conversion to full frame pros and cons?

phildaintith

phildaintith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
325
Name
phil
Edit My Images
No
ok well iv got some disposable cash this month and im considering the switch from a 40d to a 5d mk1 most of my shots are at night and in low light places - gigs etc

in your opinion would the switch to full frame be worth it. i know id have to change most of my lenses but if probably end up with a 5d and 17-40 f4L... and keep the nifty fifty...


cheers, phil
 
Can only speak as a Nikon user but it MAY be relevant to Canons too. (I use a D700)

Pros:
High ISO performance
W-I-D-E angles
I see and choose focal lengths in FF

Cons:
Potential for further expense if lenses aren't FF compatible
Perceived loss of reach with telephotos
Cost
Bulk.

Before I bought the D700, I used 35mm as well as a D70 crop DSLR, so always tried to get lenses that were 35mm compatible (the only one that wasn't was the kit 18-70 that came with the D70) so I avoided the extra lens expense.
I've kept the D70, so if I want/need the extra peceived reach, I use that (or crop D700 images).
The D700 isn't that much bulkier than the D200 and I'm big enough not to notice a real difference in weight.
I knew that the price rises were on their way at the end of 2008 and realised I could afford to invest the cost to avoid the hikes. Traded the kit lens that came with the D700 in for more than it cost me over the body only price.
 
One of the biggest issues for me is that (as far as I know) only one full frame DSLR currently has a built in flash.

I find a built in flash very useful for snaps and fill flash and I've never owned a DSLR or SLR that didn't have one. With all but one full frame DSLR (AFAIK) if you want a flash you have to use a hotshoe flash and the disadvantages of that to me are that it's something else to carry about and also that it makes both me and my camera more obvious and obtrusive and that's something I don't want.
 
All the above, and another pro:
Shallower depth of field.


Would the switch to FF be worth it? Yes. The 5D1 has legendary image quality, I'm sure you'll see the difference.
 
Image quality, that's the major reason to go full frame. Simple as really.

The difference there depends on which cameras you're comparing but, all things being equal, the full frame camera will be better thanks to a sensor that is 2.5x larger.

I've not compared the 5D and 40D, but I did compare it with a 5D2 and the rest is history as they say. Pretty sure the 5D will be significantly better though, but it's hardly cutting edge technology these days.

The other thing is shallower depth of field with full frame, as mentioned. The difference is one and a quarter stops which is quite handy, eg f/2.8 becomes f/1.8 in DoF terms. So if you wanna do that wunnaful bokeh thing, FF has it :thumbs:
 
HoppyUK said:
Image quality, that's the major reason to go full frame. Simple as really.

The difference there depends on which cameras you're comparing but, all things being equal, the full frame camera will be better thanks to a sensor that is 2.5x larger.
Click to expand...

Interested to know why a bigger sensor automatically = better image quality? I understand that lower light performance will be better.
 
Even 1.3x has notable advantages over 1.6x and since it is now becoming a feasible option for those who don't have doorsteps made out of gold bars, I am seriously considering moving to 1.3x. It makes perfect sense - teles still have some extra length compared to on full frame, but wide angles are wider than on crop - it really is the best of both worlds and to top it off the 1.3x sensor comes in an amazing body.

I'm not sure if Nikon have a 1.3x...? :P
 
grum said:
Interested to know why a bigger sensor automatically = better image quality? I understand that lower light performance will be better.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's more like FF = more expensive = we need to make it very very good to justify the cost...

dave
 
I went from a 40D to a 5D mk1 and I still have the 5D mk1 ;), MUCH better low light camera, and even when you see noise its much nicer, like good old film grain, the HUGE pixel size is a big plus. The only minor set back IMO is when I switched the Digic 2 is less responsive than Digic 3 in 40D, other than that you get used to it and the picture quality is astounding, I reguarly use ISO3200 without issue.
 
fyonn said:
I suspect it's more like FF = more expensive = we need to make it very very good to justify the cost...

dave
Click to expand...

The sensor being bigger means there can be more pixels on it without having to squeeze them in to a small surface area, which is called a high pixel density. If the pixel density is too high, quality suffers, but the more pixels you have on the sensor, the larger you can make prints. Therefore a larger sensor means you can have more pixels without killing quality - everyone wins. If you think FF is too expensive have a look at medium formats for price, but please make sure you are firmly seated first.
 
If you're thinking about going for the APS-H crop as well as thinking about full frame, you'll lose the ability to go ultra-wide. Canon don't do anything that'll give you the equivalent of the 10mm APS-C/16mm Full frame option unless you go for something like the Sigma 12-24 (which will give you nearly 16mm on APS-H).

