Choosing a FF, older FF bodies compared to current Rebel Bodies

I have a Canon T5i Aps-c body and have been wanting to see what full frame is all about. I've done a lot of research about various FF bodies, mainly the 1ds, 1ds3, 5dc, 5d2, 6d and the aps-h 1d, 1d4 since they are 1 series bodies. Mainly I'm interested in the better image quality of FF, which for me admittedly seems silly as images on my flickr page look great at the size they are no matter what body. I do not print the images and this is just a hobby of mine, nothing commercial. Still it is something I'm passionate about and it is the only thing I have right now. Other reasons would be more continuous burst and better noise control at high iso (currently high iso is my arch enemy). I shoot mostly wildlife, nature (none of which move very fast most of the time) and I go to car shows and air shows (which makes better AF for fast moving subjects desirable along with higher continuous burst). But really, air shows are once a year.

I'm thinking I would like to get into FF cheap. Looking at the 1d, 1ds & 5dc.

My concern is that I won't be able to judge image quality because my t5i is so new and a old FF is older tech, or is that a wrong assumption?

I still think the 5D classic is a great body that has the most realistic noise rendition. Your T5i may have a better sensor now, but that 5Dc felt more like film to me. YMMV.

iroctd wrote in post #17198892
I have a Canon T5i Aps-c body and have been wanting to see what full frame is all about. I've done a lot of research about various FF bodies, mainly the 1ds, 1ds3, 5dc, 5d2, 6d and the aps-h 1d, 1d4 since they are 1 series bodies. Mainly I'm interested in the better image quality of FF, which for me admittedly seems silly as images on my flickr page look great at the size they are no matter what body. I do not print the images and this is just a hobby of mine, nothing commercial. Still it is something I'm passionate about and it is the only thing I have right now. Other reasons would be more continuous burst and better noise control at high iso (currently high iso is my arch enemy). I shoot mostly wildlife, nature (none of which move very fast most of the time) and I go to car shows and air shows (which makes better AF for fast moving subjects desirable along with higher continuous burst). But really, air shows are once a year.

I'm thinking I would like to get into FF cheap. Looking at the 1d, 1ds & 5dc.

My concern is that I won't be able to judge image quality because my t5i is so new and a old FF is older tech, or is that a wrong assumption?

From having actually used Digital Rebel models and a Canon 5D: there's not that much difference between what you'll get out of the different models. Your technique, lighting and lenses will make a larger difference. In short, there will be no miracles from switching to a 5D. A "full frame" camera will not make you a better photographer or lead to any drastic difference in the images you create.

Keep in mind that only the 1series models with the S designation are full frame( prior to the 1DX). You really dont make a good case for moving to full frame for your needs. You dont really shoot or display in the categories where FF have an advantage ( portrait and landscape) and your loss of reach will seem drastic for wildlife. There are some qualities thst can make full frame better but you seem to be expecting more magic than you are likely to get.

That is good news! I can now lay down that struggle of do I need this and which should I get. Now I can focus on refining what I'm doing with my T5i. My mind is a buzz already.. thanks all of you!

There is undeniably an attraction to moving to the 35mm format. It's something I also consider from time to time.

But it seems that the smaller formats are winning the format war. APS-C has great IQ and the bodies are becoming more and more sophisticated. Just check out the threads on the newly-announced 7D Mark II.

The 35mm format does have better color depth and dynamic range, but for most purposes the differences from APS-C are not noticeable. Heck, even point-and-shoots with their microscopic sensors take great pics.

And like you, I do little landscape and practically no portrait work that would benefit the most from a 35mm-sized sensor.

So I too will stay with APS-C for the time being, and just might upgrade to the most advanced body, the 7D2.

iroctd wrote in post #17198892
I have a Canon T5i Aps-c body and have been wanting to see what full frame is all about. I've done a lot of research about various FF bodies, mainly the 1ds, 1ds3, 5dc, 5d2, 6d and the aps-h 1d, 1d4 since they are 1 series bodies. Mainly I'm interested in the better image quality of FF, which for me admittedly seems silly as images on my flickr page look great at the size they are no matter what body. I do not print the images and this is just a hobby of mine, nothing commercial. Still it is something I'm passionate about and it is the only thing I have right now. Other reasons would be more continuous burst and better noise control at high iso (currently high iso is my arch enemy). I shoot mostly wildlife, nature (none of which move very fast most of the time) and I go to car shows and air shows (which makes better AF for fast moving subjects desirable along with higher continuous burst). But really, air shows are once a year.

I'm thinking I would like to get into FF cheap. Looking at the 1d, 1ds & 5dc.

My concern is that I won't be able to judge image quality because my t5i is so new and a old FF is older tech, or is that a wrong assumption?

Heya,

Rent a full frame body, 6D or 5D2, and see what the fuss is all about. Compare your images later. See if you really think it makes a difference in the real world (your images).

If you really want full frame, the 5D classic is affordable. But the only thing you're gaining is the unique look of the 5D's file output, and thinner depth of field control. Your T5i has better everything else frankly.

I wouldn't do a 1D/1Ds for the cost at this point. If anything, maybe 1D2. But you're still not full frame there, it's 1.3x crop. You'd just be comparing really old 1D sensors to today's modern APS-C sensor and you will not be gaining anything other than AF, speed, robust build, etc.

If you really want to increase your ISO performance, burst, etc, for what you shoot, I would just suggest you start saving for a 70D. For what you shoot mostly, I would choose APS-C over full frame anyways, with long lenses.

Very best,

I shoot a 60D and 6D. For the most part, there isn't a hill of beans difference between apsc and full frame. If you: print larger than 20"x30", mostly (or need to) shoot at ISO larger than 3200+, or have a bunch of glass faster than f/2.8 - you may want to consider full frame. If not, don't bother.

