Thinking of going from full-frame to APS-C

Usually people think of going the other way. I went full-frame with the 6D over 3 years ago primarily because I wanted the low-light capability for event photography. The 6D served me very well for a long time, but I've completely stopped taking paid work, and don't do much event photography any more. Most of my shooting is personal shooting now, so I generally shoot with my Fuji mirrorless.

I've sold off a lot of my Canon lenses, but still have the 6D. I do kind of want to keep a DSLR to complement my Fuji, so I'm thinking of selling the 6D and going to an APS-C Canon. The biggest reason is cost of lenses. Going forwards photography is going to be a personal non-paid hobby, so I'd like cheaper lenses, especially in focal lengths I won't use frequently. I really like what Canon has done with the newer EF-S STM lenses, like the 10-18, 24mm, and 55-250. These are all cheap lenses that optically seem solid, more than enough for personal shooting. The 10-18 lens particularly is 1/4 the cost of the Fuji equivalent. I also like the 3rd party options for the Canon EF-S line as well, like the Sigma 17-50.

The idea would be to build out my Fuji system with some of their fast and small prime lenses, and get cheaper zoom lenses (like the 10-18, 55-250, 24) for a Canon EF-S mount camera. Probably something like the T6i.

Not having the need for the lowest possible noise at very high ISO's, I do not have a compulsion to get the finest low noise performance vs. larger pixel area's light gathering, like you.

Yes, APS-C has less total IQ than the larger FF format, all else being equal, but APS-C performs just fine for my own non-professional shooting. And FF does not have as fast a zoom equivalent with IS, with AOV similar to my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, which holds me back from stopping APS-C shooting.

When shooting film, I had dropped using 135 format and went exclusively to use of 645 due to the larger image size. I used to only picked up my 135 outfit when the absolute fastest lenses were essential to use. This lack of use of 135 was partly due to limitations of print size without noticeable grain, but also because of the superior tonality and color gradations obtained with a larger film format For professional shooting 645 was the minimum size for me, with periodic need for 4x5" sheetfilm.

But in digital, I find that APS-C gives me all that I need for non-professional shooting, and I find the FF digital is reserved for 'special' needs, such as mounting a 24mm Perspective Control lens on a FF digital body for its AOV (even 17mm on APS-C is not as wide), and digital high ISO performance cuts down on need for superfast lenses.

I've been shooting digital for 10 years now, always on APS-C, and have never owned a FF body. Periodically I consider some of the advantages of FF but while I believe the pluses are real, the differences would never be visible in my work. So I am sticking with APS-C for the foreseeable future.

Sometimes I trade laughs with photographer friends about how APS-C is already way more camera than most amateurs need. I never print my photos. Why do I even need APS-C? But for now, for various reasons, I think APS-C is the right compromise for me.

The Rebels are very capable cameras. You should get one.

Whatever model you buy, it should serve you well for 3 to 4 years - and after that, better and cheaper bodies will be available and you can make a new decision.

I see no problem with it. One of the most accurate things I've read about APS-C was Archibald said: it is already way more than most amateurs need. LOL! So true.

Your Fuji system is going to give you a great selection of lenses, albeit pricey in comparison. Smaller overall system though. I think WAAAY too many people overthink this FF/crop "debate".

I shoot full frame largely because I can afford to. IQ is slightly better, but who notices that on FB and other web shots? I have 11" x 17" prints from my 500D hanging in my house. That is not large enough to see a difference in a well-exposed, well-processed, properly printed shot. A local shooter pal has a house full of 20" x 30" poster/prints he shot with a 7D. They look amazing.

Unless you are shooting in the stratosphere of ISO values (6400+), or printing REALLY large, there isn't a hill of beans difference in the IQ between apsc and ff.

You can tell the difference between ff and crop when framing identically between the two of the same subject at the same aperture, that is a big draw for many. Also depending on which crop, you will be able to see sharpness differences between the two using the same glass. I don't think the differences are really quite that trivial.

I concede that the difference is not trivial. IQ also varies with what glass you put in front of it. The OP's contemplated move makes little sense to me, unless you take the financial argument into account. APS-c bodies and ef-s glass are certainly a lot less expensive than the full frame alternatives. That will also make the IQ difference larger. The only ef-s lens I currently own is the 18-55 STM, which does not get used. It's sole purpose is to make my 70D a usable kit when I sell it (see signature).

I use EF glass on my 70D, which does bring the IQ up a notch from most ef-s lenses when using an aps-c body. Still, there are some excellent ef-s lenses. I think the 18-55 STM, for $75, is one of the best bargains in Canon-land. I've also used the 10-18, which is excellent, but slow. The 15-85 is also good. I've had both II and STM versions of the 55-250, both quite respectable. It is just physics that EF lenses will be generally better across the frame on aps-c bodies than ef-s lenses.

There are a lot of reasons to move FF / CROP, or the other way. IQ is just one of them, and it is not huge. Size, weight, zoom range, and cost are also valid factors.

Having a crop body gives you the ability to use both EF and EFS glass, so there is some versatility in the decision, both from a lens choice perspective as well as from a budgetary perspective.

