Is full frame worth it?

Morph3ous

Morph3ous

Suspended / Banned
Messages
598
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm lucky enough to be in the situation where I have a healthy budget to 'upgrade' my kit early next year, which will be in the region of £2500.
I currently use the Canon 400D with a Sigma 18-200 lens and Canon 50 1.8, which i've used for 4 years, but its now time to move forward.
Most of my photography is based around the usual 'family' stuff with two children under 5, but I also enjoy shooting landscapes and street photography. I've also ventured slightly into the world of interior photography, where I made use of a friends Sigma 10-20mm lens to take photos of a B&B for a friends website.

I have no need for the fast AF of the 7D, so I've always set my sights on getting the Canon 60D body, along with the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8, Canon 70-200 F4 IS and Canon 430 EX II flash. If the budget allowed, I was also looking to get my own Sigma 10-20. I figured this would set me up completely.

Trouble I have however, is the lure of the full frame 5D Mark II. I've only ever played with one briefly, and although it impressed me, I've read so much about how excellent it is at low light, how the DOF is so much better with FF (i'm a massive fan of shallow DOF images) and how its generally considered THE camera to have.

Issue is, realistically the budget would only allow for the purchase of the 5D2 second hand along with the 24-70, and I dont think this would suffice with what I like to shoot as its too short. A lot of my images are close up crops of the children, often shot at 150-200mm (and thats with my crop camera) I therefore feel I'd need to own the 70-200 too. I woudn't want it to 'replace' the 24-70 though, as i'd need the shorter focal lengths for landscapes etc.

So, I thought I'd ask fellow enthusiasts what they would do if they were in my shoes? Would you stick with Plan A, or go for the 5D2?
 
Last edited:
have you considered the 5D mark 1? (often referred to as the "classic", for a reason)
The tech is outdated now, but is a cheaper way to get great full frame images.

Never used full frame myself, doesn't really have any advantages for most of my photography even if I could afford it. Some people rave about it, some people don't see what the fuss is about.
 
Last edited:
As much as the 5D2 is a brilliant piece of kit, your budget only allows for the 60D option. You've said yourself you need the longer focal length range, so the only way you could get the longer lens with a 5D2 would be to go for inferior glass **** defeats the object of getting a 5D2.
Unless you plan on pixel peeping at large print sizes I very much doubt the 60D and L (or other quality like the 17-55) glass will disappoint.
 
Your shooting style sounds like mine, mainly family portraits with lots of bokeh. I can tell you that I have now spend 95% of my time 5d2 with Sigma 50 f/1.4. High ISO, maximum bokeh (you don't need to get up and close in order to still achieve bokeh), and ability to crop like there's no tomorrow. I haven't missed having a zoom, or greater reach, as I can crop so much, it's insane. I care less about framing, and ensure I don't miss the shot.

Example bokeh at distance

The Generation Game by TomQH, on Flickr

For comparison, my other lenses have been 24-70, 24-105, 70-200 f4 IS, 10-22, Canon50 f/1.4, 18-200.
 
£2500 should comfortably buy you a nice s/h 5DMk2, a 24-70L and a 70-200L f4 although if you could go to £2700 you could probably get a 70-200L f4 IS.

£1300 nice low clicks 5DMk2
£700ish 24-70L One went for that yesterday I believe
£700ish for a 70-200L f4 IS, I sold one for £675 on Friday.
 
Why don't you just take it easy, and grow your collection lens by lens, the shell out for the body as an icing on the cake? It sounds tastier to me that way

There are some cracking lenses to be had cheaply like 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200mm f/4 but since you have funds you could get f/2.8, and Tamron 17-50mm while you are still on crop.

Good glass comes first before full frame body, however you can only tell if the glass is truly good by testing in on full frame.
 
why not buy the 60D and second hand 24-70 f2.8 L and 70-200 f4 IS L?

sound more tasty then getting a full frame body and no good lens ...... then when you go FF those lens would be fastastic and you won't have to invest on lens as much .......
 
Or maybe by the time your ready to buy, 5D3 may be out and should put prices on 5D2 lower
 
Morph3ous said:
Hi,

I'm lucky enough to be in the situation where I have a healthy budget to 'upgrade' my kit early next year, which will be in the region of £2500.
I currently use the Canon 400D with a Sigma 18-200 lens and Canon 50 1.8, which i've used for 4 years, but its now time to move forward.
Most of my photography is based around the usual 'family' stuff with two children under 5, but I also enjoy shooting landscapes and street photography. I've also ventured slightly into the world of interior photography, where I made use of a friends Sigma 10-20mm lens to take photos of a B&B for a friends website.

