"Because one day I'll upgrade to full frame"

[chris malcolm]

All this "best get full frame lenses for when you make the transition from crop sensor to full frame"! The reason for the existence of crop sensor DSLRs is that the crop sensor was, and still is, a technological sweet spot in the engineering trade offs between image quality and cost. Full frame will always get you better IQ, but at low ISOs it's a small improvement in image quality, possibly imperceptible if you got the exposure right, at a rather large cost. In many cases you'd get a much bigger jump in IQ by spending the upgrade money on a lens upgrade rather than a body upgrade.

Then there's the time factor. Today's top APS-C sensor cameras are getting the same IQ as the full frame sensors of some years ago. Just as today's top full frame (i.e. 35mm film size sensor) cameras are getting the same IQ as the medium format cameras of some years ago. If you're planning to make the transition to full frame this year or next you're in effect saying you want the IQ of yesteryear's medium format. And you want it sooner than the few years you'll have to wait before that IQ arrives in crop sensor bodies.

But if that's really what you want, why stop at full frame? Why not plan to make the transition to medium format some day, and while waiting buy medium format lenses which you can use with an adapter?

I'm not entirely happy with the IQ of my crop sensor camera. It's already been superseded by the next improved model. But I'm not going to shell out the cost of pretty good lens for that minor upgrade in IQ & features. I'll get a lot more fun & IQ improvement out of that money spent on a lens. Or lighting kit. So I'll wait for at least one or two more model improvements before upgrading my body. And if what I'm really after is the IQ I see in today's full frame models, then maybe one more model upgrade in APS-C will give me that. At less cost and with a better stable of lenses.

I haven't even touched on the education factor. It takes me at least six months to get the hang of a new camera, to have worked through the manual rather carefully with camera in hand at least twice, and possibly studied one of the bigger and more detailed 3rd party manuals. It takes me at least a year to have become familiar enough with it all to have stopped making silly mistakes. And it's not unusual even after two years to kick myself on discovering that my camera has some neglected feature which would have considerably improved the keeper rate and IQ of a certain kind of shot. In other words, it probably takes me three years before my skills with a new camera are getting the best out of it.

I did say that I wasn't entirely happy with the IQ of my current crop sensor camera. That needs a bit of context. I've never been completely happy with the quality of any camera or lens I've ever owned, simply because I've never ever bought the acknowledged top notch unsurpassed best of anything. I've always known that I could have got something better if I'd spent more money. On the other hand, not only is my current camera the best I've ever owned, it's so superior to its predecessors that it's a real delight to use.

Finally, I have a confession to make. I know a number of photographers who are a lot better than me. Most of them do have full frame cameras, plus better lenses than I have. When we shoot the same kind of thing in the same conditions they get better photographs. The rather shaming admission I have to make is that I know why their photographs are better. It's not because they have better gear. The better gear rarely makes much of a difference. The BIG difference is that they're better photographers.

In other words most of today's pretty good cameras are more than good enough for most purposes. The biggest differences in image quality are the photographer, not the gear.

 

[NikonKev]

 

[Earley Man]

Finally, I have a confession to make. I know a number of photographers who are a lot better than me. Most of them do have full frame cameras, plus better lenses than I have. When we shoot the same kind of thing in the same conditions they get better photographs. The rather shaming admission I have to make is that I know why their photographs are better. It's not because they have better gear. The better gear rarely makes much of a difference. The BIG difference is that they're better photographers.

In other words most of today's pretty good cameras are more than good enough for most purposes. The biggest differences in image quality are the photographer, not the gear.

This is the most honest, and accurate, statement I have seen posted on any of the photographic forums I visit regularly, and I am of the same mind, however it won't be generally accepted because :

(a) A photographer would have to admit to themselves that they are at fault, which runs totally against the modern trend of "someone else must always be responsible for my mistakes'.

(b) The camera manufacturers will fight it tooth and nail, because if it becomes generally accepted then their already decreasing market share will go into free fall.

 

[Steve Smith]

In other words most of today's pretty good cameras are more than good enough for most purposes. The biggest differences in image quality are the photographer, not the gear.

This is quite true... as it has been for the last 100 years!


Steve.