I don't use my 18-55 STM nearly enough. I am still very surprised how sharp the corners of the frame is with that lens. It is definitely one of the best kit lenses ever made by Canon, nearly rivaling some EF lenses many, many times its price. Great value at $100.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17981784
You can tell the difference between ff and crop when framing identically between the two of the same subject at the same aperture, that is a big draw for many. Also depending on which crop, you will be able to see sharpness differences between the two using the same glass. I don't think the differences are really quite that trivial.

But one needs to ask yourself, "...but practically speaking, under what circumstances will you actually be able to SEE the DOF difference, to intuitively KNOW 'shot by APS-C vs. FF'?"

The DOF difference which is noticed is when using a lens wide open... since you cannot make an 80mm f/1.4 lens (if that lens existed) on FF perform like a 50mm f/0.7 lens on APS-C (since that max aperture lens does not exist).
But if you use the f/80mm lens at f/3.2 on FF and then switch to 50mm f/2 on APS-C, you will not see any difference! (In this chart, I used f/3.22 simply to visually separate the blue line from the green line on the graph; if I had entered 80mm f/3.2 the lines are perfectly coincident, showing same DOF and same far field blur magnitude.)

Bassat wrote in post #17981833
I concede that the difference is not trivial. IQ also varies with what glass you put in front of it. The OP's contemplated move makes little sense to me, unless you take the financial argument into account. APS-c bodies and ef-s glass are certainly a lot less expensive than the full frame alternatives. That will also make the IQ difference larger. The only ef-s lens I currently own is the 18-55 STM, which does not get used. It's sole purpose is to make my 70D a usable kit when I sell it (see signature).

I use EF glass on my 70D, which does bring the IQ up a notch from most ef-s lenses when using an aps-c body. Still, there are some excellent ef-s lenses. I think the 18-55 STM, for $75, is one of the best bargains in Canon-land. I've also used the 10-18, which is excellent, but slow. The 15-85 is also good. I've had both II and STM versions of the 55-250, both quite respectable. It is just physics that EF lenses will be generally better across the frame on aps-c bodies than ef-s lenses.

There are a lot of reasons to move FF / CROP, or the other way. IQ is just one of them, and it is not huge. Size, weight, zoom range, and cost are also valid factors.

The intention of the OP is, I believe, to use SHORTER FL lenses, which are indeed less expensive th PURCHASE. Instead of buying 800mm for FF, he could buy 500mm for the APS-C body, thereby saving money yet incurring zero loss of IQ (assuming identical lens MTF scores for both).
OTOH, if he already owns the lenses for his FF body, the money saving is indeed fictitious for him in changing to APS-C instead -- unless one has to purchase new glass for the wider end of APS-C, where it is extra money spent!
As examples,

• if he owns 300mm lens for FF, and he wants to shoot birds with APS-C, he could avoid the purchase of 500mm lens yet achieve 1.6x greater subject capture with the already owned lens...saving money.
  
• if one needed to buy 18-50mm lens in order to replicate the 28-80mm of his FF, it is money spent because of changing to the smaller format.
  

I shot 35mm film for about 35 years. My first digital came about 2008-9, a T1i. I shot that for years until buying a 5Dc, then 6D. Along the way, I've used 1D, 1DII, 7D, and some others. Right now I have a 6D, 70D, and 1DIII. I don't consider crop factor when choosing which body to shoot. Which body I use may influence the choice of lenses. The 12mm FE makes no sense on anything but FF. If I need reach, I put the 100-400 on the 70D. For my grandkids' sports, I use the 70D/1D3 (just got this one) for AF and FPS. There are lots of things to consider beside crop factor.

EDIT: I agree with TeamSpeed. My 18-55 STM is better in the deep corners on aps-c than my 17-40 on the 6D. To my eyes, you have to be pixel peeping to see it, though.

Bassat wrote in post #17981833
I concede that the difference is not trivial. IQ also varies with what glass you put in front of it. The OP's contemplated move makes little sense to me, unless you take the financial argument into account. APS-c bodies and ef-s glass are certainly a lot less expensive than the full frame alternatives. That will also make the IQ difference larger. The only ef-s lens I currently own is the 18-55 STM, which does not get used. Its sole purpose is to make my 70D a usable kit when I sell it (see signature).

I use EF glass on my 70D, which does bring the IQ up a notch from most ef-s lenses when using an aps-c body. Still, there are some excellent ef-s lenses. I think the 18-55 STM, for $75, is one of the best bargains in Canon-land. I've also used the 10-18, which is excellent, but slow. The 15-85 is also good. I've had both II and STM versions of the 55-250, both quite respectable. It is just physics that EF lenses will be generally better across the frame on aps-c bodies than ef-s lenses.

There are a lot of reasons to move FF / CROP, or the other way. IQ is just one of them, and it is not huge. Size, weight, zoom range, and cost are also valid factors.

