my nephew's wedding next month with just the 7D, and hope to hold off on the new camera until something else catches my fancy.

Bud Spencer wrote in post #17122109
If You're a Pro, You have no choice but to go FF.

No.

Plenty of professionals are using APS-C.

And plenty are not even using "full frame," they're also using medium format.

Full frame is not the end all be all. It's just another option. And it's not even the best at everything.

Very best,

Strahinja wrote in post #17121167
richer colors

Where did you get that idea? There is no intrinsic difference according to sensor size; individual cameras may be better or worse. But, above all, it depends on the lenses. Generally, the L lenses many people choose for full frame give "richer" colours. But some of the oddball adapted lenses you have could well be about as good as L lenses.

If you're mainly working with adapted lenses, the original 5D was a popular choice and would be a safe one now. It doesn't have a 100% finder, so the mirror is that much less likely to foul the lens. Just make sure you can source an Ee-S screen before you commit to it.

It's also an appropriate choice, because it's unlikely your kit lens will even mount on a full frame camera. That leaves you with no Canon EOS lenses, and you'd be wise not to commit a lot of money to an EOS body. Canon is no longer top dog in DSLRs (although their lens system probably still is).

General comments regarding full frame: I have been shooting a bit recently with a 13mm x 9mm sensor (the so-called 1"), that is smaller even than APS-C and µ4/3. The limitations are there, but it's a matter of picking my battles. It doesn't have the dynamic range or noiseless high-ISO performance of my full frame cameras—but any time that doesn't matter the image quality is similar to my old 5D.

I've always disliked APS-C cameras, not because of image quality, but because of the finders and ergonomics (problems addressed by Sony when they made my 1" sensor camera). I think many keen photographers feel the same, so naturally photos made with full frame will on average be made by more experienced photographers and will look better.

Not all crops are equal regarding viewfinders and ergonomics. The 7d, for example, is very similar to the 5d3 (actually the 5d3 copied from the 7d) and has a very good viewfinder, and is also 100%, the first for a crop.

Whoa, thanks for all the replies guys!

Well, the 6D is brand new, I do agree, but it's three times as expensive as the 5Dc, and near as makes no difference twice the price of the 1Ds (at least here in Serbia), so that rules it out to be honest, as even the 5D II would be quite a stretch if I decided to get one. That's why I considered the older cameras, their prices were too low for what they offered.

paddler4, what I meant about the "wider field of view" is that a 50mm is indeed a 50 on a FF body, whilist 1100D bumps me up all the way to 80mm

Regarding the colors as melcat mentioned, well, a larger sensor does indeed interpret the colors more vividly, doesn't it? The contrast is better as well. Basically what I'm saying is that a same image shot on FF and APS-C with the same lens would look better taken from the FF?

After reading all the replies I am more fond of the idea of getting more lenses, the prices of the cameras I mentioned (and you guys) will only go down, so in the mean time while I'm waiting for a good opportunity to go FF I'll stack some gear to compliment the camera when I finally get it.

Now, what do you think would be a smart first purchase? A versatile lens that would be suitable for both an APS-C and a FF body? I am keen on portraits as I said, I want to keep on doing that, so I guess a prime is in order? Though primes and versatility don't always work together...

This will be simpler as soon as I get the hang of quoting, I'm not very familiar with being active on forums, usually I'm the silent, passive reader.

Strahinja wrote in post #17123015
Regarding the colors as melcat mentioned, well, a larger sensor does indeed interpret the colors more vividly, doesn't it? The contrast is better as well. Basically what I'm saying is that a same image shot on FF and APS-C with the same lens would look better taken from the FF?

Actually if you do a controlled test, shooting the same custom white balance, and using the same picture style, then take 2 shots, they are going to be quite close, assuming you are using same generation crop vs FF. Some people are able to spot the tonal quality differences, others cannot.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17121541
Heya,

Rent a 6D.
Or rent a 1D series that is older (II, III).

Shoot your current APS-C and a new full frame or 1D series, and have someone else compare images and see if they can pick out the different ones. You could even post here on the forum and ask us to pick out what was T3 and what was 6D (or whatever). That way you're not just honeymoon eyes for what your brain is telling you "should" be better, but rather, take an objective third point of view that is a lot more conscious of your budget, and cares less about internet articles that scream how you should be shooting full frame for everything and that it will all magically be professional and creative and artsty all at the same time, every time.