 

[Carl Hall]

I am inclined to agree with you on this (well, except that I think my old MF TLR, when used properly, still outperforms my FF DSLR in terms of IQ).

I think a lot of people get to a point where they are unhappy with their images, and think that buying a new camera or lens is some kind of magic pill which will give them better results. When I outgrew my 400D I went full frame and bought a 5DmkII to go with the 24-70L that I already had, and was initially disappointed that my photos didn't really look much better, especially not £1700 better! That was a few years ago and I can get much better photos on the 5D than the 400D now, but that's more down to the time I've spent practicing and learning rather than from just using a better camera.

I've no doubt that a better camera can get better results, but it's more down to the user than anything. If you give one of my non-photographer friends the latest full frame DSLR and a professional lenses I'm sure I'd get better photos with an entry level DSLR and kit lens. Likewise one of the landscape masters of the world would get better results with a crappy old point and shoot than I probably could with a top of the range DSLR!

People don't like to fail, and people really don't like to be the cause. It's much easier to think that it's the camera to blame than the user, so people tend to use poor results as justification for buying a new camera, when all that is really needed is time spent behind the camera learning how to extract every last drop from it

 

[warwick70]

Having been a hobbyist photographer for 55 years, I have tried most formats in that time. Recently I have 'downgraded' from full-frame dslr (canon 5d mk3 & 'L' lenses) to a csc (sony a6000) mostly due to weight restriction on leg problems.
I bought the best lenses I could afford (zeiss) and shoot in raw. Quite honestly, I cannot see a difference in the finished result (in camera looks a little flat) - maybe it's age.

 

[dsolds]

I freely admit to being a very long way off "A good photographer" and all the poor results I get are a direct result of me not understanding something or other yet. But that said I went full frame, not for the sensor size per sé but for the newer technology. Not that my old D200 was particularly old tech so to speak, but in relative terms the D750 should give me a long service life. I am getting better results now but I'd like to hope that's more because I'm learning all the time though.

 

[HoppyUK]

Good article on this published on DPReview last week - the 'myth' of upgrading to full-frame, here http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5678273556/opinion-the-myth-of-the-upgrade-path

While it's true that a full-frame camera will usually deliver improved image quality (bigger is simply better on that score - fact of physics) in just about every other respect it's inferior to crop-format APS-C sensors. And the IQ from APS-C these days is truly very, very good, better than most folks ever need (including me, 95% of the time). And on top of that, APS-C is cheaper, smaller and lighter - especially when it comes to long lens work. Full-frame is not necessarily an 'upgrade' at all, and both formats have their particular strengths.

One thing that I'm definitely against is buying lenses designed for full-frame (when there are alternatives designed specifically for APS-C) because you're planning to go the full-frame route eventually, but using them on APS-C meantime. They will not perform to their best potential on APS-C, and when the time to change comes, they will behave completely differently on full-frame so you'll have to reconfigure your lens outfit all over again anyway. IMHO, if you plan to go full-frame, then the first thing to do it buy the camera and make a clean break of it.

 

[Faldrax]

Completely agree with the OP - and likewise know (and am happy to acknowledge) that the biggest factor in failing to get the shots I want is me.

However, I did make the switch to FF, as it made sense for what I wanted (or at least, I felt it did, which is, at the end of the day what matters).
1) I could afford it (buy buying s/h) - FF can be an expensive option!
2) When I switched, Sony were transitioning from OVF to EVF cameras - the new EVF models were good, but the EVF was not quite ready. So the only improvement from my A700 in terms of ISO (a relative Sony weakness at the time) was to switch to FF.

I also gained dynamic range, which is useful both generally, and in terms of giving me some leeway when I forget to dial in EV when I should - the better camera making up for my deficiencies as a photographer .

Finally, and by no means the least important, I gained the bigger, brighter OVF of the A900.

It's one of the things that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much - OVF vs EVF does, but the difference between an entry level OVF and top end OVF gets ignored, which is strange, because when the cameras to your eye, your view is totally dependant on the viewfinder, and the difference between a Pentaprism 100% OVF and a Pentamirror OVF is huge.

 

[odd jim]

I agree with the OP's premise, in that if you own a crop camera, it doesn't matter re future plans to go FF, use the best lenses you can, at the time. Heck, you might even die before the upgrade, more fool you for not using your kit to its best.

