If you have Full Frame, did you still keep your Crop Body?

I started out with a 550D and upgraded to a 6D just over a year ago. My 550D is now my girlfriends P&S for family events and I almost never use it.

The 6D isn't as solid as some of the higher end bodies, yet after using it I feel the 550D is too plastic and cheap. I hope to get rid of it and replace it with another FF body, most likely a A7r. I much prefer FF bodies for the better ISO capability, getting the true focal length and mostly because I don't do any sports or wildlife so that crop factor has no benefit to me.

The focal length is what is marked on the lens. That's always the "true" focal length, regardless of the body the lens is mounted on (presuming, of course, that the marking is accurate in any case).

When I was shooting medium and large format (as in 6x7 cm 4x5 in) it would never have seemed logical to think the focal length of a particular lens was "true" depending on the size back I put on it. When you put any lens on an APS-C camera, you are getting the "true" focal length.

Have been shooting with a Nikon D7000 (apcs sensor). Just got a Nikon D750 (full frame) and I love it but I won't give up my D7000 as it works extremely well for birds. If I give up birds, I'll sell the D7000.

When I went medium format (6x6) I kept my crop and full frame, I'm about to go kinda backward down to 645 but I'm keeping the 6x6,35mm and APS-C

I went from a 40D to a 5D to a 6D.

Still have all three.

I went from a 7 year old 40D directly to the 6D but kept the 40D because it's worth so little on the used camera market.
I still like it with my 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS.

I had 40D and was looking to upgrade to 7DII. When it was taking too long for it to come out, I went ahead with 5DIII with the idea of either adding 7DII when it finally comes out or replacing 5DIII for it. When 7DII came out, it was a disappointment for me personally (got too used to 5DIII by then!), so now I'm thinking to just keep 5DIII and add whatever the next camera that'd improve on 7DII.

SYS wrote in post #17545813
I had 40D and was looking to upgrade to 7DII. When it was taking too long for it to come out, I went ahead with 5DIII with the idea of either adding 7DII when it finally comes out or replacing 5DIII for it. When 7DII came out, it was a disappointment for me personally (got too used to 5DIII by then!), so now I'm thinking to just keep 5DIII and add whatever the next camera that'd improve on 7DII.

So then, are we to assume that your shooting is mainly of close or large objects, and that you are rarely focal-length-limited? That makes a huge difference when taking your assessment into account. I don't doubt that if you fill your frame in every case, the FF image has about the same (equivalence) or less (shallower DOF) noise, and that the same lens can resolve more lines on a larger sensor, but when people report better "IQ" in focal-length-limited situations vs the 7D2, I have to wonder if they are going by pixel sharpness (and pixel noise), which has no direct relation to subject detail.

By all measurements, the 7D2 has slightly less total noise, less banding, and more subject resolution than a 1.6x crop from the 5D3.

When I had a 7D and a 5D2, I only liked the 5D2 better when using the whole frame including shallower DOF. When I bought a 6D, I liked the 6D better in equivalence (less noise and banding noise), but preferred the 7D in good light, for focal-length-limited situations. Now with the 7D2, I find no advantage to 6D image quality in focal-length-limited situations, at all; the 7D2 has the best noise quality per unit of sensor area of any Canon DSLR, IMO, at both low and high ISOs. I only use the 6D when I want to shoot fast lenses wide open, or with wider FOVs not possible with the 7D2.

This must be a repeat question as I could have sworn I'd posted to this thread, anyway;

I fairly recently added my first full frame since Film, the 5D3

It was the first affordable FF with the features I desire (require?) for my kind of shooting.

Prior to that I was always shooting with the 1D series (a 1.3x crop body)

The 5D3 despite it's excellent AF still has not replaced my 1D4.

Not only has the FF not replaced my old standard crop bodes, but like the 5D3 being the first full frame that had the features I require, now there is the 7D2 which is the first APS-C 1.6x crop to provide those features, and have added that to my kit.

ie; Since going FF not only have a kept my 1.3X body, but I have now for the first time since 2004 added a 1.6x crop.*

* for wildlife and general photography, I have kept a 1.6x converted infra red camera for many years, which is not part of my "normal" shooting.