I have no need for the fast AF of the 7D, so I've always set my sights on getting the Canon 60D body, along with the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8, Canon 70-200 F4 IS and Canon 430 EX II flash. If the budget allowed, I was also looking to get my own Sigma 10-20. I figured this would set me up completely.

Trouble I have however, is the lure of the full frame 5D Mark II. I've only ever played with one briefly, and although it impressed me, I've read so much about how excellent it is at low light, how the DOF is so much better with FF (i'm a massive fan of shallow DOF images) and how its generally considered THE camera to have.

Issue is, realistically the budget would only allow for the purchase of the 5D2 second hand along with the 24-70, and I dont think this would suffice with what I like to shoot as its too short. A lot of my images are close up crops of the children, often shot at 150-200mm (and thats with my crop camera) I therefore feel I'd need to own the 70-200 too. I woudn't want it to 'replace' the 24-70 though, as i'd need the shorter focal lengths for landscapes etc.

So, I thought I'd ask fellow enthusiasts what they would do if they were in my shoes? Would you stick with Plan A, or go for the 5D2?
Click to expand...

It doesn't read to me like you've got a compelling reason to go full frame, which, first and foremost, is about image quality (sharpness, noise etc). But the cost of that is high and to do the job properly it will blow your budget. Of course we always want more of everything, but crop format is very good. Realistically, are you that unhappy so far?

The other thing which you have mentioned is shallow DoF control, though that can be a double-edged sword and not easy to nail with kids. But unless you want really really shallow DoF, you can do quite a lot with f/2.8 on a cropper, and take that a big step further with affordable options like 50 1.8/1.4, 85 1.8 etc.
 
I shot the whole of yesterdays wedding with a Mk2 and a 85mm 1.8, very pleased with the results! don't get me wrong there were times when I missed the extra reach & wider shots, but hey ho got the job done!
 
I'm glad you've asked this as I was going to start a thread with much the same theme. I'm an 'enthusiastic amateur' and was wondering about a jump to full-frame, but wondered if I really need to, and what the advantages over crop were. I'm in a similar position - a lot of my photos are family etc, while capturing what's going on around me.

I also didn't want to build up a set of crop-only lenses, if I was to go FF in a year or two down the line.

If I were to start making money from photography (as I get the occasional paid job), would it then be beneficial to get the FF body? Of course lenses are likely more important for me, but would just rather do one upgrade than possibly two...

Mind you, price difference in a 60D and 5DmkII might sway the argument!

So is the main advantage larger images/view angles and better high-ISO performance?
 
zerodeluxe said:
I'm glad you've asked this as I was going to start a thread with much the same theme. I'm an 'enthusiastic amateur' and was wondering about a jump to full-frame, but wondered if I really need to, and what the advantages over crop were. I'm in a similar position - a lot of my photos are family etc, while capturing what's going on around me.

I also didn't want to build up a set of crop-only lenses, if I was to go FF in a year or two down the line.

If I were to start making money from photography (as I get the occasional paid job), would it then be beneficial to get the FF body? Of course lenses are likely more important for me, but would just rather do one upgrade than possibly two...

Mind you, price difference in a 60D and 5DmkII might sway the argument!

So is the main advantage larger images/view angles and better high-ISO performance?
Click to expand...

Advantage of full frame is image quality - more sharpness and less noise. Plus about one stop difference in DoF control at very low f/numbers, if that's important. That's it. On every other aspect, crop format has the upper hand. Cheaper, smaller, lighter, and often faster cameras.

Of course, IQ is pretty important, but unless you output quite big, like larger than A4, you'll be hard pressed to see much benefit. On the other hand, as you have discovered cost is a big factor and the lenses are bigger and heavier.
 
So would a 60D or possibly 7D (with good glass) be good enough should I get any more commissions, say wedding shoots? (These would be rare I'd imagine, but it might happen more often).

7D might be good.. I like the idea of fast focus. My daughter does tend to have 'ants in pants' syndrome, so could be an advantage..... :)
 
zerodeluxe said:
So would a 60D or possibly 7D (with good glass) be good enough should I get any more commissions, say wedding shoots? (These would be rare I'd imagine, but it might happen more often).

7D might be good.. I like the idea of fast focus. My daughter does tend to have 'ants in pants' syndrome, so could be an advantage..... :)
Click to expand...

