Going full frame

[Deleted member 49428]

Not sure if if this has been said already. I have a 7d2 and it is a very capable camera. I use it for all photography. It’s great at wildlife, action and I have used it for weddings. It’s a great camera. Save some money and stick with it

 

[LCPete]

What sort of photography do you do, or want to do, as that would help people suggest something specific? If it's fast moving wildlife then I'd stick with your 7D II, as the crop factor and AF speed are ideal for that. If it's mainly slower stuff and massive MP resolution isn't a priority, then a mint-ish used 6D can be had for around the £500 mark. This gives very nice looking full frame images and will take any Canon EF fit lenses you have (not EF-S ones though!).

So for around £500 or so (once prices stabilise after Coronavirus lockdown shortages) you can see how you take to full frame (you'll notice a big difference in depth of field, particularly at the 400mm end of your zoom wide open, where you'll only have a few inches in focus each way). You can also see how the mirrorless v DSLR thing pans out and save up for a major upgrade once things settle down there.

No doubt you'll have loads of mirrorless fans telling you to jump that way, but I doubt you could switch to a brilliant FF mirrorless outfit for £2k at the moment, and using adaptors on your existing lenses is always going to be a compromise and a temptation to spend even more money in uncertain times.

Agree I went from 7D2 to a second hand 6D mk 2 mainly for macro
I’m keeping the 7D for fast moving wildlife shots it’s excellent for that
I love the 6D2 the image quality is amazing just have to get used to the depth of field change
It’s my first full frame camera really happy with the results and as already said you can get a second hand 6D or my my case a MK 2 not too expensively

 

[Phil V]

So the ...6D. Sooo few focus points compared to the 65 I'm used to

And only the centre one is any use. But it’s a perfectly usable camera (I’ve got 2).

Realistically if you’re not happy with focus/recompose, it’s not a camera for you.

The 6dII though

 

[Mr Badger]

And only the centre one is any use. But it’s a perfectly usable camera (I’ve got 2).

Realistically if you’re not happy with focus/recompose, it’s not a camera for you.

The 6dII though

I certainly wouldn't say the other AF points were useless, it's just that the centre one is so good, it very rarely fails to lock on to focus, even in very dull lighting conditions.

Personally, I don't think the 6Dii has enough of a benefit over the 6D in terms of actual image quality (and I wouldn't use the flip out screen as I don't do macro or video - to me it would just be something to potentially break or go wrong!), so the only Canon DSLR to currently tempt me is the 5Div, but I'm resisting the temptation until the coronavirus and economic situation improves. I'm not exactly wearing the kit I've got out at the moment!

 

[gman]

I still find it crazy how decent camera gear seems to hold its value for so long, except of course when you are selling! Damn annoying I say.

It's even more difficult to justify when it's just a hobby, especially when someone is chirping loudly for the nest to be upgraded, again which unsurprisingly leads on to a further and far more expensive upgrade soon after (she thinks I can't see it coming lol).

But then again, with months of lockdown and the emotional, social and psychological strain it can have, a nice new toy can be a lifesaver.

 

[Phil V]

I certainly wouldn't say the other AF points were useless, it's just that the centre one is so good, it very rarely fails to lock on to focus, even in very dull lighting conditions.

Personally, I don't think the 6Dii has enough of a benefit over the 6D in terms of actual image quality (and I wouldn't use the flip out screen as I don't do macro or video - to me it would just be something to potentially break or go wrong!), so the only Canon DSLR to currently tempt me is the 5Div, but I'm resisting the temptation until the coronavirus and economic situation improves. I'm not exactly wearing the kit I've got out at the moment!

The other AF points are OK in good light on static subjects, in good light they’re not even OK on moving subjects and in poor light they’re no good at all.

The centre point is excellent, it’s an excellent camera for the money, but it’s difficult to recommend without the caveat around the AF. I wouldn’t recommend the 6dII for an improvement in IQ, or ergonomics (unless you’re desperate for a flippy screen) but for the AF I definitely would.

 

[AZ6]

Ignoring all the various opinions regarding what camera body, I think it's actually more important to think about lenses. For portraiture, obviously the old favourites such as 85, 105 and 135mm will be popular, but if you do need something more 'versatile', then I would really recommend a 70-200mm f2.8. Don't know anything about the Canon versions, other than they are reputedly excellent. Big and heavy though, if compared to most primes. And seemingly a lot better value for money, given their versatility (plus they have built in VR), whereas most primes don't, not in DSLR format anyway. F2.8 is plenty large enough for most portraiture, where You want sufficient depth of field to get eyes and noses etc in focus, but with enough control over DoF to isolate the subject. I have a Nikon 70-200mm lens, and it's absolutely fantastic.

But then.

The thing about yer primes, is that they offer some benefits that a lot of portrait photographers consider very important, if not essential. That larger maximum aperture for example, with f1.8 and f1.4 lenses (even up to f1.2 with Canon!), allows even more control over DoF and subject isolation. A prime, especially a f1.8 version such as an 85mm, will be significantly smaller and lighter, and potentially less intimidating for subjects; I've noticed people being a bit uneasy when I've pointed my 70-200 at them! People have different preferences for 'portrait' lenses; some like the 'natural' perspective of an 85mm (or even a 50), others prefer how longer lenses flatter perspective more. Some love the longer teles, such as 200 and 300mm lenses. And you'll get acolytes for both 100/105 and 135mm. I suppose it all depends on how you shoot; I like an 85mm, because it offers enough subject isolation, and has very little distortion compared to longer lenses, plus is nice and small and light and easy to move around with. But I also love my 105mm macro lens, because although it isn't as fast (f2.8 at 'normal' distances, smaller at closer distances), it is very, very sharp, and I love that. I favour accuity over 'character', personally. The shorter the lens, the closer you have to get to fill the frame, of course. So maybe a 200 or 300mm lens would work better for you. I also quite like getting right in people's faces, now and then, with a 24mm lens, which gives loads of distortion, but also can include a lot of context, which might be important in say an environmental portrait. Some love the 35mm for this. A long lens could allow you to work further from the subject, so maybe better for more 'candid' type portraits. But the possibilities really are all so subjective and about personal taste. You might find out that you end up only ever using an 85 or 135mm lens. Who knows? The 70-200m would at least let you explore a range of focal lengths.

So, that's a lot to think about, before we even get onto lighting...

Good luck!

 

[gman]

Your post just reminded me of something I found when I was with the mirrorless system, it was very difficult to find used lenses at decent prices. Whereas with the DSLR the market is far bigger plus you can usually get 1st Generation lenses and other classics at crazy low prices yet they can be amazing lenses.

One example, apologies it's Nikon, is the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8. I had it and it was fantastic and I think it cost me about £550 used. Insane!

 

[snerkler]

Your post just reminded me of something I found when I was with the mirrorless system, it was very difficult to find used lenses at decent prices. Whereas with the DSLR the market is far bigger plus you can usually get 1st Generation lenses and other classics at crazy low prices yet they can be amazing lenses.

One example, apologies it's Nikon, is the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8. I had it and it was fantastic and I think it cost me about £550 used. Insane!

Yeah there's a few reasons for the 'skew' in prices. Firstly age, obviously you can get some fantastic DSLR lenses that are donkey's years old, like the 80-200mm you mention. Also, a lot of glass for mirrorless has been designed to be better than the DSLR predecessors (I'm not going to argue whether that's been achieved or not ) and as such have demanded higher prices. Lastly there's been a couple of major price hikes in the past few years, and then to add salt to the wounds the pound has been weak.