Full frame decision?

M

McNyat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
493
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive been thinking about a full frame camera as of late and am considering a Canon6d or 5d2.
Also want to pair this up with a 70-200 lens and at the minute a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with image stabilization is the way I'm heading.
Want to achieve shallower depth of field (which the full frame camera will provide compared to my 550d).
Can anyone give me some solid advice based on their own personal experience please?
 
My move to FF was a major step forward, the images from my 5D2 where just so sweet to look at. If you don’t need fancy features like FPS or mega ISO the 5D2 is still a great body. I sold mine for a 6D it was a big mistake did not get on with the 6D at all, ended up moving to a D810 (longer story).

I guess the question is what are you shooting and in what conditions ?

Rob
 
It depends what you want to use it for.
The 6D I can't comment on , I have a 5D2 which I keep for use with a TS-E lens and its fine but it gets used on a tripod ( on very rare occasions)
If you want one for wildlife , fast action etc then there are better cameras than the 5D
 
I switched from crop to FF last year after much deliberation, it is night and day, FF everyday for me from now on. I'm wildlife and landscape mainly.

This might be a minor input into your thinking and decision, but it is what I experienced.
 
My first FF system was Sony, I briefly moved to APS-C Fuji but ended back with Sony again.
Prefer the FF look and the other big advantages you get with a FF system. But remember a FF system is most likely going cost more in terms of finance, weight and size in most circumstances. :)
 
Mint low use 6D easily but I have seen a few 5d mk 3 for £800 - £850 these days and I would get one of those instead.

As for the lens, careful what 70-200 IS you buy because some of them are embarrassingly loud. Try to see a review or see in a shop.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
I read some quite negative reviews on mark IV… what say you, Phil?
Click to expand...

Care to link to the negative reviews that you are talking about???
 
Box Brownie said:
Care to link to the negative reviews that you are talking about???
Click to expand...


As I am a Nikon user, I was curious to read the review of the
5d4 vs D850… but I did not keep track, sorry Laurence! :(
 
Kodiak Qc said:
I read some quite negative reviews on mark IV… what say you, Phil?
Click to expand...
I think the negative reviews were mainly due to the video side of things weren’t they and using some weird codec? The other issue I see for Canon is that they bring out new cameras that are very expensive yet still aren’t better than the current market, let alone new releases from other manufacturers. For example, compare the 5D4 to the D850, and other than live view AF the D850 is markedly better in just about every other area.

That being said, the 5D4 is still a stellar camera. More MP than most of us need, great IQ, decent enough DR, good noise performance, great AF, well built etc etc. it really is a great camera.
 
snerkler said:
That being said,
Click to expand...


That's what I was after… since I know nothing on that product,
some more reasonable comments. Thanks, Toby! :):):)
 
D850 is better spec’d in most areas. 5DM4 video is great, especially with the clog upgrade, apart from 4K footage being cropped.
 
newbie1 said:
D850 is better spec’d in most areas. 5DM4 video is great, especially with the clog upgrade, apart from 4K footage being cropped.
Click to expand...


Thanks Tim… I have nothing to do with video though! :cool:
 
Sigma 70-200/2.8 is great value, but not the best at f/2.8. Canon for preference, but otherwise Tamron.
 
You are going from a 550d. As i had one it’s a great camera. I took great shots with it it. Not sure what you want to shoot. So advice is not easy to give. I upgraded my 550d to a 7d2. Please let us know what you want to shoot
 
What do you want to photograph?

For me this is fairly key to what camera would suit, and if that lens is right for you...
 
redsnappa said:
Go Full Frame if you wish but regarding shallow depth of field if you are expecting a huge massive difference between FF & Crop you will be disappointed. There Is shallower depth of field when using full frame but not as much as most people think.

https://www.diyphotography.net/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-can-tell-difference/
Click to expand...

Perhaps but full-frame has other advantages too like higher DR / ISO abilities which you be taken into consideration but these come at an price.
If you want small and light go with a M4/3 system.

The only APS-C system I’d consider is the Fuji as it has a great dedicated APS-C lens like up. Good setup for weight and size but obviously lot as light and small as the M4/3 systems.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Since DoF is lens dependent EXCLUSIVELY, a test should be done
using the same lens on the two different sized sensor bodies, This
comparison is useless because there were two different focal length
lenses used.

There are no other benefits to crop sensor than body size, weight,
and price, no extra reach, no DoF or else.
Click to expand...
Beg to differ.
Since field of view for the two formats is also lens (focal lenght) dependent you automatically get different focal lenghts for the same fov depending on your format.
So since you'll need a 35mm on APSC to emulate fov of a 50mm on 24x36 you will have a different DoF due to the smaller hole all other equal. Same is true for fov of teles also taking into account the resolution loss is you decide to crop your 24x36 image.
Boiling it all down to weight and price is ofcource not wrong but these can be significant comparing high resolution 24x36 to the APSC sensors bodies of today or 400mm to 600mm lenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kodiak Qc said:
I read some quite negative reviews on mark IV… what say you, Phil?
Click to expand...
I don’t have any experience of the 5dIV, but if the reviews you’ve read are just ‘in comparison to the D850’, I’d expect the Canon to come off worst.