Only you can answer that, depending on your priorities. It's a compromise, and I guess wedding photographers use full frame for a reason. If the couple want a three foot canvas, then it's going to look better. And I guess the big bokeh with shallow DoF style is currently in vogue and that's just a bit easier with full frame. You can also pull a nice expression out of a bigger frame if you have to - not ideal, but there is more cropping potential.

Pop into Jessops and take some comparison pictures with say a 7D and 5D2 (make sure all the in-camera pre-sets and everything are identical). That's how I ended up with a 5D2 :D
 
i got a low mileage 5d2 460 clicks and all for £1399, there are some good 2nd hand bargains to be had if you shop around.
or do like me and trawl the classifieds on here
 
HoppyUK said:
Plus about one stop difference in DoF control at very low f/numbers, if that's important.
Click to expand...

Is it worth saying yet again that format size in itself and by itself does not affect DoF? (although what it will do is influence how you take the shot and what the final full image looks like.)

Probably not.

It is easy to do a few simple tests to prove that format size doesn't affect DoF, if you have access to cameras with different sized sensors, but we'll probably just carry on making global and misleading statements like FF gives shallower DoF than APS-C / MFT.

Cup of tea time...
 
Oh go on Alan. It's only Monday... :D
 
All of you people using Canon, Nikons and the like are all on crop cameras.

Just whether they are small croppers such as the 1Ds and 5D series Canons, the D3 series and D700 Nikons and the Sony A850 and A900, the midi croppers such as he Canon 1D series and the mega croppers such as the the Canon 7D, xxDs, xxxDs, xxxxDs and the Nikon Dxxs, Dxxx and Dxxxxs. ;)


:lol:
 
Thanks - I'll need to think on and see if I can test a couple... I have a friend with a 5DmkII and a 60D so might see if I can take a look at his....

Sorry - Morph3ous - wasn't meaning to hijack your thread. Just seemed we are similar in situations... except you have budget in place ;)
 
another thing to mention is the huge raw file sizes... I just ran out of disk space again on my 500gb laptop last night :)
 
The bigger the better in my opinion. I've been using a D200 for 4years now, and on a few shoots lately I've had the pleasure of using a Canon 5D mkII which absolutely blows it away. Sharpness, less noise, better dynamic range etc.

At the end of the day, the sensor records light, the larger the sensor, the more accurately it can record. Given the same technology, and processed with the same software, full frame will always be better, the same way digital medium format (645) will always be better than 35mm, the same way 6x7 digital (if/WHEN it comes out) will be better than 645....

The old saying stays true (for car fans...), "...there is no replacement for displacement..."

:D
 
tomqh said:
another thing to mention is the huge raw file sizes... I just ran out of disk space again on my 500gb laptop last night :)
Click to expand...

They aren't that big a typical RAW file from a 5DMk2 is about 60MB, you should be able to get 8000+ raw files on a 500GB disk, mit have to do some disk cleaning.

The largest files from my sensor are 530MB each.
 
EdBray said:
All of you people using Canon, Nikons and the like are all on crop cameras.

Just whether they are small croppers such as the 1Ds and 5D series Canons, the D3 series and D700 Nikons and the Sony A850 and A900, the midi croppers such as he Canon 1D series and the mega croppers such as the the Canon 7D, xxDs, xxxDs, xxxxDs and the Nikon Dxxs, Dxxx and Dxxxxs. ;)


:lol:
Click to expand...

645 :suspect:
 
EdBray said:
They aren't that big a typical RAW file from a 5DMk2 is about 60MB, you should be able to get 8000+ raw files on a 500GB disk, mit have to do some disk cleaning.
Click to expand...

Yep, I have more photos than that :)

EdBray said:
The largest files from my sensor are 530MB each.
Click to expand...

showoff :thumbs:

OP - Likely you will be happy with 60d or 7d too. But you will forever wonder if you should have bought the 5d2, and that's the truth. Your budget allows you to get the 5d2 and a couple of decent lenses, so stop deliberating. It's not often you find someone who regrets buying a FF camera, and in the small chance that you do, you will find plenty of buyers for your 5d2 second hand.
 
Thanks everyone for the replies.

tomqh said:
OP - Likely you will be happy with 60d or 7d too. But you will forever wonder if you should have bought the 5d2, and that's the truth.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hit the nail on the head. I'm certain i'd be happy with the 60D (the 7D isn't, and will never be on my radar) but I think I will always wonder - what if?