However, I use, and own both cropped and FF cameras. The FF camera (6d) still has big advantages for me than my crops (50d personal use, 70d work) in terms of dynamic range, pulling out shadow details etc and overall quality, with the 70d being the same generation of sensor, so I'd argue like for like FF still has big advantages as discussed to death recently. However, if you light a subject correctly, or choose the right time to press the shutter when the light is where you want it, move so the sun is in front / to the side, use flashes properly etc etc, any disadvantages of the smaller format can be compensated for - ergo, its in the hands of the photographer 90% of the time and a good photographer will produce good images no matter what he or she is using. It's mostly about how the light is handled. Better performance from the kit (fast lenses bigger sensors etc) just makes the job easier.

 

[BBR]

:sleep:

 

[Spiderdudeuk]

One thing that I'm definitely against is buying lenses designed for full-frame (when there are alternatives designed specifically for APS-C) because you're planning to go the full-frame route eventually, but using them on APS-C meantime. They will not perform to their best potential on APS-C, and when the time to change comes, they will behave completely differently on full-frame so you'll have to reconfigure your lens outfit all over again anyway. IMHO, if you plan to go full-frame, then the first thing to do it buy the camera and make a clean break of it.

This comment interests me very much... I use a Canon 600d at the moment, but I use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L Series, a Canon 400mm f/5.6 L Series, & I've recently bought a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens as well. Am I to take it you are saying that I have wasted my money on these and that there would have been better lens suited to my camera?

Sorry if this appear to hijack the thread and I hope I haven't offended the OP. I see many images on here and on Flickr taken with older version of my Canon and the quality blows me away. From that point of view the OP is spot on, the person behind the lens makes the biggest difference over equipment, IMHO.

 

[GeeJay57]

This comment interests me very much... I use a Canon 600d at the moment, but I use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L Series, a Canon 400mm f/5.6 L Series, & I've recently bought a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens as well. Am I to take it you are saying that I have wasted my money on these and that there would have been better lens suited to my camera?

Sorry if this appear to hijack the thread and I hope I haven't offended the OP. I see many images on here and on Flickr taken with older version of my Canon and the quality blows me away. From that point of view the OP is spot on, the person behind the lens makes the biggest difference over equipment, IMHO.

Not necessarily wasted your money, you have some great lenses. Fact is though, you're only making use of the central 2/3rds (or so) of the image circle they are able to produce. If however, they are doing what you want then that's great, and for sure if you were to pick up an FF body, they will fit. I think the point is that if they are doing what you want now on a crop body, they may not do what you want on a FF body. To start with they will all be apparently wider for a given situation.

 

[fracster]

This is the most honest, and accurate, statement I have seen posted on any of the photographic forums I visit regularly, and I am of the same mind, however it won't be generally accepted because :

(a) A photographer would have to admit to themselves that they are at fault, which runs totally against the modern trend of "someone else must always be responsible for my mistakes'.

(b) The camera manufacturers will fight it tooth and nail, because if it becomes generally accepted then their already decreasing market share will go into free fall.

I`ll accept it Chris, I know i`m not the best photographer in my town never mind the world, but photography is a sideline to my main hobby which is helping wildlife. But I recently bought a D750, not because it will make me a better photographer,I bought it in the hope that it would help mask some of my mistakes a bit...............

 

[odd jim]

This comment interests me very much... I use a Canon 600d at the moment, but I use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L Series, a Canon 400mm f/5.6 L Series, & I've recently bought a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens as well. Am I to take it you are saying that I have wasted my money on these and that there would have been better lens suited to my camera?

Sorry if this appear to hijack the thread and I hope I haven't offended the OP. I see many images on here and on Flickr taken with older version of my Canon and the quality blows me away. From that point of view the OP is spot on, the person behind the lens makes the biggest difference over equipment, IMHO.

I think Hoppy meant he didn't see the point in buying FF lenses when there's a crop specific and therefore cheaper but just as capable **alternative**.

This would mean the eFS 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the far more expensive 16-35 or 17-40 L's etc.

And I agree on that front.