I'd suggest you go and find someone who's got either a 5DMKI or MKII and see for yourself. It's easy to sit here and offer advice but without first hand experience, you won't really appreciate the difference. APS-C technology has come along in leaps and bounds but at high ISOs and in low-light, nothing touches full frame.

Si
 
grum said:
Interested to know why a bigger sensor automatically = better image quality? I understand that lower light performance will be better.
Click to expand...

Bigger sensor means bigger pixels - more photons, less noise, more dynamic range, higher lens contrast. Simply a higher quality image.

You only have to compare the two, pixel size is more important that number of pixels IMHO. But you have to print pretty large to see it. And smaller sensors are getting better all the time.

trencheel303 said:
Even 1.3x has notable advantages over 1.6x and since it is now becoming a feasible option for those who don't have doorsteps made out of gold bars, I am seriously considering moving to 1.3x. It makes perfect sense - teles still have some extra length compared to on full frame, but wide angles are wider than on crop - it really is the best of both worlds and to top it off the 1.3x sensor comes in an amazing body.

I'm not sure if Nikon have a 1.3x...? :P
Click to expand...

1.3x is a pretty good compromise isn't it :) But the choice of cameras is a bit limited, ie to one! And EF-S lenses don't fit (unmodified) so lens choice is still restricted a bit at the mega-wide end.
 
Apologies - I should have said 'EF wide angles are wider than on crop' - for me, who no longer feels the need for the 10-20, something like the 17-40 on 1.3 is perfect. I guess its horses for course, if one needs a super wide angle and lots of tele then 1.3 is not for them. For an inbetweeny - as I say a compromise - it can be good.

This is all a bit OT though as 1.3 isn't full frame.. lol
 
phil... if you want to have a tinker with my 5D Mk1, you're very welcome. i'm in cheshire.. pm me if you're interested.

i went from a 350d to 5d and it was like my hands had turned into jeremy beadles (well, 1 of them) :D

for the price you can pick one up for now, i'd say it's well worth it.
 
forgot to mention... i've got a 17-40 on mine and a nifty 50 so you'll be able to see the comparables with your own.
 
Wide angle TECHNICALLY.

Realistically, you won't get anything NEAR as wide as a crop for the same cost/bulk/price.

For example:

On Crop - Sigma 10-20 (£300 used) /Nikon 10-24/Canon 10-24. All Compact. Filterable. Light.
Full Frame - Sigma 12-24 - No filter, not as sharp as 10-20.
14-24. Gigantic. No filter. 1 BLEEDING KILOGRAM.. One thousand pounds, even used ish. Only really as wide as 10mm more or less on DX (or 9.3 mm to be pedantic. And is that 0.7mm worth the weight and cost?)
Nikon 16-35. Not as wide as 10mm on DX. £1k.

So wideness isn't an advantage, realistically.
 
Kanine said:
Wide angle TECHNICALLY.

Realistically, you won't get anything NEAR as wide as a crop for the same cost/bulk/price.

For example:

On Crop - Sigma 10-20 (£300 used) /Nikon 10-24/Canon 10-24. All Compact. Filterable. Light.
Full Frame - Sigma 12-24 - No filter, not as sharp as 10-20.
14-24. Gigantic. No filter. 1 BLEEDING KILOGRAM.. One thousand pounds, even used ish. Only really as wide as 10mm more or less on DX (or 9.3 mm to be pedantic. And is that 0.7mm worth the weight and cost?)
Nikon 16-35. Not as wide as 10mm on DX. £1k.

So wideness isn't an advantage, realistically.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is! on a 1.5x crop body, the Sigma 10-20 has the same angle of view as a 15-30. On FF, the Sigma 12-24 (IMO, sharper than the 10-20, oh, and it does take filters but gels behind the rear element, not screw-ins) is 3mm wider and at those lengths, those 3mm DO make a big difference!
 
"Sigma 12-24 - No filter, not as sharp as 10-20."

Sigma 12-24 not sharp? I beg to differ.

I owned the Canon EF-S 10-22mm before switching to the Siggy and the Siggy is IMVHO better in every way (except that the only way to put a filter on the front is to leave the bucket in place) than the Canon.

The Sigma 12-24mm is IMHO an excellent lens and mine is my most used zoom.
 
The Canon 10-22 is basically an L lens in an EF-S body, and it is renowned as being fantastic glass. With Sigma's (apparent?) variation in quality I suppose people have had not sharp 12-24s.
 
The Canon 10-22mm is not an L lens in an EF-S body and I don't think you'll find anyone at Canon who'll say that.

