Reason not to buy Full Frame

k9trainer wrote in post #11607496
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?

The answer is very simple - you need both if you like to do it all. If you could afford only one - choose where is your priority. Fast moving objects - crop like 7D, 1D MII and III. Still objects - FF - 5D series.

Costs reasons are not so significant . Used 7D is 1300 and higher and used 5D is 1100 and lower.

I'm going to FF, because ultra fast focus and high FPS are not in my list of priorities.
Once warranty on my existing crop body will expire (two years from now), I will sell it for 300 and I'll get used 7D for something like 800 USD.
500-700 in total.

weeatmice wrote in post #11610057
Nikon D3s is FF and does 9fps and 11fps in DX mode. Granted its expensive but in principle a larger mirror isn't a problem I don't think.

It's not whether it can be done, but how much it can be done for.

None of the FF cameras have a pop-up flash.

DAMphyne wrote in post #11610323
None of the FF cameras have a pop-up flash.

Nikon d700 does

Bottom line is. Most people dont go to FF because of the money AF is just an excuse not to spend the bucks
I'm happy with both. They have their uses. However,the minute 5Dmk3 hits the market you can bet the 7D is going up for sale in a heartbeat!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #11607517
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.

I find crop cameras are very limited at the wide angle prime lens. With ff, you have the fast primes, 24l and 35l as well as the tsp lenses. These on a crop are totally different. This lack of primes for crops is why I shoot ff.

Eiro wrote in post #11610456
Bottom line is. Most people dont go to FF because of the money AF is just an excuse not to spend the bucks

Of course that's the reason. What I don't understand why some ppl compare the most expensive crop body with the most inexpensive full frame..and they draw a conclusion that 7d is much better because AF is unbelievable compared with 5D2. Of course it is, if it wasn't it was called T1i and it wouldn't cost that much. Why dont they compare 7d with 1ds mark III. to see how top of the line crop frame stand in front of the top of the line FF or 5dII with some rebel
AAAAA ...the cost... right
case closed.

If FF bodies cost the same as "crop" bodies, I wonder if "crop" bodies would have ever been invented?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #11609612
Don't need L glass to shoot UWA... which underscores my points in my first reply, crop gives you access to other very respectable glass. And define what makes the U in UWA? It most likely means different things to different folks.

How about a equivalent 24mm 1.4 lens for a crop?

keyframe14 wrote in post #11610502
Of course that's the reason. What I don't understand why some ppl compare the most expensive crop body with the most inexpensive full frame..and they draw a conclusion that 7d is much better because AF is unbelievable compared with 5D2. Of course it is, if it wasn't it was called T1i and it wouldn't cost that much. Why dont they compare 7d with 1ds mark III. to see how top of the line crop frame stand in front of the top of the line FF or 5dII with some rebel
AAAAA ...the cost... right
case closed.

that was just dumb..Compare the 1D3 to the 1Ds3..those are both pro bodies..neither 7D nor 5D2 is in the same league as the 1D line. the 7D and 5D2 are along the same lines of where they stand in their FF/Crop category

runninmann wrote in post #11610507
If FF bodies cost the same as "crop" bodies, I wonder if "crop" bodies would have ever been invented?

Bingo. Crop sensors were all about bringing the cost of DSLRs out of the stratosphere. And since the 24x36mm size of a frame of 35mm film is pretty arbitrary, most people entering the DSLR world from a P&S would never notice the difference.

keyframe14 wrote in post #11610502
Of course that's the reason. What I don't understand why some ppl compare the most expensive crop body with the most inexpensive full frame..and they draw a conclusion that 7d is much better because AF is unbelievable compared with 5D2. Of course it is, if it wasn't it was called T1i and it wouldn't cost that much. Why dont they compare 7d with 1ds mark III. to see how top of the line crop frame stand in front of the top of the line FF or 5dII with some rebel
AAAAA ...the cost... right
case closed.

All it means is that a fancy AF system still costs less than a high-quality FF sensor.

Cant beat full frame for portrait work ( unless you want medium format )

The crops are very close, the 1 series are better and are more expensive, but if you really look close at the 5dmkII files and the 1DmkIV files, well, there are only really minor and petty differences according to numerous experts. Were talking apples and oranges people. And i am not talking about the AF systems. Its now all about how clean they can get the sensors to be. Look at a 5dmkII and a 1dmkIV at 3200 iso, 6400, 8000. This is where they start to break down and the edge goes to to 1 series.

The only 1.6 format to ever get close is the 7d and in my opinion, that ends at 3200 iso. and you better have good noise editing software for anything above 3200. But the 7d just came into the game. Before that, 40/50D's at 1600 max.

Sensor technology, primarily iso, and ability to capture fine details is what seperates these cameras. you can adapt to all the other bells and whistle features like weather sealing, fps, and all the goodies like live view ans self cleaning sensors.

Unless you need speed and a AF system for sports, you just cant beat full frame. Then canon decides to reinvent the 1DMKiV.

The OL saying WAS,,You cant have a camera that does it all but im going to reserve that opinion untill i can get my hands on a 1DMKiV for a couple of days. Very reputable photographers have indicated its the best thing they have used in 35 years of their professional photography careers. Thats something that gets your attention. From what im seeing its in a different league.

umphotography wrote in post #11610570
Cant beat full frame for portrait work ( unless you want medium format )

The crops are very close, the 1 series are better and are more expensive, but if you really look close at the 5dmkII files and the 1DmkIV files, well, there are only really minor and petty differences according to numerous experts. Were talking apples and oranges people. And i am not talking about the AF systems. Its now all about how clean they can get the sensors to be. Look at a 5dmkII and a 1dmkIV at 3200 iso, 6400, 8000. This is where they start to break down and the edge goes to to 1 series.

The only 1.6 format to ever get close is the 7d and in my opinion, that ends at 3200 iso. and you better have good noise editing software for anything above 3200. But the 7d just came into the game. Before that, 40/50D's at 1600 max.

Sensor technology, primarily iso, and ability to capture fine details is what seperates these cameras. you can adapt to all the other bells and whistle features like weather sealing, fps, and all the goodies like live view ans self cleaning sensors.

Unless you need speed and a AF system for sports, you just cant beat full frame. Then canon decides to reinvent the 1DMKiV.

The OL saying WAS,,You cant have a camera that does it all but im going to reserve that opinion untill i can get my hands on a 1DMKiV for a couple of days. Very reputable photographers have indicated its the best thing they have used in 35 years of their professional photography careers. Thats something that gets your attention. From what im seeing its in a different league.

In my opinion if you shoot a lot of wide angle FF is also the answer. All a crop is really, is a smaller format.

05Xrunner wrote in post #11610537
that was just dumb..Compare the 1D3 to the 1Ds3..those are both pro bodies..neither 7D nor 5D2 is in the same league as the 1D line. the 7D and 5D2 are along the same lines of where they stand in their FF/Crop category

my bad, completely forgot for a moment about 1d series.