Downgrading to full frame -- how do you feel about 1.6x?

Forgetting about the endless high-ISO debate, crop cameras rival FF in every aspect today, except the viewfinder. I use a crop camera, but really wish I could justify spending more for a FF just for the bigger, brighter, more involving view through the eyepiece.

I agree with what a lot of others have said here... I shot film off and on for over 20 years and eventually moved to a Crop Body. I started with the original Rebel then moved up to the 30D and now the 40D. I haven't found it to be very restrictive but can see that it could be depending on what you might be shooting. At the same time I love the extra reach I get with all of my Zooms.

With that said I will be buying a FF Body in the somewhat near future (Probably the 5D MkII if that becomes reality) but will always have a crop body just for the extra reach and a backup. I've also invested in Lenses that will also go on the FF Body and not restricted to a crop body.

I have all three formats and I look at each of them as tools. Each tool serves its own purpose and I try to use them to their best advantage to assist me in producing the most stunning images possible.

I switched from film to digital about 3 years ago. I recently upgraded to full frame.

Film to digital was a hard transition. I think it had more to do with style more than anything else. I was into low-light candids when I used film, I went with flashed and posed when I switched to digital. I hardly noticed the crop factor difference in comparison.

Crop to full-frame has proved to be only marginally beneficial. However, I haven't gone back to shooting low-light candids yet. When I do (get enough saved for a 35L) I might see more appreciable advantages.

Hope that helps.

charlesking wrote in post #6307957
Forgetting about the endless high-ISO debate, crop cameras rival FF in every aspect today, except the viewfinder. I use a crop camera, but really wish I could justify spending more for a FF just for the bigger, brighter, more involving view through the eyepiece.

Don't forget the razor thin depth of field, now!

I find that the 1.6 is the most versatile that can be used very successfully in just about every situation you throw at it. Heck, it even has some advantages to full frame, and of course, some disadvantages. But if I were to own only one camera as a amateur, it would likely be a 1.6.

I shoot with full frame, as well as 1.3 and 1.6 crops cameras. I don't worry about the crop factor at all.

I agree. You shot with what you like and / or need. But I have never though going from a 1.6x to a FF as a "downgrade". I went from a 20D to a 5D and couldn't be happier.

I'd rather shoot with...

I'd rather shoot with a pair of 1.6x cameras than a single full-frame camera.

I use a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on a 30D and a 40D bodies. These two lenses give me excellent IQ. Additionally, I have a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina for wider stuff and a couple of "L" grade telephoto primes.

Pricewise, the two bodies are lot less less than the price of a 5D.

If I were shooting weddings professionally, I would very likely be shooting with a pair of 1DMk3 cameras. I would not consider the price exhorbitant. I had a pair of Hasselblad cameras and several Hassleblad lenses when I did my wedding shooting on film. The comparative prices of the Hassleblad equipment in those days would probably match the comparative prices of the 1DMk3 equipment today.

However, I am not shooting professionally any more. never-the-less; I demand excellent quality which I get from my 30D and 40D bodies with those two great lenses and from my additional selection of excellent glass.

Using two 1.6x bodies with the 17-55mm and the 70-200mm, I have an equivalent focal range of 27.2 to 320mm at my command with an f/2.8 aperture in my mid-range zoom and IS throughout the range. I don't miss the gap between 55mm and 70mm at all.

I also have an additional benefit in using two cameras. They are an insurance policy against missing shots - or totally missing coverage of some events - if one camera goes down for some reason.

This insurance paid dividends in July 2007 when, on the first day of a ten-day Alaska vacation, I slipped while climbing a slope and broke the 40D. Having the 30D as a second camera and backup saved me from missing documentation of that very interesting period of my life.

I am certainly not stating that 1.6x cameras are "better" than full frame cameras, just that 1.6x cameras are very viable tools which fit my needs and which will fit the needs of many photographers.

I used to shoot film, would like to get back to FF, but the 1.3 crop I have doesn't bother me too much (recently got a 1.6 crop Rebel as a "point and shoot" too). Still, I will probably be going full frame within the next year.

How about "I used to shoot film, but I really enjoy having the crop factor"

Dave.H wrote in post #6312031
How about "I used to shoot film, but I really enjoy having the crop factor"

Exactly what I was going to write! If money was no issue I would have a 5D and a 40D.

Someone forgot to put up a fifth choice. I shot film and shoot FF so I don't miss either. And I only shoot Kodachrome, Fujichrome anyway.