Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

OK, I'm sure there have been plenty of 5D vs 7D debates.


Now, I figured that the crop factor of the 7D would be ideal for many situations, and would help me get that extra reach, while only the 5D it would be easier to go wide.. but, I could always get some wide lenses like the Sigma 8-16 that would be perfectly fine on the 7D.

Portraits and landscapes look more dramatic on the full-frame sensor, and I get better ISO.. sure, but is it really that much better? I'm a student so I can't afford both, and the other issue is I don't want to buy used items (since I can't recall seeing a 5D used somewhere, and I can't afford the 5DII) due to bad luck with the last flash I bought used. Also, going full-frame would mean I would have to replace ALL my lenses..

The main thing that wants me to upgrade my XSI is I long for a better AF, and I heard the 7D has better AF. I'm currently fine with my lenses, the only one I'm really eyeing is the MPE 65.

i was actually gonna start a thread just like this one a second ago. it's good thing i checked the active threads beforehand.

anyway, I own a T2i right now, and I've been reading as many comparison threads as possible on the differences between the T2i and the 5Dc. Most, if not all, threads suggest that the full-frame sensor on the 5Dc would "blow away" the t2i's crop sensor in terms of image quality, especially in dealing with portraits.

So, does anyone have some sample image comparisons between the t2i and 5Dc (preferably of the same subject under similar lighting)? I haven't come across any image comparisons in other threads, so I'm not sure if trading in my t2i would be worth it.

Also, I haven't used the video mode as often as I thought I would on the T2i, so I doubt I'll miss it. And the built in flash isn't much of an advantage, since I plan to buy an external flash.

**Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but I figured it goes along with the OP's concerns.

The argument against FF vs crop is not going wider or longer, its about DOF. The FF sensor is capable with significantly shallower DOF than a crop sensor on any lens. As you mentioned, you can easily grab a wider lens and be "just as wide," but you'll never match the shallowness of the shot. The dramatic effect comes from the shallow depth of field.

5Dc's are common in the FS section.

Hey, guys, just get the 7D or for a budget the 50D. There is no sense in going full frame until you know that you really want it.

Being converted from 1.6x -> 1.3x. I think it's better to get a bigger sensor camera than go for a crop just because of more reach.

To me a bigger sensor's major advantage is not getting wider. But the fact how well the high ISO performance actually is, and I am talking about a huge difference anyone can see. Same as one can always buy a 8-16 sigma to go wide, one can also buy a 150-500 OS or the new 50-500 OS anyway. But the high ISO performance is build-in and is not able to replace.

I will go for a 5D in your case, and if I need a longer reach, the 150-500 OS is not that expensive anyway.

I agree with Tony. If you're asking the 5DII vs 7D question, then the answer is the 7D... or even something cheaper. Pocket the $1000 price difference. Or better yet, blow it on a nice lens, maybe an L like the 135L.

I would agree, the biggest difference is the depth of field.
However, I don't think the same composed shots with similar lenses would suck b/c one was on a cropped sensor and another was with a full frame.

Depth of field control is nicer, but like resolution, noise, and all that, none of those make for a good image on it's own. Composition, timing, exposure, and proper processing makes the most impact IMO.

Having said that, a 35mm format gives a nicer shooting experience. Hard to describe but it is nicer, at least for me it is.

It's impossible to find a new 5D, correct? I've just had bad luck last time I bought used

and I would have to replace ALL my lenses

How much dramatic different between the two camera should be decide by you. It's dramatically different for me but how do I know it's dramatic for you? Beside, you said you can't afford 5D2 and you won't buy use so the answer should be obvious for you.

Honestly, my suggestion is to buy the camera you can afford and let that be the end of it. I think you would be happy with either 7D or 50D given if you stop wondering how much better the other camera that you don't have compare to the one you have.

Yes

If you can get the 5DC for ~$1k it's good, but I wouldn't give up a crop body for it unless you really knew what you are doing. If you don't, keep shooting crop!

Sounds like 7D is the right one for you!

I have the same doubt...and now I don't know what to do...

I have 5d old, and recently I took a sigma 50mm 1.4...I love it... but I miss the technology of 7d or 5d mkII... I really don't know what to do...7d for 1000 euros or 5d mk II for 1600 euros (both brand new)?

I like portraits, and I think my ideal range is 35mm - 120mm...so probably 7d + 24-70mm 2.8 or 35 f 2 + 50mm 1.4 and 100mm L on 5d mk II...

Isn't this the same question as this active thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=934109
Or am I missing something?

i wouldn't say it's dramatically better, FF images sometimes have a distinct look and feel.