As you go from large formats like 4x5" or MF through 35mm and APS-C to smaller formats like compact cameras, manufacturing tolerances have to become much tighter. Therefore in principle using larger format lenses on smaller format bodies will get you into the limitations of those tolerances... things like lens wobble, slightly misaligned elements, inherent sharpness, and so on. Using EF lenses on APS-C bodies could show performance issues like this - basically the errors that would be acceptable on a 35mm sensor get magnified by a factor of 1.6 with APS-C and will thus become more prominent.

Whether this is actually an issue with particular lenses depends on their respective properties, but I think it is an error to conclude that EF lenses are inherently better than EF-S lenses on APS-C bodies.

No Rebel for me. I'd consider it if it had micro adjust. This is why I appreciate mirrorless systems so that I do not have to deal with camera / lens calibration clash. I will never buy a camera with no MA.

I love my Fuji X-T10 w/ 18-55 kit lens and 16mm f/1.4 (24mm equiv). I will expand on this crop sensor system because the glass is great and with the upcoming bodies the "experience" and "performance" will simply get better. However the canon 6D center focus AF would be substantially better than the slow AF system of the X-T10.

I'm actually considering on buying the 80D. More for dual pixel technology for video. Also it will be nice to have a "built in" 1.6 TC

I would never sell my full frames because at the end of the day if you have less IQ in low light that would annoy me. The 80d or Fuji wouldn't meet my high expectations in IQ in low light. The fuji small form factor produces awesome IQ and I've already deemed it a good light /semi challenging low ligh shooter.

AlanU wrote in post #17981998
No Rebel for me. I'd consider it if it had micro adjust. This is why I appreciate mirrorless systems so that I do not have to deal with camera / lens calibration clash. I will never buy a camera with no MA.

I love my Fuji X-T10 w/ 18-55 kit lens and 16mm f/1.4 (24mm equiv). I will expand on this crop sensor system because the glass is great and with the upcoming bodies the "experience" and "performance" will simply get better. However the canon 6D center focus AF would be substantially better than the slow AF system of the X-T10.

I'm actually considering on buying the 80D. More for dual pixel technology for video. Also it will be nice to have a "built in" 1.6 TC

I would never sell my full frames because at the end of the day if you have less IQ in low light that would annoy me. The 80d or Fuji wouldn't meet my high expectations in IQ in low light. The fuji small form factor produces awesome IQ and I've already deemed it a good light /semi challenging low ligh shooter.

It is wise to consider your own specific needs. If you have a lot of important low light situations, bigger sensors would be better.

I have a friend who has a compact super zoom camera and it takes terrific pictures, because he is practically always shooting in good light. He has noticed a reduction of IQ in low light, but those situations are rare for him and the tradeoff is acceptable.

Rebels are a compromise, as all cameras are. I have an SL1 Rebel to back up my 7D2. The IQ of the SL1 is terrific, and I don't notice any need to do MFA on the SL1 - EXCEPT for the 100-400 II with 1.4x extender. That combo would be unusable on the SL1. And the frame rate is a lot lower. And the SL1 only selects whole f stops, like f/11 and f/16 - no f/13. Sometimes that matters. Again, it all comes down to your requirements.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17980201
Usually people think of going the other way. I went full-frame with the 6D over 3 years ago primarily because I wanted the low-light capability for event photography. The 6D served me very well for a long time, but I've completely stopped taking paid work, and don't do much event photography any more. Most of my shooting is personal shooting now, so I generally shoot with my Fuji mirrorless.

I've sold off a lot of my Canon lenses, but still have the 6D. I do kind of want to keep a DSLR to complement my Fuji, so I'm thinking of selling the 6D and going to an APS-C Canon. The biggest reason is cost of lenses. Going forwards photography is going to be a personal non-paid hobby, so I'd like cheaper lenses, especially in focal lengths I won't use frequently. I really like what Canon has done with the newer EF-S STM lenses, like the 10-18, 24mm, and 55-250. These are all cheap lenses that optically seem solid, more than enough for personal shooting. The 10-18 lens particularly is 1/4 the cost of the Fuji equivalent. I also like the 3rd party options for the Canon EF-S line as well, like the Sigma 17-50.

The idea would be to build out my Fuji system with some of their fast and small prime lenses, and get cheaper zoom lenses (like the 10-18, 55-250, 24) for a Canon EF-S mount camera. Probably something like the T6i.

Heya,

Nothing wrong with that, all of the bang for buck stuff is APS-C. And really, the magic of full frame is a gap that has really closed considerably compared to the past where it was painfully obvious the difference. But now, a modern APS-C can perform right up where full frame was just performing yesteryear in many regards (mostly regarding noise performance). Image quality is frankly a wash these days.

If you liked a lot about what the 6D did, and you want something potent to compliment your Fuji, maybe consider a used/refurb 80D when it comes around? It has that really good low light ability, speed, and great performance all around, which is very important if you want to compare to a difference APS-C in Canon's line (to have -3 EV autofocus is really nice, no other Canon APS-C has that). From there, the 10-18 STM, 24 STM and 18-55 or 135 STM or even 55-250 STM are all cracking sharp pieces of glass and wonderful for all kinds of photography. Very powerful photographer tool as a kit in general this way. And doesn't cost an arm & a leg.

Very best,