Full Frame or not...

Bobsp

Bobsp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
39
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a EOS 600D and have been offered a 5D Mk2. Is full frame worth the extra. There is lots about regarding this, I was wondering if someone can point out the pro's and con's for both.

Thanks
 
Hi Bobsp,

If it helps here is my experience:

I went from a 40D to a 5D mk1, and was wowed by the improved image quality.

Full frame is great for portraits and landscapes, and also improved lowlight capability.

The only draw back for me was when i wanted to shoot motor sport as the 40D appeared to focus quicker and had a higher burst rate of 6fps compared to 3fps with the 5D, luckily though i was able to keep my 40D for these situations.

However in your case, the 5D mk2 has slightly better burst rate than your current 600d 3.9 compared with 3.7, so this would not be an issue.

Obviously if you are into motorsport photography or perhaps wildlife then the FF will not have quite as much reach as your 600D although the extra MP of the 5D may make up some of the difference if you wanted to crop.

The only real draw back that i can think of would be if you have a number of ef-s lenses as these will not work on the 5D and therefore you will need to invest in some new glass for your new body.

On the 5D you may see more vignetting using the same lens compared with that of your 600D and possibly softer edges due to the nature of the cropped sensor compared to fullframe, and is the reason why decent glass is a must to get the best out of a full frame camera.


Overall though you will, im sure, be wowed as i was by full frame photography if you decide to invest.

Cheers

Pete
 
Well, to begin with...

1. For what purpose will you use your cameras? Hobby, paid?
2. How much have you been offered for the 5D?

I recently upgraded my Canon 600D for my Nikon 7k, but I only assist a full time wedding tog. Therefore, I do not currently make any money from my 'assisting' : (
 
I went from a 20D to a 5D back in 2005 and there's nothing that could make me go back to a cropper as my primary body. It's an impressive difference. It's also easier to go wide with FF, if you're into that.

If you can afford it and you're not shooting birds, I would say go for it.
 
Bobsp said:
I have a EOS 600D and have been offered a 5D Mk2. Is full frame worth the extra. There is lots about regarding this, I was wondering if someone can point out the pro's and con's for both.

Thanks
Click to expand...

What lenses do you own now? any EF-S lenses wont work on FF so if you use one as a general lens you might have to factor in the extra cost of getting a new lens.

I went through the same thing recently (knowingly of course).
The only cons i find is loss of reach (quite a bit really) and large camera size. Size isnt really an issue but i do find my 70-200 now lacking. With my 60D it was my long reach lens, but now i can happily use it as a walkabout lens, and do need to get something with a longer reach, just to bring me back up to what i had before.
The flip side is im really enjoying using my primes with FF, and also having a nice wider end.
The IQ of course is better and the ability to shoot in lower light is a huge plus. Although i have a 5DMKIII from what ive read the MKII is pretty close as far as noise goes.

I guess it also depends on what features you use on the 600D. The MKII is quite an old camera and does miss some of the more modern functions that Canon have been adding to the lower range. Might be worth looking in to this as well as just the whole Crop - FF jump.

EDIT: If you can also keep the 600D then i'd say go for it.
 
This is simple really. (or can be kept simple whilst there is always exceptions)

FF
Shallower depth of field
Wider Angle lenses more available
Expensive though.

Crop APS-C (etc)
greater depth of field
Cheaper
Cheaper lenses
 
For me I can shoot either, but FF works best for my weddings.

Shallow DOF for me. The other important thing for me is dual card slots (can be on both crop and FF)
 
go for it, you won't regret it a single bit.

the argument that full frame doesn't give enough reach is a misconception. crop sensor cameras are simply cropped image of full frame. so if your reach isn't enough, just crop the image in post processing to achieve the exact same thing. loose a bit of resolution, but still more than enough at 11MP.


from my experience, (D3100 to 5D mk2) i'd say:
Pro: much much better body, much better low light performance, lens focal lengths now make sense (as a film shooter, D3100 was my first digital SLR) and can use many old lenses exactly like before.
Con: heavier camera and lens, more expensive lenses.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Does the MKII have dual card slots?
Click to expand...