Your lenses as you've quoted, on the whole, there isn't an EFS equivalent, as the advantages of EFS lenses don't transfer to long lenses, therefore standard EF mount rules the roost. There is no crop only alternative except perhaps the 55-250 IS.

And I suppose yes, the EFS 15-85 would be better suited to a crop than the 24-105, imo (a lens I love on my 6d). You lose the constant f/4 but it's far more versatile for crop format bodies.

 

[Earley Man]

I`ll accept it Chris, I know i`m not the best photographer in my town never mind the world, but photography is a sideline to my main hobby which is helping wildlife. But I recently bought a D750, not because it will make me a better photographer,I bought it in the hope that it would help mask some of my mistakes a bit...............

Hi Fracster, just read your reply, above, to my post, from what you have said I hope that you haven't taken it as implying that everyone who upgrades their camera is being foolish. It was a comment on the fact that a lot of photographers think that poor results, when the camera they already have is suitable for the type of photography they do, is the only reason for those poor results.

 

[fracster]

Hi Fracster, just read your reply, above, to my post, from what you have said I hope that you haven't taken it as implying that everyone who upgrades their camera is being foolish. It was a comment on the fact that a lot of photographers think that poor results, when the camera they already have is suitable for the type of photography they do, is the only reason for those poor results.

No,no Chris, not at all. I agree pretty much entirely with your initial post. I wonder how many people have the honesty to admit that the camera is not the cause of their ,sometimes,poor photography and it is more than likely down to user error. I freely admit that I am the problem in my photography,not my equipment.

 

[dinners]

This comment interests me very much... I use a Canon 600d at the moment, but I use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L Series, a Canon 400mm f/5.6 L Series, & I've recently bought a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens as well. Am I to take it you are saying that I have wasted my money on these and that there would have been better lens suited to my camera?

I don't think it really relates to longer lenses but there are certainly lenses designed for crop that will be better suited to performing on a 600d than the 24-105.

 

[Spiderdudeuk]

And I suppose yes, the EFS 15-85 would be better suited to a crop than the 24-105, imo (a lens I love on my 6d). You lose the constant f/4 but it's far more versatile for crop format bodies.

I don't think it really relates to longer lenses but there are certainly lenses designed for crop that will be better suited to performing on a 600d than the 24-105.

Thank you guys for these comments, I am now massively regretting the purchase of the 24-105, your honesty is appreciated and maybe more research would have revealed this.... My next camera is unlikely to be full frame, more likely to buy a 70d or if SWMBO will allow it a 7d MkII.

 

[dinners]

Thank you guys for these comments, I am now massively regretting the purchase of the 24-105, your honesty is appreciated and maybe more research would have revealed this.... My next camera is unlikely to be full frame, more likely to buy a 70d or if SWMBO will allow it a 7d MkII.

Nothing wrong with the 24-105 on a crop.

I used to use the 17-55 f2.8 on my 40D but I sold all my ef-s lenses because they didn't work on my 1D3 / 1D4.

Because of that I use both 16-35 & 24-105 if I use the 40D

 

[Quicksnapper]

Interesting thread ... Speaking as someone who acquired a 6D 2 days ago having had crop frame cameras to date ... (side note.... Thank you Mr QS for an awesome birthday present ... You sure know how to make a girl happy!!!! )

So ... Standing behind this amazing bit of kit for the first time over the weekend I have suddenly realised I have a HUGE amount to learn, but surely that's what this absorbing, infuriating, educational, creative and challenging hobby of ours is all about. I admit I'll probably never be a great photographer but I do aspire to be as good (how ever you define that) as I can be, and good kit offers the opportunity to improve and "grow" into it without the ever present possibility of getting frustrated by the limitations of older or less capable equipment.

OP, you're right in saying it's not about the camera, it's about the photographer behind it. But, if we all stopped aspiring to be better what would be the point? Let's make the best of the kit we've got, but let's always aspire to improve.

 

[odd jim]

Nothing wrong with the 24-105 on a crop.

I used to use the 17-55 f2.8 on my 40D but I sold all my ef-s lenses because they didn't work on my 1D3 / 1D4.

