Is full-frame really that dramaticly better?

OneFastt996 wrote in post #11050123
I've become the same way and I think it is for the best. My wife is on board though and she gets tortured with "this one, or this one" after every shoot.

That lion shot in your "Favorites" on Flickr is amazing! What lens and body?

I'm now also "hanging" between FF and Crop to be more specific between 7D and 5dmkII, i have problem because i'm shoot diffrent things, portraits,street,lands​capes but also lots of macro and wildlife animals, i DON'T shoot weddings or sport shoots.

After i sold my old gear and broken my "piggy bank" i can afford 7D with set of good lenses or 5dmkII with set of good lenses, ideal for me was to have both of them but i don't want to buy both and end with some cheap lenses because i can afford good ones at end, i'm only enthusiast and i'm not making any money with my gear its only way for life to me

decisions, decisions, decisions, i'm stuck in this point for more than a month now.. in meantime i see a lot of shoots which i'm missed during those days arghhh...

Entu I was in that position, I know and understand the FF benefits, I chose a 7D.

Much better for anything that moves, plenty good enough ISO 3200/6400, good enough DOF for me for now. Smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses at the wide/mid range.

Hey Rob,
ot i'm only say i always wanted migrate to New Zeland

If i buy 7D i'm probably and with buy lens which i can use on both crop and FF cameras, i'm mostly shoot with primes anyway.

Entu, what are you shooting with now, and how are you falling short? If you can identify a specific need in your shooting you should be able to identify a "target". For example, can you identify a particular lens/focal length/aperture that would benefit your photography? If so, that may help you to identify both a lens and down the line a camera that would fit with what you aspire to shoot.

Entu wrote in post #11050347
I'm now also "hanging" between FF and Crop to be more specific between 7D and 5dmkII...

There is a solution for that. It's called APS-H, and is inside the 1D Mark IV.

Yes and its cost only as much as both of them + , not an option for me

@Tonylong
sorry if i'm missread your post, english its not my native languague and i'm kid of "selflearner"

Lens, i can post for which ones i'm aiming atm and what for:

400/5,6 USM for my animal photography ( I wish to have 2.8 because sometimes its hard to shoot at evenings/sunrises )

100/2.8 IS USM obviously for my macro shoots

85/1.8 i'm find i used this FL a lot when i was owner of 15-85, its nice for portraits also.

50/1.4 I know its better FL for FF so i can change it for 35/1.4 if i own crop camera.

14/2.8 probably first version for my landscape shoots and overall wide lens.

There are another few lenses on my mind which i don't dramatically NEED atm, like 135/2.0 or 24/1.4.

Emtu. do you have those lenses and ar you shooting with them?

Just know -- with a full-frame body you can shoot wide with more resolution and image quality and the ability to fine-tune depth of field, but you lose flexibility on the long end. What are you looking for?

tonylong wrote in post #11050680
Emtu. do you have those lenses and ar you shooting with them?

Just know -- with a full-frame body you can shoot wide with more resolution and image quality and the ability to fine-tune depth of field, but you lose flexibility on the long end. What are you looking for?

I was shooting only with 100/2.8 macro and 400/5,6 previously, i'm also borrowed 24/14/35 some time ago.

Yes i'm aware about FF and crop pros and cons, still can't choose one as i'm soothig what i wrote in my first post ( portraits,street,lands​capes,animals and macro ) and i just' can't i shoot most nature for example all depends on my mood, weather ect.

Sometimes i'm shooting only portraits for week and another i'm shooting only animals or landscapes.

As i'm said best will be to own both but i can't afford them without hurting my lens set ( i don't own any of them atm as i'm sold my gear a while ago) or buy 1dmkIV which i can't afford either for same reason.

I'm just add i want to buy TS-E lens/es in future also to play with landscapes/miniature cliche.

Entu wrote in post #11050347
I'm now also "hanging" between FF and Crop to be more specific between 7D and 5dmkII, i have problem because i'm shoot diffrent things, portraits,street,lands​capes but also lots of macro and wildlife animals, i DON'T shoot weddings or sport shoots.

After i sold my old gear and broken my "piggy bank" i can afford 7D with set of good lenses or 5dmkII with set of good lenses, ideal for me was to have both of them but i don't want to buy both and end with some cheap lenses because i can afford good ones at end, i'm only enthusiast and i'm not making any money with my gear its only way for life to me

decisions, decisions, decisions, i'm stuck in this point for more than a month now.. in meantime i see a lot of shoots which i'm missed during those days arghhh...

5D + some nice lenses for you.

I don't believe that. The only difference with a crop is that the format is cropped. It does not change the distance from the sensor that the lens brings the rays into focus.

RDKirk wrote in post #11051037
I don't believe that. The only difference with a crop is that the format is cropped. It does not change the distance from the sensor that the lens brings the rays into focus.

This was already addressed a bit later in the replies...

versedmb wrote in post #11038774
You're right, I was wrong. I would not be physically closer to my subject but with 1.6X crop the image would be cropped so I would get a better close up image. If I was shooting with a 7d vs a 5d2 I would get more pixels on that flower shot with the 7d than cropping the 5d2 shot. That's what I'm trying to say.

versedmb wrote in post #11039517
Exactly. Obviously I was in dire need of a cup of coffee.

jouster wrote in post #11049230
Thirty-two pages and hardly mention of how wonderful a FF viewfinder is compared to a crop one. That'll certainly figure into my calculations in a few years or whenever I'm thinking of upgrading my body.

I've never understood, on threads like this, the people who start shouting "they're both just tools!" I know that. It's so obvious it doesn't need to be said. But they're different, so it's perfectly valid to explore whether or not one is better than the other and if so in what ways.

2 thoughts:
1st.... go look thru a 7D. pretty much 100% VF. sweetness....
2nd .... many photogs may not want to admit this .... if they look in the mirror - there is the answer to better images.
When somebody is asking about the difference and they are learning the basics .... it really does not matter what camera.

A seasoned shooter/pro has better understanding.

example:
I would put Stefano_Viola landscapes up in the "cream of the crop" as a landscape shooter. he is working it with a 50D.https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=57830​5&page=211
(scroll down to the middle of page)

From other threads, here are the viewfinder sizes and their % view

7D = 332 sq mm area viewfinder, 79.4% of the 5DII, 100% view
5Dc = 401 sq mm area viewfinder, 95.9% of the 5DII, 96% view
5DII = 418 sq mm area viewfinder, 100% of the 5DII ( ), 98% view

As comparison, the 50D is 64.8% of the 5DII viewfinder, and the XSi is 53.6% of the 5DII viewfinder

TeamSpeed wrote in post #11052813
From other threads, here are the viewfinder sizes and their % view

7D = 332 sq mm area viewfinder, 79.4% of the 5DII, 100% view
5Dc = 401 sq mm area viewfinder, 95.9% of the 5DII, 96% view
5DII = 418 sq mm area viewfinder, 100% of the 5DII ( ), 98% view

As comparison, the 50D is 64.8% of the 5DII viewfinder, and the XSi is 53.6% of the 5DII viewfinder

Interesting. Where does a APS-H 1D2/3 fit in there?