As Ed says, the budget will certainly provide the 5d2 with the 24-70 2nd hand, and could possibly stretch to the 70-200 too, although probably not the IS version, which is the one I would prefer. Although, if the cropping ability is as good as some suggust, perhaps I wouldn't miss the 70-200 as much as I thought?

I suppose I'll just wait and see what the market looks like at the end of the year, and consider my options then. Although i doubt it'll look very different to what it is right now, with nothing to suggest the 5d3 is on the near horizon.

I could always go for the 60D and 17-55, then upgrade to the 5D2 once the 5D3 is out - my fear however, is that I wont be able to provide the same kind of funds later down the line, so i'll be in a similar situation to what I am now. Which makes me ask myself, why not just go for the 5D2, then add lenses as/when I'm able. So many options/decision!!
 
Last edited:
If the budget is tight, maybe consider going for a 24-105 instead of the 24-70? Would give you more range and IS than the 24-70 plus f/4 on FF will produce a slightly shallower DoF than f/2.8 on a crop in practice.
 
Vertigo1 said:
If the budget is tight, maybe consider going for a 24-105 instead of the 24-70? Would give you more range and IS than the 24-70 plus f/4 on FF will produce a slightly shallower DoF than f/2.8 on a crop in practice.
Click to expand...

I always thought from reading forums that the 24-105 wasn't quite as good as the 24-70? Not quite as sharp, and one of the 'poorer' L lenses available? Is this correct?
 
not really, its less useful in low light (f4 vs f2.8) but sharpness and colours are generally good. Depends what you want it for.... weddings and parties the 24-70 is needed, general walkabout the 24-105 is fine.
 
Ken Rockwell has a theory about upgrading. If you need to ask, then the answer is No. In other words, the question suggests that you are not sure. If you did need to upgrade it would be obvious and you wouldn't need to ask. He also suggests that we all confuse Need, with Want.
I want full-frame, but I've got to convince the wife that I need full-frame !!
 
HoppyUK said:
Advantage of full frame is image quality - more sharpness and less noise. Plus about one stop difference in DoF control at very low f/numbers, if that's important. That's it. On every other aspect, crop format has the upper hand. Cheaper, smaller, lighter, and often faster cameras.

Of course, IQ is pretty important, but unless you output quite big, like larger than A4, you'll be hard pressed to see much benefit. On the other hand, as you have discovered cost is a big factor and the lenses are bigger and heavier.
Click to expand...

Larger than a3 more like!
 
Morph3ous said:
I always thought from reading forums that the 24-105 wasn't quite as good as the 24-70? Not quite as sharp, and one of the 'poorer' L lenses available? Is this correct?
Click to expand...

It's certainly not one of the 'poorer' L lenses. I think, quality-wise, the 24-70 and 24-105 are pretty similar, just a question of additional range and stabilisation versus the extra stop. The 24-105 is significantly cheaper which is why I thought it might be a good option for you :)
 
Thanks Vertigo, i'll certainly keep it in mind. The 24-70 was my first thought as its 2.8, giving lovely bokeh on top of the obvious benefits regarding low light. With the apparent DOF improvements with a FF camera, the 24-105 could still provide excellent bokeh I would assume, so may still be appealing to a DOF fan like myself.

Having said that, I need to make sure I dont get too bogged down in DOF. I do already own the 50mm 1.8, so could slap that on when i'm looking for those type of shots. Plus I'd no longer have the 'this is too long' frustration, like I do when I use the 50 on my 400D. The 5D2 would unleash its potential I think I read somewhere.
 
There's plenty of bokeh available at f/4, especially on FF. This was taken with the 24-70 at f/4 on a crop:

IMG_4032_800.jpg
 
Vertigo1 said:
It's certainly not one of the 'poorer' L lenses. I think, quality-wise, the 24-70 and 24-105 are pretty similar, just a question of additional range and stabilisation versus the extra stop. The 24-105 is significantly cheaper which is why I thought it might be a good option for you :)
Click to expand...

Watched a digital rev video last night and they were suggesting at the same focal length and aperture the 105 was actually a better lens ignoring the fact you get IS and it's cheaper. The images seemed to back that up but I wasn't watching in HD as youtube was being slow.
 
I've had both the 24-70L and the 24-105L, i always found the 105L slightly sharper. if you don't need the f2.8 then i would go with the 24-105L every time. smaller, lighter, has a good IS, longer top end and is cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top