tell me the truth

I have a 40D and a 50D, but have always wondered about moving to full frame. I can get a new 5D Mark II at $400 off the regular price at a local camera store. My question is this, will I really see enough difference between the croppers and the full frame to justify the hassle? I would sell the 40D, but then have two different kinds of batteries, would have to use DPP or get CS5 to work in RAW. I shoot everything from sports to birds to scenic. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

All I can tell you is that I moved from the 30D to the 5D almost exactly three years ago and it was the single biggest jump in IQ that I've gotten from an equipment change. Was it the larger format, the lower noise, the weak AA filter? I don't know. But at the time it was a clear jump.

Since then I've used 1D3 and 1D4, and these crush the 5D at higher ISO levels. But I still own my 5D and I still love the IQ it delivers. The 5D2 is even nicer as it has a lot of that same high ISO performance like the 1D3 and 1D4.

In one profound word "YES"

James P wrote in post #11319062
...... would have to use DPP or get CS5 to work in RAW. I shoot everything from sports to birds to scenic. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I don't see why using DPP or CS5 would be any different at all for opening Canon RAW files -

As for image quality - it's not likely to be a very noticeable difference unless you are printing very big enlargements.

For sports, the 5D will be slow for taking action shots. The 5d will have better low light or high ISO images, but you need to think about how often you will be shooting with inadequate light for your 50D or 40D - and for serious portraits, you will want (need) to use some kind of studio or strobe lighting. For snapshots, don't forget that the 5D does not have a built-in pop-up flash like the 50D or the 40D.

I think people get obsessed with "image quality"...to the point that they seem to forget the photography is about quality images. It doesn't take a 21MP full frame camera to get amazing images.

I know a lot of people judge image quality by "pixel peeping"...a pretty worthless way to judge a camera. A computer screen will resolve at 72 dots per inch. Even a cheap ink jet printer will print at a greater resolution than human eyes can discern - some well over 1000 dots per inch - but anything over 250 - 300 dots per inch is more than your eyes can see a difference with.

A full frame camera is great for doing very detailed work or a lot of cropping...they are ideal for weddings - especially during the ceremonies where you don't want to use a flash - for a reception most (all?) wedding photographers use flash - I've never heard a single instance in which a professional photographer was ever asked if they used a crop camera or a full frame. I also would not think that any customer has ever complained that the images in a wedding album were not good enough because a crop camera was used.

People pay for quality images, not for image quality -

If you are a professional photographer you would be likely to want to have both a slower 5D with better resolution (that you might notice, but very doubtful that your customers would) and a crop camera for better reach and more frames per second for sports.

But IMO for most NON professionals who will only own one camera, the crop camera seems more practical.

I own both FF and crop and having two formats gives each of my lenses a "double life". That alone makes it worth it.

KRUSH wrote in post #11319208
In one profound word "YES"

This

It allows your focal length to match their true distortions.

James P wrote in post #11319062
I have a 40D and a 50D, but have always wondered about moving to full frame. I can get a new 5D Mark II at $400 off the regular price at a local camera store. My question is this, will I really see enough difference between the croppers and the full frame to justify the hassle? I would sell the 40D, but then have two different kinds of batteries, would have to use DPP or get CS5 to work in RAW. I shoot everything from sports to birds to scenic. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, you will suddenly find 24-105 is a perfect walk around lens instead of a not long enough not wide enough awkward kid.100 macro becomes a good portrait lens. The viewfinder alone is worth the upgrade. plus you " have always wondered about moving to full frame." Get it.

Lazuka wrote in post #11319598
It allows your focal length to match their true distortions.

Not sure what this means.

Most people learned arithmetic in grade school. 1.6 x X= Y

Do you need to have the effective focal length printed on the lens to know how it will "act"?

Besides, film cameras are all "full frame"....anyone who has never used a film camera and therefore doesn't know what a particular focal length will look like on 35mm film (same as a full frame sensor) compared to a crop sensor camera is (IMO) a beginner - and should probably buy a used cheap film camera and shoot film at least for a while...for countless reasons - rather than jump to a full frame digital.

The idea is to learn photography - it's never about the equipment, it's about experience and knowledge. Which are not for sale.

Peace,
D.

Thank you for your replies. It seems I'm still getting the same mixed opinions that made me hesitate in the first place. A friend who has a 5D II raves about how much better it is over his 50D, but I've noticed that most people will try to praise the equipment they own. Can any 5D II owner tell my why they think it's that much superior to a 50D?

KRUSH wrote in post #11319208
In one profound word "YES"

in 2 profound words " dam right "

it's a killer camera

James P wrote in post #11319062
I have a 40D and a 50D, but have always wondered about moving to full frame. I can get a new 5D Mark II at $400 off the regular price at a local camera store. My question is this, will I really see enough difference between the croppers and the full frame to justify the hassle? I would sell the 40D, but then have two different kinds of batteries, would have to use DPP or get CS5 to work in RAW. I shoot everything from sports to birds to scenic. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

James P wrote in post #11320547
Thank you for your replies. It seems I'm still getting the same mixed opinions that made me hesitate in the first place. A friend who has a 5D II raves about how much better it is over his 50D, but I've noticed that most people will try to praise the equipment they own. Can any 5D II owner tell my why they think it's that much superior to a 50D?

"Superior" is very subjective. It's a different camera with different capabilities. But the truth is, if you don't know why you need/want a 5DmkII then maybe you don't need it.

Delija wrote in post #11320348
Besides, film cameras are all "full frame"....

SLR's mostly are, but not all

That's a bad idea. Developing and printing is expensive, and you have neither quick feedback nor EXIF data in the print to remind you when you get it at what FL it was shot.

Okay, let's see you use my G6, where ISO 400 is unusable, to acceptably freeze my 2 old's indoor antics. Heck, this afternoon at the playground I even had to go to ISO 3200 to get acceptable SS with my 24-105. Let's see your ego manage that with a G6. Really. I want to see you do it.

Delija wrote in post #11320348
Besides, film cameras are all "full frame"....

It's like 110 format and the APS systems never happened, isn't it.

I'd never tell a beginner to get a film camera. You can learn much faster with digital because it takes notes and because you get instant feedback. Plus experimentation comes at no cost.

I'd tell a beginner to get a nice 1.6X body like a T2i.

Lazuka wrote in post #11319598
It allows your focal length to match their true distortions.

Delija wrote in post #11320348
Not sure what this means.

The first quote above is just a group of words with no collective meaning - at least none that makes any sense.