Because of that I use both 16-35 & 24-105 if I use the 40D

Nothing wrong with it at all, it's a stellar lens no matter what it's attached to. But it was designed, and is best for, a wide to mid zoom on FF which is why I use it regularly on my 6d, but hardly ever on my 50d. I just find the 24mm / wide end too long on crop format, so I have to combine with the 10-22 which adds weight.

I'll add I love shooting wide!

 

[Spiderdudeuk]

I should add that when I bought the 600d a few years ago now, I bought the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical & the Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical. I felt that the Canon 24-105 would be an upgrade on the 17-50mm which is the lens that goes everywhere with me.

Sorry to the OP about taking up so much of his thread.

 

[ancient_mariner]

This thread is an interesting one, because of the premise that one would buy a FF camera in order to get the same image quality as an out of date MF camera. The OP also talked about reading the manual twice, then reading a 3rd party manual too. This says to me (and please don't think this is a dig) that you're focussing on the equipment for it's own sake.

To me a camera is an image creating device with various obvious design features, like viewfinders, shutter buttons, and except when you'd doing something a bit unusual they all work more or less similarly. What makes a FF camera desirable if you have crop sensor gear? To me it would be mostly the possibility of shallower effective DoF at a given focal length and the ability to retain quality in larger print sizes, plus as a secondary bonus lower high-ISO noise and greater dynamic range. If these characteristics are desirable for what you need then it seems reasonable to justify the change, just like you might justify buying a 300mm f2.8 lens if you shot sports of wildlife.

The other point made eloquently by Jonathan/Faldrax was that a very very key bit of functionality was improved, with bigger, brighter viewfinders.

To me it seems obvious that if the difference in a FF camera are helpful and affordable, and you don't mind the weight/bulk then it's a worthwhile upgrade. It can't make you a better photographer, but it might help you get the pictures you wanted with less difficulty. There's no issue over waiting for crop to catch up in quality.

 

[Quicksnapper]

This thread is an interesting one, because of the premise that one would buy a FF camera in order to get the same image quality as an out of date MF camera. The OP also talked about reading the manual twice, then reading a 3rd party manual too. This says to me (and please don't think this is a dig) that you're focussing on the equipment for it's own sake.

To me a camera is an image creating device with various obvious design features, like viewfinders, shutter buttons, and except when you'd doing something a bit unusual they all work more or less similarly. What makes a FF camera desirable if you have crop sensor gear? To me it would be mostly the possibility of shallower effective DoF at a given focal length and the ability to retain quality in larger print sizes, plus as a secondary bonus lower high-ISO noise and greater dynamic range. If these characteristics are desirable for what you need then it seems reasonable to justify the change, just like you might justify buying a 300mm f2.8 lens if you shot sports of wildlife.

The other point made eloquently by Jonathan/Faldrax was that a very very key bit of functionality was improved, with bigger, brighter viewfinders.

To me it seems obvious that if the difference in a FF camera are helpful and affordable, and you don't mind the weight/bulk then it's a worthwhile upgrade. It can't make you a better photographer, but it might help you get the pictures you wanted with less difficulty. There's no issue over waiting for crop to catch up in quality.

Good points, but my newly acquired 6D is lighter and smaller than my 7D, so the weight/bulk argument doesn't add up. And actually I think it will, eventually, make me a better photographer. Simply because it is a highly capable and versatile bit of kit whose capabilities currently outweigh my own abilities, it is making me want to explore, try new things and generally push myself to see what it can do and thus, what I can do. So, in that sense, better kit does make better photographers. After all, what's the point of investing your hard earned cash in a newer/better/more able camera/lens etc if you're not going to see what you can do with it. If you're still going to be doing the same old stuff, you may as well be doing it on the same old gear and spent the money on something else.

 

[Phil V]

Good points, but my newly acquired 6D is lighter and smaller than my 7D, so the weight/bulk argument doesn't add up. And actually I think it will, eventually, make me a better photographer. Simply because it is a highly capable and versatile bit of kit whose capabilities currently outweigh my own abilities, it is making me want to explore, try new things and generally push myself to see what it can do and thus, what I can do. So, in that sense, better kit does make better photographers. After all, what's the point of investing your hard earned cash in a newer/better/more able camera/lens etc if you're not going to see what you can do with it. If you're still going to be doing the same old stuff, you may as well be doing it on the same old gear and spent the money on something else.