What they might say (and I've seen it in a typed interview some years ago) is that they used L quality glass but there's more to L designation than glass.

Anyway, I'm getting off the point here...
 
I stuck with crop. It suits my usage better, but I do like the extreme wide anges with ff.

There's an article here

I've got a Sigma 12-24 and it's great.
 
trencheel303 said:
Even 1.3x has notable advantages over 1.6x and since it is now becoming a feasible option for those who don't have doorsteps made out of gold bars, I am seriously considering moving to 1.3x. It makes perfect sense - teles still have some extra length compared to on full frame, but wide angles are wider than on crop - it really is the best of both worlds and to top it off the 1.3x sensor comes in an amazing body.

I'm not sure if Nikon have a 1.3x...? :P
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with your comments.

I made the switch from a 40D to a 1D MKII and the difference is huge.
Still get a bit of reach at the tele end over a FF yet still VERY wide at 17mm.
 
It is difficult for me to say because I changed most of my lenses at the same time as changing to the D700. The reality is though that the massive hike in quality is due to both rather than just one. The perceived loss of zoom does make a difference but I bought a 1.4TC to cancel it out :D

The full frame sensor cameras are a bit more picky over glass though and some of my lenses just didn't go on the new camera, the 18-200 for example but luckily Helen had that one off me :lol:
 
bronwydd said:
I stuck with crop. It suits my usage better, but I do like the extreme wide anges with ff.

There's an article here

I've got a Sigma 12-24 and it's great.
Click to expand...

With the Sigma 8-16 for crop cameras, one can virtually now get the same ultra wideness on crop.
 
trencheel303 said:
With the Sigma 8-16 for crop cameras, one can virtually now get the same ultra wideness on crop.
Click to expand...

You can, but do you really need it? For interior photography the answer is clearly a YES (tilt and shift preferred), otherwise not necessarily. I find 24mm on FF to be wide enough for most of my landscapes. At 16mm one needs some very strong and beautiful foreground interest.

The strong points of FF are:
* Large viefinder
* Very clean images
* Excellent colour, much nicer than xxD
* More resolution
* L lenses behave as they should, with better overall sharpness
* Less DOF wide open, but can stop down far more than on crop without the loss of sharpness

Disadvantages
* Loss of crop factor / reach - 100mm Macro becomes a rather miserable midrange lens, 200mm is no longer for any wildlife, even ducks
* Need more and more expensive lenses (180mm macro, tilt and shift, fast primes, super telephotos) - perhaps an issue with the photographer?
* Slow fps (plenty for average everyday use)
* More weight in case of 1-series
* Price

Perhaps the ideal kit would consist of 5D mk2 (travel, landscapes, portraits) and 1D mk3/4 (weddings, journalism, action and general shooting). This makes more sense if money is not an issue.
 
Nod said:
Yes, it is! on a 1.5x crop body, the Sigma 10-20 has the same angle of view as a 15-30. On FF, the Sigma 12-24 (IMO, sharper than the 10-20, oh, and it does take filters but gels behind the rear element, not screw-ins) is 3mm wider and at those lengths, those 3mm DO make a big difference!
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
"Sigma 12-24 - No filter, not as sharp as 10-20."
Click to expand...

The 3mm isn't a massive difference truth be told, once you get to 10(DX)/15mm (F)it's so wide anyway. There is a difference, don't get me wrong, but it isn't gigantic (IMO) anymore.

I am not talking from anecdotal evidence. I have a D300s/10-20 and a D3/12-24. The 10-20 beats the 12-24 hands down in sharpness. Even the 10-20 mounted on the D3 is razor sharp, but the 12 24 isn't. They are sigmas though - possibly a not great copy?
 
Sounds like you've got an iffy 12-24. Mine is far sharper than the 10-20 I borrowed for a short while from Yv last year.
 
daugirdas said:
You can, but do you really need it? For interior photography the answer is clearly a YES (tilt and shift preferred), otherwise not necessarily. I find 24mm on FF to be wide enough for most of my landscapes. At 16mm one needs some very strong and beautiful foreground interest.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree; and this is indeed the reason I am getting rid of my 10-20 and substituting it with a 17-40 - the 10-20 is just too wide, and a lot of my shots I find I struggle to frame.
 
Hi,
I went from a 40D to a 5D1 and now II. Low light performance is brill but I would recommend you invest in a 50mm 1.4. Gives you even more stops! Most of the shots on my Flickr below were with 5D and 50mm 1.4.

Cheers,

Dunc
 
glad i found this thread, also thinking about going full frame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top