Reason not to buy Full Frame

My thoughts are that if full frame was the same cost as crop, most people if not all would buy full frame. I understand if you want artificial reach of crop you may choose crop but what other reason than cost is stopping you from buying full frame?
I think the first reason people would say is that the 7D has faster auto focus or more focus points. Not so fast, remember this is about full frame not focus points, and if you need to make a comparison to the 7D because of the focus points then you need to throw the 1DS Mark III into the mix.
So again whats stopping you from going full frame?
If crop was the same cost a full frame what would you buy?

Some people may not want such narrow DoF. Other than that, more reach.

You just eliminated from discussion the major factors that everyone always brings up, not sure why?

1) cost
2) af
3) needing more resolution on target for crop (ie. your artificial reach term, because cropping a 5D2 down gives you an 8mpx image, may not be enough)

(not necessarily in that order)

The only remaining one I could see would be that crop bodies have a much wider range of glass available, some of which have no FF counterparts, or are very, very good lenses and less money, ie. there are more glass choices with crop, many at less money.

Shouldn't you then ask what's stopping people from shooting Medium Format? If cost was the same as FF, why not just skip FF and go MF?

When I shot film I shot 2 1/4 sq. I loved it.
Medium format is a much larger camera compaired to say a Canon 5D, but a 5D and 7D are much the same size.
And for me personaly cost of a Hasselbald body and lenes is stopping me from going med format ;^)

to some people: 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

HyperYagami wrote in post #11607791
to some people: 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

This is at least a consideration for me.

nice thing about the crop is that it uses the center of the glass - the sharpest, brightest part. It also demands more resolution - like shooting through a dirty windshield with a wide angle vs. a telephoto.

Crop has its place. I think video is easier (generall video, not "artsy" stuff) on 1.6 crop because of DoF and focusing and whatnot. I guess super thin DoF can be distracting sometimes too - but I love it

k9trainer wrote in post #11607683
When I shot film I shot 2 1/4 sq. I loved it.
Medium format is a much larger camera compaired to say a Canon 5D, but a 5D and 7D are much the same size.
And for me personaly cost of a Hasselbald body and lenes is stopping me from going med format ;^)

The Pentax 645D medium format camera kinda lowered the gap between FF and MF I think, or at least put the cost of ownership below $10,000 USD... so no more excuses?

Crop advantages:

-Ability to have smaller and lighter bodies
-Cheaper
-EF-S lenses
-Higher pixel density at the same resolution
-More reach (kind of part of the above, assuming the FF body has 1.6 times or less the resolution of the crop body)
-Uses the best part of the image circle

billybookcase wrote in post #11608250
The Pentax 645D medium format camera kinda lowered the gap between FF and MF I think, or at least put the cost of ownership below $1000 USD... so no more excuses?

I think you are missing a zero buddy

Anyways, for me af point distribution is a factor. For some reason, Canon FF sensors have all their af points clustered in the center, APS-C have a better distribution of AF points.

I like how some EF-S/APS-C oriented lenses are smaller and lighter, makes traveling nice.

More "reach", there is nothing fake about it unless we are comparing a FF sensor that has the same pixel density as a APS-C sensor.

If the 5D2 was the same price as the 7D, lets say I would have a 7D and a 5D2, not a 7D and a 5D classic

I would like a 5D2, but I couldn't give up my 7D - I'd want both.

I want what you've labeled as "artificial reach". Pixels on subject matters. The nice small ultra-wide lenses are nice too.

There are no reasons not to buy a FF and that's what I did. I come from a film background and I like to stick with the size. I just don't like the feel of a cropped camera body. Their too light and not as robust as a 1D body. Now only if they can squeeze out a few more fps on the FF.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Saint728 wrote in post #11608802
There are no reasons not to buy a FF and that's what I did. I come from a film background and I like to stick with the size. I just don't like the feel of a cropped camera body. Their too light and not as robust as a 1D body. Now only if they can squeeze out a few more fps on the FF.

The 1D/1D2/1D3/1D4 ARE crop bodies.

phreeky wrote in post #11608846
The 1D/1D2/1D3/1D3 ARE crop bodies.

Not only is that true, but the 5d2 which IS a "full frame" (35mm) and the 7d which is a smaller crop (aps-c) than the 1 series cameras (aps-h) are almost identical in size and weight. (7D might be a hair heavier).

With a grip, either would be virtually the same size as a 1D camera within a tenth of an inch or so - can only guess on the weight, but I'm sure it would be very close using two batteries in the grips. I used to shoot a 1dII and a 40D with a grip together and the only difference in feel was which lens was on which camera.

Saint728 wrote in post #11608802
Their too light and not as robust as a 1D body. Now only if they can squeeze out a few more fps on the FF.

- all of the EOS cameras (other than the Rebels and now the 60D) have stainless steel chassis and magnesium outer shells. What does "robust" feel like?

10 fps isn't fast enough for a 1D? My Nikon F with a motor drive was (IIRC -it was a very LONG time ago) - able to run at about half that rate.