SYS wrote in post #17545813
I had 40D and was looking to upgrade to 7DII. When it was taking too long for it to come out, I went ahead with 5DIII with the idea of either adding 7DII when it finally comes out or replacing 5DIII for it. When 7DII came out, it was a disappointment for me personally (got too used to 5DIII by then!), so now I'm thinking to just keep 5DIII and add whatever the next camera that'd improve on 7DII.

May I ask what about the 7D2 is disappointing? for me it was very much like the 5D3, in that it has everything I need for wildlife and action oriented photography. I adds features that the 5D3 does not have (Oh what I would give to get the AF mode selection lever on my 5D3 and 1D4!!!)

I find the 7D2 compliments the 5D3 very much!

John Sheehy wrote in post #17545841
So then, are we to assume that your shooting is mainly of close or large objects, and that you are rarely focal-length-limited?

This is a bad assumption. For over a decade my shooting has been 90% the kind of shooting that proponents of more pixels on target = focal length reference, and I have avoided 1.6x crop bodies the whole time (until 7D2)
So making use of larger sensors with larger pixels does not equate to shooting large close objects.

I'd like to see the source material that shows all these measurements re noise, as I do find the 5D3 to handle noise noticeably better, shooting side by side. As for banding, this I've not looked into.

Ahh, sorry I did not comprehend your modifier of a "1.6 crop from 5D3",.. of that I have no argument. But this goes back to my initial point that not all people shooting birds , wildlife etc, are using the body to crop out the center. It's a tool, yes, but it's not going to get the best shot. Ever.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17545841
So then, are we to assume that your shooting is mainly of close or large objects, and that you are rarely focal-length-limited? That makes a huge difference when taking your assessment into account.

When shooting birds I compensated for focal-length limitation by using a camouflage tent. I was able to fill the frame more this way, but of course this isn't an ideal set up and hence my continuing search for the crop body.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17545872
May I ask what about the 7D2 is disappointing? for me it was very much like the 5D3, in that it has everything I need for wildlife and action oriented photography. I adds features that the 5D3 does not have (Oh what I would give to get the AF mode selection lever on my 5D3 and 1D4!!!)

I find the 7D2 compliments the 5D3 very much!

I'm being greedy. I shoot mostly indoor classical music concerts, as well as outdoor wildlife and birds. I shoot some portraits, too, both studio and natural. The 5D3 is very satisfying for the former shooting situations using high ISO, as well as portraits, but not so much the latter shooting situations. What I was hoping for in 7DII was equally matching indoor shooting situations. Now, to be fair, I'm basing my judgment on what other folks have reported and some side-by-side tests and not based on my personal testing and observation. I also do understand that it's not quite fair to be so picky about its high ISO capabilities when it's specialty is for wildlife and sports. My disappointment, too, was based on my original plan to have 5DIII replaced with 7DII to serve all my primary shooting needs. I suppose if I'm to keep 5DIII, I'd have to agree that 7DII would complement it very well.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17545881
I'd like to see the source material that shows all these measurements re noise, as I do find the 5D3 to handle noise noticeably better, shooting side by side. As for banding, this I've not looked into.

CDS, I just looked at the test report for the 7D2 on dpreview.com, and while they do not make available any graph comparisons of noise including 7D2 results, they did include image comparisons. This test deliberately UNDERexposes by -5EV, then uses ACR pushing back +5EV, to characterize 'exposure latitude'. I selected 4 different Canons to compare here...

SYS -
I use my 7D2 for portraits, indoor and out, along with sports and horses - got a 5DII recently, and while I like the files and the rendering, I dont' see that much difference in my portrait work between the two - other than how fast the FF goes oof. I rather like that I can have the higher sync speed with the 7D2 - So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the specific situation mentioned that the 7D2 doesn't keep up with the 5D3 in the studio.. anything more specific?

No one wants to shoot at 10,000 or 16000 iso, and pixel peeping puts the file as mush - but for something for smaller prints in dark environments the 7D2 is pretty impressive for a crop. I needed that iso to freeze action for over fences.. I was amazed I could do it and have something decent.