Unfortunately Canon sensor tech is behind Sony and has been for years, and no news on the horizon of a dramatic change to that.

That said, Canon have been beating Nikon in most other technological areas... live view AF, radio controlled flash, mirrorless cameras, specialist lenses etc.

I’ve said it before, if I was starting from scratch today, I’d have a good look at Nikon, I think the D750 is the best bang for buck camera available.
 
soeren said:
Beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Granted, of course but… I think this is the wrong approach to it.

The test I have made was to use a D500 and a D750 with the
same FX lens on both and then crop the FX image to the D500
size. Any other way is like comparing cabbages with bananas.
 
Phil V said:
if I was starting from scratch today, I’d have a good look at Nikon, I think the D750 is the best bang for buck camera available.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your comment, Phil. :)

Yes, the D750 is at the top of what I recommend my students! (y)
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Granted, of course but… I think this is the wrong approach to it.

The test I have made was to use a D500 and a D750 with the
same FX lens on both and then crop the FX image to the D500
size. Any other way is like comparing cabbages with bananas.
Click to expand...
Actually both points of view have a relevance...

For some equivalence is important...

Having used both the 5D11 and 6D, the 6D would be the way to go IMO, for the most part I use 1 series bodies but I feel just as comfortable using the 6D especially when I want a lighter option (quite often now as the years progress), however I do add a bit of weight with a grip and L bracket.... My only gripe with the 6D is the maximum synch speed of 1/160th which means you are switching HSS before my other bodies.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Since DoF is lens dependent EXCLUSIVELY, a test should be done
using the same lens on the two different sized sensor bodies, This
comparison is useless because there were two different focal length
lenses used.

There are no other benefits to crop sensor than body size, weight,
and price, no extra reach, no DoF or else.
Click to expand...

No. The only meaningful test of full-frame vs APS-C is to compare two images where the subject is framed the same, from the same shooting distance (to maintain perspective), at same f/number. For that, focal length must be adjusted and then when the two are compared, the full-frame image will show less depth-of-field. The difference is f/number x crop factor, ie about 1.25 stops, and if you adjust the aperture accordingly the two images will look identical (in terms of framing, perspective and DoF).

DoF is not exclusively lens dependent. I don't know why you say that when I know you know it's untrue. There are multiple factors, including focal length, lens aperture, shooting distance, sensor size, and not to be forgotten, print size and viewing distance. The last two, print/output size and viewing distance are often overlooked but they actually drive the whole shooting match where the limit of human visual acuity is said to be 0.2mm*. That is the primary circle of confusion and everything is worked back from that basic assumption.

*In a print 10in wide, viewed from a distance equal to the diagonal length, ie about 12in. Importantly though, so long as the viewing distance equal to the diagonal rule is maintained, DoF works the same with any size output. This is why a broadsheet poster viewed from the other side of the road also looks sharp and equally, when you enlarge an image on screen to 100% but don't move your chair, it will not.

On more 'reach' with APS-C, that's a bit of an illusion but there is a benefit in that (with few exceptions) the APS-C camera will have higher pixel density so there's more 'pixel reach' for want of a better term.

Sorry for the lecture, but this is important stuff ;)
 
McNyat said:
Ive been thinking about a full frame camera as of late and am considering a Canon6d or 5d2.
Also want to pair this up with a 70-200 lens and at the minute a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with image stabilization is the way I'm heading.
Want to achieve shallower depth of field (which the full frame camera will provide compared to my 550d).
Can anyone give me some solid advice based on their own personal experience please?
Click to expand...

By shallower depth-of-field do you mean more background blur (bokeh)? Not just aperture, but focal length also has a big impact on that. Try this blur and DoF simulator :thumbs:

https://dofsimulator.net/en/
 
PhilH04 said:
You mean not the end of your nose:D
Don't apologise, I personally think equivalence has relevance...
Click to expand...

Cheers :)

Understanding 'equivalence' is absolutely relevant, perhaps a necessary evil to some, because today (unlike film days) we use a multitude of different sensor formats, and often use the same lenses on different cameras. If you want to compare apples with apples, some knowledge of equivalence is essential.
 
HoppyUK said:
By shallower depth-of-field do you mean more background blur (bokeh)
Click to expand...
Background blur and Bokeh are two separate things.
 
HoppyUK said:
Cheers :)

Understanding 'equivalence' is absolutely relevant, perhaps a necessary evil to some, because today (unlike film days) we use a multitude of different sensor formats, and often use the same lenses on different cameras. If you want to compare apples with apples, some knowledge of equivalence is essential.
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs I know but both the different Large formats and the different medium formats have shared lenses. You had inserts in medium format folders enabling 645, 6x6 and 6x9, different backs even offering 24x36 in addition to the standard medium formats etc. and my 240mm for the 5x7" makes a good tele on 4x5"
OH yes then there is different MF backs for 4x5" some even with multi le formats from 645 to 6x12cm as well as reducing back for the larger LF's.
And BTW the advanced photo system (aps, c, h) came in the film Era as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I went from a Canon 600D to a Canon 7D2. I recently bought a second hand 6D.