What if you're wanting to do new more interesting stuff on the same old gear?

Sorry: it looks like you've got a worthwhile point until you turn it round. There gave always been photographers / musicians who buy better and better gear believing that it'll improve their performance, and for some it might, but let's not be mistaken, the gear isn't making them better. And there's always better performers with lesser gear.

 

[Quicksnapper]

What if you're wanting to do new more interesting stuff on the same old gear?

Sorry: it looks like you've got a worthwhile point until you turn it round. There gave always been photographers / musicians who buy better and better gear believing that it'll improve their performance, and for some it might, but let's not be mistaken, the gear isn't making them better. And there's always better performers with lesser gear.

Yes, I agree. But the point I'm making is that, if you are going to spend your hard earned on expensive camera gear, then you have purchased the potential to explore and experiment and thus you have purchased an opportunity. Clearly that opportunity has to be coupled with some ability, imagination or artistic flair. And also witth the will to use it. Speaking personally, I intend to do my best to use my new camera to step up and push myself a bit to see what I can do. There's no compulsion to do so, and I could have continued my photographic development with the excellent gear I already had, but the FF camera opens up new horizons and I feel that I would be letting myself down if I didn't at least see what was beyond them.

In that sense only, the new gear will teach me new things, improve my technical knowledge and that in itself will make me a better photographer. It's not the camera per se, it's the opportunity and incentive that the camera presents which leads me along the road to improvement.

 

[HoppyUK]

Good points, but my newly acquired 6D is lighter and smaller than my 7D, so the weight/bulk argument doesn't add up. And actually I think it will, eventually, make me a better photographer. Simply because it is a highly capable and versatile bit of kit whose capabilities currently outweigh my own abilities, it is making me want to explore, try new things and generally push myself to see what it can do and thus, what I can do. So, in that sense, better kit does make better photographers. After all, what's the point of investing your hard earned cash in a newer/better/more able camera/lens etc if you're not going to see what you can do with it. If you're still going to be doing the same old stuff, you may as well be doing it on the same old gear and spent the money on something else.

Think lenses. Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM is a very good lens - sharp, small and light (111mm long, 375g), cost around £250. FF-eqiv field of view is 88-400mm http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...b9784ab2934041bd959b3a093e20ee2&utm_source=aw

New Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS is 193mm long, weighs 1640g, cost £2k http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...841504a3521b18f70d849495a5564bd&utm_source=aw

 

[Phil V]

Yes, I agree. But the point I'm making is that, if you are going to spend your hard earned on expensive camera gear, then you have purchased the potential to explore and experiment and thus you have purchased an opportunity. Clearly that opportunity has to be coupled with some ability, imagination or artistic flair. And also witth the will to use it. Speaking personally, I intend to do my best to use my new camera to step up and push myself a bit to see what I can do. There's no compulsion to do so, and I could have continued my photographic development with the excellent gear I already had, but the FF camera opens up new horizons and I feel that I would be letting myself down if I didn't at least see what was beyond them.

In that sense only, the new gear will teach me new things, improve my technical knowledge and that in itself will make me a better photographer. It's not the camera per se, it's the opportunity and incentive that the camera presents which leads me along the road to improvement.

With respect, that's just your belief, you've bought a new camera and you're determined to justify the expense by asserting it'll drive you to improve.

If you want to statistically examine the likelihood of that outcome, look at the people who spend most of their time in the gear buying/selling/discussion sections and see how little those folk talk about making photographs.

Hundreds of cameras are bought every year by people on this forum, and there's no evidence to suggest that anyone's photography has improved simply due to gear.

 

[chris malcolm]

This thread is an interesting one, because of the premise that one would buy a FF camera in order to get the same image quality as an out of date MF camera. The OP also talked about reading the manual twice, then reading a 3rd party manual too. This says to me (and please don't think this is a dig) that you're focussing on the equipment for it's own sake.

You're right. Whenever I get a new piece of kit I focus on finding out what it can do, how well it does it, its limits, its virtues, etc.. I like to verify what reviewers have claimed, because they're not always right. I do this without reference to my own established photographic purposes, because I know that if I do that I might be settling into a rut and miss the opportunity to do something new.