Nope, only a CF slot. The MkIII has dual slots but that shouldn't be a deal breaker. Lol, should of just answered the question instead of elaborating, or type faster.

I had a 5D MkII and a 7D pairing and the 5D ended up being used over 80% of the time. The only things I shot with the 7D was wildlife and BIF occasionally. I managed to get some great BIF shots with the 5D though so don't let the 9 point focus system put you off. I eventually sold both bodies to get a 5D MkIII and that is fantastic.
 
Last edited:
can I ask you all on this, is the mkii worth roughly £3-400 over the mki?

I've currently got the 40d and can't see the point of selling that but want to seek the impact of going ff

John
 
I've gone from 7D to 5D3. I don't regret it, I've always wanted a FF camera and I spent a long time reading up on the pro's and cons. Having said that, with hindsight I think there are much more important things for me to concentrate on, like lighting, composition and technique. Buying a full frame has moved things on for me, but in all honesty, I wish i'd kept my 7D and squeezed the most I could get from it.

I mainly want to get nice pic's of my kids so YMMV, and there is no way i'd choose a FF camera with a poorer AF than a crop with better AF. I know that's not a widely held view. The difference between crop and FF is a lot smaller than and in focus / out of focus shot.

I also thought the 17-55 f2.8 was a cracking lens, and i miss it :-(
 
So what did OP decide on?

I started with 350D back in 2005[late], then 30D, not so long i got 1D MarkIIn, that body made me to move to full frame so quick and i got 5D and 1Ds MarkII both at the same time with one purchase, i swear i did touch a 1.6x crop body after that only to shoot for a test for some people on the net, but i never use them again after 1.3x and full frame, even i can buy 7D now as this is the best 1.6x crop body from Canon now, but i can't beat my (4) full frame and (2) 1.3x bodies.
 
For me there are both advantages and disadvantages to be had when increasing the size of your camera sensor.

Looking at image quality and nothing else, when I went from a 20D to a 5D I expected a massive improvement in IQ but at low to middling ISO's I just didn't see it but I did find an improvement at the highest ISO's. I also have a MFT and find that again FF really only pulls clear of the smaller format at the higher ISO's. So, for me FF offers clear IQ advantages at the higher ISO's and when printing really large or looking really closely. For the vast majority of my images though as long as I don't go pixel peeping at 100%+ or do a heavy crop and print it large the format size between FF, APS-C and MFT is a complete non issue.

One of the most often mentioned differences seems to be DoF but for me the difference between, for example, 50mm at f1.4 on FF, 30mm at f1.4 on APS-C and 25mm at f1.4 on MFT is a dual edged sword offering both advantages and disadvantages depending upon what you want to achieve and can anyway be swayed either way by altering your field of view and/or your camera to subject distance.

If asked by anyone if it's worth going FF I'd say do it as I think it's a phase that many of us go through but personally I don't see a massive difference in IQ between well processed shots taken with my 5D, 20D or MFT kit unless they're at the extremes of what I personally do. For normal screen viewing and for whole image prints up to and including A3 when viewed normally I personally think that a well taken and processed APS-C or MFT stands up well to a FF image and that differences can only be seen when looking for clues or going to extremes of ISO or image size.
 
dave_bass5 said:
The reason i asked about the card slot was that the OP is asking about the MKII, not the MKIII.
I guess Andy's post was just elaborating on why he like his camera, rather than giving the OP a plus point for going FF.
Click to expand...

Indeed I was meaning that although there are both plus and minus points of full frame, I would use either if it meant sacrificing dual cards.
 
Cool.

I did think having two card slots would be good but ive since found everything seems to slow down if im writing to the SD card so i only keep one in there for emergencies.
I guess im happy using either though but do like the extra speed a good fast CF gives.
 
Full frame is definitely worth the extra - have you also considered a 1Ds MkII?

Another excellent FF camera but much larger and heavier than the 5D MkII but I wouldn't change mine for the 5D.

And a good everyday walkabout lens for a FF is the 28-135mm IS USM - it can give a slight bit of vignetting in the corners especially on skies but that can easily be cloned out.

Most of the pictures here were taken with that combination:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157624765849404/

and here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157625465964697/

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top