Here's my experience.

The 7D2 is a better camera than the 6D, in every sense, except how much light you need to get the same exposure, and how it handles very low light scenes, at which point the 6D is unparalleled (and the 6D is better than the 5D2, and potentially, the 5D3 in that regard, depending on who you listen to).

You're moving from a 550D, so it might not be as obvious to you. The 7D2 has better auto-focus (faster, more points, more accurate points, more consistent success rate), it has better controls (joystick over just a thumb-wheel, and a number of additional buttons). The 7D2's screen is better. It's more responsive overall. It's a better camera.

I can't tell the shots apart, that I get with them both, unless I look at the metadata.

The FF field of view is no different to the Crop field of view if you just do the lens maths in your head. I have a 17-50mm Sigma on the 7D2, and the field of view at 17mm, is about what I get on the 6D when using the 24-105 at the wide end (I get about 26mm on the 7D2).

However, the 6D consistently needs less overall light to expose properly at a given ISO than the 7D2, and in low light, the 6D is genuinely usable up to 12800 ISO (I'd not comfortably use anything beyond 3200 on the 7D2).

I can't tell the shots apart, that I get with them both, unless I look at the metadata. (Yep, I put that here again).

My 7D2 is heavier than the 6D, but in your case, you'll notice the 6D is heavier than your 550D I suspect.

You can get lovely background blur with a crop sensor, you just need to understand how much DoF you get from your lens at different apertures, with different distances, and then exploit them. With a full frame sensor you still have to work to get blur, you just need less distance to achieve it. It's not a panacea.

When I'm using the 6D, I get frustrated by the slow(er than the 7D2) AF, by the very small number of focus points covering quite a small part of the image.
 
Last edited:
redsnappa said:
Background blur and Bokeh are two separate things.
Click to expand...

Same thing. Bokeh describes how well out of focus areas are rendered, particularly background blur.
 
Very much FWIW

My path to FF was.......350D, 40D, 7D.....to 5D3

In each step it was to overcome deficiencies or limits I had reached.

The 7D was very capable but compared to the very clean images the 40D I was never happy enough with the amount of PP the files needed. So when the 5D3 was announced with its improved AF compared to the 7D I eventually bought my 5D3.

The cleanness of the images was like a return to the quality of the old 40D...........and the improved AF (compared to the quite capable 7D) was very pleasing upgrade. NB the 7D2 came out shortly after my 5D3 purchase but I have not regretted it.

So far everything I have read of the 5D4 especially the continued AF improvements make me want to justify getting one but so far cannot "justify the expense".

I will b selling my old 7D to offset the cost and keep my 5D3.

Subjects wise ~ landscape, nature & wildlife, architecture, airshows and occasionally people & street photography.
 
No hard & fast reviews but I know two long term Canon shooters that have recently sold their 5D mk1V that were extremely disappointed with them; specifically missing focus! One was a professional wedding photographer that lost complete confidence in the equipment and the other was a serious enthusiast. The cameras were taken on Holiday and less than 25% of pictures were sharp. The glass being used was high quality Sigma Art lenses and Canon 85mm f1.4/50mm f1.8.

Both were using a variety of lenses and had their cameras repetedly returned for the focus issues but were never solved. They also state they are aware of others with exactly the same problem with the camera.

Both have gone to the Sony A7 and are very happy now.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of differing views and suggestions here. The 7D2 is better than the 6D,the 6D is better that this, that and the other, but one very important bit of information is missing. What do you want to shoot?

I moved from a 40D to a 6D as my move to full frame. I shoot mostly landscapes so fancy AF systems and high speed burst rates didn’t really bother me. The 6D is a fantastic entry into full frame if you shoot landscapes and I still shoot with mine today. I have no reason to upgrade it.

I did, now and then miss the burst rate of the old 40D on the odd occasion that I shot birds, my dog, the wife jumping the horse etc, so I eventually bought a 7Dmkii. That’s also a fantastic camera for the purposes I bought it for. High frame rate, excellent focus tracking.

So really, we need to know what you like to shoot otherwise your just going to get a load of suggestions which are all wrong for you and your needs.
 
Last edited:
Shots are mostly of the family on days out or around the garden. Sometimes playing sports as well. Didnt mention that i have a 7di as well.
Ive always wanted a really good 70-200 as mentioned in my initial post, and when the notions in my head, wondered if i would notice much difference with the new lens on a ff camera compared to my current pair? Jyst really unsure of what to do...
 
McNyat said:
Shots are mostly of the family on days out or around the garden. Sometimes playing sports as well. Didnt mention that i have a 7di as well.
Ive always wanted a really good 70-200 as mentioned in my initial post, and when the notions in my head, wondered if i would notice much difference with the new lens on a ff camera compared to my current pair? Jyst really unsure of what to do...
Click to expand...

Buy the 70-200, use it on your existing cameras. See if you like the results. Don't feel you have to go full frame to benefit from f/2.8 on a 70-200. I have an f/4 70-200 and even on a crop sensor you get beautiful bokeh if you get the distances right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top