After having checked it all out I'll then settle down to making the best use of it.

To me a camera is an image creating device with various obvious design features, like viewfinders, shutter buttons, and except when you'd doing something a bit unusual they all work more or less similarly.

True, but there are sometimes new features which once you've discovered how to exploit them become usual and useful. For example I ignored the panorama button for months because I'm not much interested in panorama shots. Then I discovered it could do a useful wide angle shot if I hadn't brought a wide lens along. Later I realised it did a rather useful cylindrical perspective for wide group shots -- no more widened people at the edge of wide angle group shots. And you learn useful tricks, like putting your hat on top of the camera when holding it high overhead, so that you can aim it by looking at the tilted down LCD screen without the image being washed out by a bright sky behind it.

Some of these differences in detail between cameras can become very important. For example, once I'd had some shots ruined by mirror shake I vowed never again to buy a camera without mirror lock up (or equivalent).

The other point made eloquently by Jonathan/Faldrax was that a very very key bit of functionality was improved, with bigger, brighter viewfinders.

Very much agree, but with the latest technology you no longer have to go to FF for a big bright 100% coverage viewfinder -- you can get that now with a good EVF on a crop sensor camera.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Good points, but my newly acquired 6D is lighter and smaller than my 7D, so the weight/bulk argument doesn't add up. And actually I think it will, eventually, make me a better photographer. Simply because it is a highly capable and versatile bit of kit whose capabilities currently outweigh my own abilities, it is making me want to explore, try new things and generally push myself to see what it can do and thus, what I can do. So, in that sense, better kit does make better photographers. After all, what's the point of investing your hard earned cash in a newer/better/more able camera/lens etc if you're not going to see what you can do with it. If you're still going to be doing the same old stuff, you may as well be doing it on the same old gear and spent the money on something else.

For me, the investment would be to do what I do to a higher standard, if I bought FF of course. At the mo I knowingly use substandard gear because I can't justify investing large sums in top kit, working with the compromises as best I can. So I have a body with a reasonably good sensor and a (low res) EVF, but a plastic lens mount and single control wheel. My most used (best image quality) lens is the kit zoom followed by a 50 f1.4 prime - I'm finding it difficult to stump up £300 for a decent used Zeiss 16-80.

Would a FF outfit with top lenses let me take better photos?

Sometimes my images would be more pleasing, crisper detail, smoother bokeh (though the 50 1.4 does that fairly well already). A lot of the time they'd still just be my images. A better EVF might help with manual focussing, because I need to do that often with the 50 due to the AF spot not being precise enough. Right now I'd love to have a Sony A7r for those reasons, but that won't be happening and I can work with what I have *most of the time* to get acceptable pictures. The biggest kit buying mistake I ever made was to trade image quality for convenience, and although that purchase has sometimes turned in images I like, most of the time I'm seeing the flaws instead of being happy with the image.

 

[Phil V]

And back to the point of the OP, just the fact that people buy the 'wrong lens' because one day it might be the 'right lens' has always confused me. A std zoom for a crop DSLR is 17/18-50/55 ish. a 24-70 is just a daft lens, nowhere near wide enough at the wide end for a 'walkaround' and too short to be a decent portrait length on the long end (I appreciate lots consider even shorter lenses to be 'portrait length'). Buying one instead of the great proper crop offerings is madness. It's designed to be a great lens on FF, and it is,

 

[GeeJay57]

And back to the point of the OP, just the fact that people buy the 'wrong lens' because one day it might be the 'right lens' has always confused me. A std zoom for a crop DSLR is 17/18-50/55 ish. a 24-70 is just a daft lens, nowhere near wide enough at the wide end for a 'walkaround' and too short to be a decent portrait length on the long end (I appreciate lots consider even shorter lenses to be 'portrait length'). Buying one instead of the great proper crop offerings is madness. It's designed to be a great lens on FF, and it is,

The 15-85mm EF-S is an outstanding general purpose zoom lens for Canon crop bodies IMHO. Gives about the same FOV as the 24-105mm does on a FF body. It is bit slower on the long end though, but very sharp and has good IS and focusing systems.