You don't mention what ISO you consider 'high'. Your T5i is quite capable of excellent ISO 6400 results, if you do your part. You also mention better (faster) AF, faster burst rate, and deeper buffer depth. The 70D offers all that. But again, your T5i is quite capable.

Full frame comes with the (near) obligation to buy much more expensive lenses. If you want an AF monster that excels at high ISO, burst rate and buffer depth, wait on the 7DII. It will be out shortly. If, instead, you want full frame, get a 1Dx. It is the only full frame to offer everything the 7DII will be packed with.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17199437
You don't mention what ISO you consider 'high'. Your T5i is quite capable of excellent ISO 6400 results, if you do your part.

I've actually set the camera not to go above 800 iso if I happen to be using auto ISO. 1600 isn't too bad but 3200 & 6400 destroys the detail. Maybe I'm doing something wrong or need to revisit noise reduction in my post processing. Currently I'm using Lightroom.

I should note that cropping the image (which I do a lot) makes the iso noise more pronounced especially at higher iso.

iroctd wrote in post #17199695
I've actually set the camera not to go above 800 iso if I happen to be using auto ISO. 1600 isn't too bad but 3200 & 6400 destroys the detail. Maybe I'm doing something wrong or need to revisit noise reduction in my post processing. Currently I'm using Lightroom.

I should note that cropping the image (which I do a lot) makes the iso noise more pronounced especially at higher iso.

Certainly, everyone has their own tolerance for noise. If 800 is your limit, that's fine. Lots of folks use apsc cameras at 6400 with good results. I don't mind using my 60D at ISO 3200, and 6400 works well if I nail the WB and exposure. Search POTN for a 7D noise-reduction thread by TeamSpeed. That is an excellent read.

By cropping (which means you could use a longer lens) you are making the noise more noticeable, not worse. A longer lens may help here. A 400mm shot uncropped, will look a lot better than a 200mm cropped 50%, all else being equal.

While you are looking, look at faster lenses. A 70-200 2.8 (Tamron, Sigma, Canon) will drop your ISO two full stops from your 55-250 at 200mm. That is huge.

Link to the above mentioned thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …217&highlight=m​ini-review

iroctd wrote in post #17199695
I've actually set the camera not to go above 800 iso if I happen to be using auto ISO. 1600 isn't too bad but 3200 & 6400 destroys the detail. Maybe I'm doing something wrong or need to revisit noise reduction in my post processing. Currently I'm using Lightroom.

I should note that cropping the image (which I do a lot) makes the iso noise more pronounced especially at higher iso.

yes, cropping will make noise more apparent.

You have given one reason to consider FF (less noise at higher ISOs) but several reasons not to. You don't print, and you are unlikely to see any difference between well exposed images at Flickr sizes. you do several types of photography that benefit from the greater reach of a crop sensor.

Re less noise: FF cameras are better, but they are not magical. How high you can go depends on your tolerance for noise and your willingness to use noise reduction (which I hate to use). However, whatever your tolerance is, you will get a few stops extra with FF, but at some point, it will get too noisy for you.

I'd stick with what you have, frankly. If you get the point where you want better controls, better AF, etc., get yourself a higher-end APS-C and save some money relative to a comparable FF.

BTW, I say this as someone who shoots both formats.

iroctd wrote in post #17199695
I've actually set the camera not to go above 800 iso if I happen to be using auto ISO. 1600 isn't too bad but 3200 & 6400 destroys the detail. Maybe I'm doing something wrong or need to revisit noise reduction in my post processing. Currently I'm using Lightroom.

I should note that cropping the image (which I do a lot) makes the iso noise more pronounced especially at higher iso.

If you are bothered by noise at those ISO settings you might want to check into using the ETTR method. Many who compain of excessive noise are often slightly underexposing their images which causes additional noise, especially when corrected in post.

Also be aware of a couple of important difference in FF vs 1.6x bodies. With a FF you should be able to shoot at a lower shutter speed without visible camera shake using the same lens. On FF a 70 - 200 you should be able to hand hold at 1/200s vs 1/320s on the t5i. Keep in mind also that when using primes such as a 85mm on either body that you will need more room to shoot the same composition than on the 1.6x body.

Those are what drove me to FF over my 1.6x or 1.3x bodies as much as overall image quality.

iroctd wrote in post #17199695
I've actually set the camera not to go above 800 iso if I happen to be using auto ISO. 1600 isn't too bad but 3200 & 6400 destroys the detail. Maybe I'm doing something wrong or need to revisit noise reduction in my post processing. Currently I'm using Lightroom.

I should note that cropping the image (which I do a lot) makes the iso noise more pronounced especially at higher iso.

You need to search here for Teamspeeds posts about getting very usable images out of 7D... same sensor as your camera. I use ISO 1600 all the time with no concern at all, 3200 with a little extra work, and even 6400 although it requires a bit more attention in post-processing. Teamspeed has shared some great images at even higher ISOs. The key is to shoot RAW, avoid underexposure at all costs, and for the super high ISO stuff, do some extra work in Photoshop, with Noiseware plugin.

I agree with other responses that your likely to see very little benefit from "going full frame" if the majority of your use of your images is posting them on Flickr. FF really isn't needed very much for online resolutions.

Speaking of full frame, the 1Ds Mark III from 2007 is the FF 1D-series model that preceded the current 1DX (2012, 18MP). The 1Ds III is limited to ISO 3200 at it's highest setting. And 1DsIII uses the same 21MP sensor as in the 5D Mark II when it came out one year later in 2008, but this time it's capable of ISO 25600.

amfoto1 wrote in post #17200294
You need to search here for Teamspeeds posts about getting very usable images out of 7D... same sensor as your camera...

Link provided in post #10.