Legitimately Torn Between APS-C and Full Frame Options

werds wrote in post #17614797
Reason I qualified it with a some or most and not the definitive all situations lol

Yes, the point to the OP is that in spite of generalizations abounding, until you compare the TWO SPECIFIC products side by side, you can jump to wrong conclusions about 'superiority'.

One has to wonder just how polished IQ we have to have, when they ALL are better than we think we need... we have been well beyond polishing the proverbial turd for a very long time, when pixel count exceeded 6Mpixel!

I used to shoot professionally on large format and medium format; the 'miniature format' (which 135/FF was called originally) was not good enough. Now, with digital, I can honestly say that, as a hobbyist, a 10 year old APS-C dSLR meets all of my needs for IQ; I have a 12MPixel FF which comes out only when I need to shoot architectural interiors with a 24mm Perspective Correction optic that would be too narrow AOV on APS-C. Most folks don't even own 3K monitors with 2550 x 1440 resolution on their computer, so why are we so engrossed in showing them 20 MPixel sensor images via the web browser and worrying about noise that mostly shows up at 150% crop view?! 'Overkill'

Wilt wrote in post #17614789
And then you run into comparative results of images at very high magnification and see where one of the most recent APS-C cameras outperforms one of the most recent FF cameras in terms of freedom from bands of noise, proving that generalizations (about FF better than APS-C noise) always seem to have their exceptions...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17545932

I

Wilt, I'm glad you commented. I was going to ask for your take on the topic because I trust your experience. Sometimes, I feel guilty for being completely satisfied with my 7D2 as an all around camera. I know it works better than any other I've used for wildlife and birding but it seems to work well for me with other genres if I do my job. I'm pretty fussy but I like the landscapes I take. I need a lot more work when people are the subject but I'm getting there.

I'd like to be cursed with the use of the 7DII...OTOH, I don't know if I can get passed the hurdle of transmissive display overlays, or eating up digital storage capacity almost twice as fast as I do now, when I don't have to have the resolution!

Don't feel guilty. The 7d II might excel at wildlife and birding, but that doesn't mean it can't be very good at other types of photography. In the end, our skill set determines the outcome. It would be really easy to get a 5ds and take crappy pictures. With skill, you can use the 7d II or indeed any other camera to create great images. It's not the camera, it's the user .

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17594338
Timing > FPS.

Yes this is why all the best sports photographers in the world shooting the Super Bowl, Olympics, NBA are all using cameras firing at 10+ FPS. They must have poor timing...

FEChariot wrote in post #17635620
Yes this is why all the best sports photographers in the world shooting the Super Bowl, Olympics, NBA are all using cameras firing at 10+ FPS. They must have poor timing...

I somewhat agree with you but it's probably more to do with the AF then FPS. I know plenty of MLB, NBA etc photographers that use a 5DIII. It's not a blazing FPS camera. Timing is more important!

I have a 5DIII and a 7DII, lately I find I'm using the 7DII more than the 5DIII. It really is very versatile and I am thinking while I'm using it I'm saving shutter count of my full frame as they are rather expensive and its probably not something I want to replace any time soon. I use the full frame in low light mainly and for times when I'm using wide open F stops like F2 F1.2 etc. The 7DII is great for anything that moves and I'm yet to really test it out for night photography. I can understand people being very happy with it all round, for the most part full frame to me seems only an advantage for lower light and when you dont have to crop in much.

aladyforty wrote in post #17669365
I have a 5DIII and a 7DII, lately I find I'm using the 7DII more than the 5DIII. It really is very versatile and I am thinking while I'm using it I'm saving shutter count of my full frame as they are rather expensive and its probably not something I want to replace any time soon. I use the full frame in low light mainly and for times when I'm using wide open F stops like F2 F1.2 etc. The 7DII is great for anything that moves and I'm yet to really test it out for night photography. I can understand people being very happy with it all round, for the most part full frame to me seems only an advantage for lower light and when you dont have to crop in much.

I hope you don't mean that 5dmk3 is not good for things that move. Personally if I had both unless I was reach limited I would always use 5dmk3.

bobbyz wrote in post #17670107
I hope you don't mean that 5dmk3 is not good for things that move. Personally if I had both unless I was reach limited I would always use 5dmk3.

No but when shooting high speed dog agility or rodeo Ive found the 7DII out does the 5DIII. 5DIII is great for most stuff but for reach and really action stuff I prefer the 7DII. That said with good lenses for the most part I have to check the exif data to pick what camera I used a lot of the time.

Well said. The whole cropped vs. full frame is more a ego builder for those who say you always need a full frame DSLR over a chropped sensor DSLR. The Canon 70D is so much better in every other area then the 6D, it makes me laugh (the 6D is only better in low light performance due to the sensor size). I would say go for the gold if you need speed (7D Mark II).

Take Care and God bless!

I was in the same boat debating FF vs. APS-C and finally just went with another APS-C. (7D mkII)

99% of my shots are wildlife/outdoor/macro​/nature things. So the 7D MkII just made sense and the extra $$ I had budgeted went into a P800 printer, etc.

Still a good tool to shoot the occasional wedding and class reunion as I have done in the past so, no regrets.

Naturalist wrote in post #17671467
I was in the same boat debating FF vs. APS-C and finally just went with another APS-C. (7D mkII)

99% of my shots are wildlife/outdoor/macro​/nature things. So the 7D MkII just made sense and the extra $$ I had budgeted went into a P800 printer, etc.

When my best APS-C was the 7D, I would sometimes prefer the 6D in low light for shooting birds, so I would go out with my 100-400 v1 or Tamron 150-600 attached to the 7D, and I'd have the 6D in the knapsack for shooting around dusk or in deep shade. With the 7D2, I never need the 6D, because the final IQ of the 7D2 is better than the 6D, cropped harder. The 6D has been reserved for non-wildlife situations.

aladyforty wrote in post #17670701
No but when shooting high speed dog agility or rodeo Ive found the 7DII out does the 5DIII. 5DIII is great for most stuff but for reach and really action stuff I prefer the 7DII. That said with good lenses for the most part I have to check the exif data to pick what camera I used a lot of the time.

Haven't tested 70d but 5dmk3 beat most 1 series except 1dx. This with 300/400mm f2.8 or the 500/600mm f4. Reach I agree.

Well there is no 15/.95 crop option to compare to a 24/1.4 on FF. There is no 14/2.8 equivalent for crop. The best 24-70/2.8 comparible is the 18-35 Sigma which is not as wide or as long and there is no 44-125/1.8 option on crop to give you the results of a 70-200/2.8 on FF. The problems isn't a crop versus FF one, it's an available lens option problem.

I just came across this thread, again. A few pages back, I was espousing the 'not-huge' difference between apsc and full-frame. The difference is real, but smaller than most folks believe. At the time I'd had my 6D for about 18 months. I was finally able to get an acceptable price for my well-used 60D. My transition back to full frame (I started with film) is complete. I do not miss having an apsc camera. The G15 is a very good 'small' camera. With its f/1.8-2.8 lens, it rivals anything I could do with the 60D/15-85.

My 6D does everything I need it to do. All-in-all, I am very happy with it. I am not certain the benefit of full frame was worth the cost of switching glass, but if I hadn't done it, I'd still be wondering....