 

[Spiderdudeuk]

A std zoom for a crop DSLR is 17/18-50/55 ish. a 24-70 is just a daft lens...............................Buying one instead of the great proper crop offerings is madness. It's designed to be a great lens on FF, and it is,

Guess I got something right.... Maybe not the 24-105mm though....

 

[Ed Sutton]

When are we going to have the 'pointless putting cheap glass on FF cameras' thread?

 

[KIPAX]

Well I have gone to full frame and its a godsend. I get more usable pictures and better quality pictures..... because of the camera... so it's worth it...

My photogrpahy hasn't improved.. But my keeper rate and quality of picture has...but then again I am constantly in very demanding situations where only a top end camera will get the picture.... constantly dissproving the old wives tale that a good photogrpaher can get the picture wiht any camera...

 

[PMN]

There gave always been photographers / musicians who buy better and better gear believing that it'll improve their performance, and for some it might, but let's not be mistaken, the gear isn't making them better. And there's always better performers with lesser gear.

Absolutely correct as an outright principle but there's another perspective to the 'gear won't make you better' discussion. When I bought my main bass (G&L L2500 - not cheap but very nice) probably 12-13 years ago I never wanted to put the thing down, because of that I played more, my technique improved and I became a better player. Nice gear won't immediately make you better at what you do but it can inspire you to push yourself further than you would have before.

In an indirect way it *can* actually make you better, although it still takes time and effort on your part.

constantly dissproving the old wives tale that a good photogrpaher can get the picture wiht any camera...

Yup. As much as I agree with the idea that the photographer is usually more important than the gear, I can never understand why some people seem to take that concept to the extreme of thinking all gear does the same job with the right person using it. It just doesn't!

 

[ancient_mariner]

Well I have gone to full frame and its a godsend. I get more usable pictures and better quality pictures..... because of the camera... so it's worth it...

My photogrpahy hasn't improved.. But my keeper rate and quality of picture has...but then again I am constantly in very demanding situations where only a top end camera will get the picture.... constantly dissproving the old wives tale that a good photogrpaher can get the picture wiht any camera...

Which was rather my point. And it's never *just* about the camera, but the camera is still a key bit of kit. The competition TP runs using disposable cameras proves that, in that none of the images were breathtaking despite the very high levels of ability & creativity on the part of some of the participants.

And back to the point of the OP, just the fact that people buy the 'wrong lens' because one day it might be the 'right lens' has always confused me. A std zoom for a crop DSLR is 17/18-50/55 ish. a 24-70 is just a daft lens, nowhere near wide enough at the wide end for a 'walkaround' and too short to be a decent portrait length on the long end (I appreciate lots consider even shorter lenses to be 'portrait length'). Buying one instead of the great proper crop offerings is madness. It's designed to be a great lens on FF, and it is,

I'd agree really, although sometimes a lens will have other properties that outweigh the disadvantage of non-standard focal lengths. I'll cope with the 50 1.4 being a 'silly' short telephoto for the way it handles bokeh and imparts a softness to an image. I guess that most here are less budget-limited, so they can buy nice lenses in either crop or FF formats and the argument is mostly invalid.

 

[Faldrax]

...In an indirect way it *can* actually make you better, although it still takes time and effort on your part...

Additional example (not related to FF vs crop) - the 'higher end' cameras tend to have additional controls.

For example, when I switched to a camera with twin dials, I set the second dial to exposure compensation (the front dial stayed for Aperture or Shutter, depending on what priority mode I was in) - this made it easy to add exposure compensation, so I started to experiment more with it, and thus gain the benefits.

This in turn meant I was more comfortable using manual when I needed to (as I had a better feel for what I could do in terms of deviating from the 'recommended' values), and, of course, having twin dials again made manual much simpler.

Did the better camera make me a better photographer? - No.
Did the better camera help my photography improving? - Yes.

 

[GeeJay57]

When I bought my Gibson Les Paul, it didn't instantly make me a better guitarist and initially it seemed to sound very much like the Epiphone Les Paul that I already had. After I'd played the Gibson for a while, I found sounds that I was unable to extract from the Epiphone. The Gibson definitely puts a bigger smile on my face and does sound and play better than the Epi. That said the Epiphone is/was a great guitar (sold it to my neighbour who still has it and won't sell it back to me ).