Everything you've described says you should NOT be moving to full frame. To be perfectly honest, you sound like someone who has bought into the "full frame advantage" jargon from yesteryear. Full frame is not automatically better at everything. It comes down to what you shoot, and what your goal is. You have to honestly ask yourself, are you being held back by your gear, or are you holding your gear back? There was a time when full frame had most of the advantage over APS-C, but that's not the case anymore. Besides APS-C being much better today (today's APS-C walks all over the 5D classic), the world of lenses for APS-C on the wide end have increased a lot. It's inexpensive to get ultrawide now. Today's ultrawides are high quality too. You don't need full frame to enjoy wider angles. You simply pay attention to what lenses you buy.

Glass over body, unless you already have mid-tier or top-tier glass.

Full frame is just a tool for specific reasons. It's not magical and super better.
APS-C is also just a tool for specific reasons. It's not just for the "budget" people.

Consider what autofocus system you need for what YOU actually shoot. Not what someone else does.

Consider what kind of ISO performance YOU need for what you actually shoot. Not what someone else says you should have.

Consider what level of control of depth of field you need for what you actually shoot, on the thinnest side (it's pointless and equal on the infinite side).

I would highly, highly suggest you use whatever money you would burn on magical full frame, on some speedlites and some GOOD lenses and a filter or two. You'll get way more out of this than just getting another camera that produces the same image you're telling your current camera to.

And lastly, if you're hesitating getting full frame because you've read a lot and think it sounds great, but you're not biting due to cost and due to lack of experience, it's because of just that... with more photography experience you'll know if you need full frame or not, or whether it's just another tool for something you do or will do.

(I shoot full frame & APS-C near equally, they're different tools for different tasks)

Post some samples of your BEST work here, that you think would have been BETTER had you been shooting a full frame camera.

Very best,

Nicely written!

This is unfortunate result of constant hearing about how FF is so much better than APS-C from FF users claiming much better and vibrant colors and similar bullsh**...

Full frame is definitely not better than crop, it's only better for 99% of all shooting scenarios

Back in film days, there was no question that larger formats were MUCH better than smaller. Resolution was proportional to film area. Bigger was better.

Nowadays with digital, resolution of the top-of-the-line 1DX is the SAME as the SL1 (smallest and cheapest except for maybe the T3). Things have changed big time.

The big FF models have their advantages. So does APS-C. Choose the right tool for the job.

I do a lot of bird photography. I use my APS-C body and 100-400mm lens at 400, hand-held. To do the same job on FF, I would need a 600mm lens to get equivalent reach, and with all that heavy gear, I would need a tripod too. Advantage: APS-C.

In the studio, you would probably use a tripod anyway, and the advantage shifts to FF.

BTW, the trend has been to SMALLER formats, not to bigger. For every new FF model there are 10 or more Sony RX100, Nikon V1, four-thirds models, etc., not to speak of legions of point-and-shoot cameras that also take excellent pictures.

P&S models are not the right tools though for most serious photography. But APS-C certainly is.

The responses you have already received give excellent advice. Just take some time to consider what you really want out of your photo system.

And if you decide for FF, don't dump the APS-C, because you will need both formats.

Archibald wrote in post #17123292
Back in film days, there was no question that larger formats were MUCH better than smaller. Resolution was proportional to film area. Bigger was better.

SL1 and 1DX have the same megapixels, but the 1DX will resolve more with the same lens. For the most part, bigger formats still resolve more. Even a beat up old 5D classic with 12mp, has a better chance resolving all details than an SL1 with 18mp.

Charlie wrote in post #17123316
SL1 and 1DX have the same megapixels, but the 1DX will resolve more with the same lens. For the most part, bigger formats still resolve more. Even a beat up old 5D classic with 12mp, has a better chance resolving all details than an SL1 with 18mp.

Can you substantiate your statement?

Archibald wrote in post #17123377
Can you substantiate your statement?

http://www.dxomark.com …__164_176_164_8​71_164_753

5D + 24-105
100D + 24-105
1Dx + 24-105

http://www.dxomark.com …__270_753_270_8​71_270_176

5D + 85L
100D + 85L
1Dx + 85L

I'll just repeat what I said in the other thread regarding the exact same question:

1: Rent the 6d for a weekend and see for yourself.
2: If you don't know if you need FF, you probably don't need FF.

Oh, thanks god we got dxomark super-precise graphs and numbers reflecting ultra-real results, otherwise i wouldn´t be sure if i shoot with compact camera, DSLR or automatic shotgun.... but i rather re-check it on snapsort.com to be absolutely sure.