Moving to full frame.

[kris3291]

I currently use a 550d, 70-200L, tamron 10-24 and shoot mostly people/wildlife, but would like to move into weddings/studio portraiture as well as get some more practice with landscapes.

After a few recent chats with a well respected wedding photographer, as well as reading the gear forum on here, I get the feeling I need to be looking at getting a full frame dslr to take photography to the next level.

I was considering some new L glass to add to my collection, but am now considering moving for 5D mk ii. I was wondering what are people's thoughts on this?

Keep it clean and relevant please.

 

[Chee]

Are you making money with your photography? If yes, get the 5DMKII and some L glass. If not, I would try to get some decent glass first. Something like 85mm f1.8 would do great for portraits at weddings, your Ultra Wide Angle would be good for group shots and the 70-200 (depending which version) is ok for church.
You might want have a look at the 24-70 f2.8 from Tamron or Canon, for the rest of the shots.
Also I would recommend the Sigma 50mm f1.4 (if you are lucky you get a good version), perfect for detailed shots of items at the wedding.

The 550D is not the newest but also not a bad body, with the right glass you can get amazing results with it. The 5D series is in a different class but it is not a MUST have item.

 

[hunter20ga]

I recently moved to full frame in the Nikon line and love my new camera, but really cannot say that FF was the key motivating factor for the switch. I wanted features that the new model offered, and Nikon didn't provide them in a DX frame. I spent years accumulating top notch glass in preparation for the day I decided to go full frame. That was the best investment I made.

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

I'd say try FF before you buy if you get the chance. I love it so much more than my 1.3 crop but just because it ticks the boxes for some people, don't assume that it'll be magic for you too.
Your 70-200 will be lovely, you ought to have a 50mm and then you need to choose the lenses which will enable you to make money. I have a few MF lenses which work nicely on FF but if I was working to make a living out of it I expect I'd want AF in my bag to give me one thing fewer to have to think about whilst the bride and groom are getting cold!

 

[woof woof]

I was considering some new L glass to add to my collection, but am now considering moving for 5D mk ii. I was wondering what are people's thoughts on this?

Keep it clean and relevant please.

Personally I thnk that buying new kit rarely improves your photography... unless you overcome some technical difficulty like noise at higher ISO's etc. Again, personally, I noticed very little difference when moving to FF, but I was using decent lenses anyway.

 

[tbm]

Personally I thnk that buying new kit rarely improves your photography... unless you overcome some technical difficulty like noise at higher ISO's etc. Again, personally, I noticed very little difference when moving to FF, but I was using decent lenses anyway.

This is the crux of the matter IMO. Buying a new camera simply because it's considered to be "better" may or may not improve your photography.

Identifying areas of your potential kit where improvement would help your photography and buying a camera that provides those improvements will be of benefit.

I've literally just ordered a 5DII; my justification being that it offers around 2 stops better ISO performance than my 40D and being full frame will give a shallower depth of field / better subject separation for a given focal length and aperture. I like low light people photography (amongst other things), so these features are what I personally find important.

Looking at what you shoot / intend to shoot I suspect you'd benefit from a 5DII (perhaps with the exception of the wildlife given the benefical crop factor of smaller sensors). That said in my mind my cat would probably benefit from a 5DII as I desparately try and convince myself that it was a good idea to chuck over a grand at a new toy

If you can justify it now certainly seems to be the time to buy a new 5DII

 

[kris3291]

I've literally just ordered a 5DII; my justification being that it offers around 2 stops better ISO performance than my 40D and being full frame will give a shallower depth of field / better subject separation for a given focal length and aperture. I like low light people photography (amongst other things), so these features are what I personally find important.

Looking at what you shoot / intend to shoot I suspect you'd benefit from a 5DII (perhaps with the exception of the wildlife given the benefical crop factor of smaller sensors). That said in my mind my cat would probably benefit from a 5DII as I desparately try and convince myself that it was a good idea to chuck over a grand at a new toy

you have the same reasons for believing it will improve on what you have as I do. Seems we have very similar mentality.

Thank you for the replies, please keep them coming.

One thing I have noticed is that their seems to be a snobbery with some photographers that you're just an idiot with a cheap camera until you buy a FF, but then the same people try to convince the world and his wife not to spend money on one as what you have is sufficient.

I believe the ISO capabilities and the improved DOF a 5d mk ii offer from what I have will help me improve and achieve better results with regard to the type of photography I am interested in.

Having said that, I worry I'm not just suffering from a case of GAS and should just add some glass to what I have and look at a FF at a much later date. :bonk:

 

[tbm]

One thing I have noticed is that their seems to be a snobbery with some photographers that you're just an idiot with a cheap camera until you buy a FF, but then the same people try to convince the world and his wife not to spend money on one as what you have is sufficient.

I believe the ISO capabilities and the improved DOF a 5d mk ii offer from what I have will help me improve and achieve better results with regard to the type of photography I am interested in.

Having said that, I worry I'm not just suffering from a case of GAS and should just add some glass to what I have and look at a FF at a much later date. :bonk:

Yeah, there's always gear-snobbery and photographers seem some of the worst for kit-obsession.

Gear certainly doesn't make the photographer, although decent equipment will be of benefit to those who can use it properly.

It sounds like you want to upgrade your body for the right reasons, although glass is an important consideration. I notice a lack of a standard zoom in your possession, which would be severely restictive if shooting events regardless of which camera you're using, so might be a worthwhile investment before going FF.

Of course this raises the issue of which is best to use of crop with a view to upgrading to full frame - I have a 17-55/2.8 which suits the crop sensor perfectly, however this won't fit a FF body. You could go for a 24-70 but this might be a bit long at the short end for a crop body. That said it'd fit in well with your existing glass..

Decisions, decisions

 

[kris3291]

Yeah, there's always gear-snobbery and photographers seem some of the worst for kit-obsession.

Gear certainly doesn't make the photographer, although decent equipment will be of benefit to those who can use it properly.

It sounds like you want to upgrade your body for the right reasons, although glass is an important consideration. I notice a lack of a standard zoom in your possession, which would be severely restictive if shooting events regardless of which camera you're using, so might be a worthwhile investment before going FF.

Of course this raises the issue of which is best to use of crop with a view to upgrading to full frame - I have a 17-55/2.8 which suits the crop sensor perfectly, however this won't fit a FF body. You could go for a 24-70 but this might be a bit long at the short end for a crop body. That said it'd fit in well with your existing glass..

Decisions, decisions

Well the intention was to get a 24-70 L with the 5d mk ii and somehow still be married at the end of the transaction.

 

[rjbell]

There is an argument that you don't need a mid focal zoom like a 24-70. You can get by with the 70-200 you already have then a 16-35 or 17-40 or similar along with 50mm prime. I can't comment i'm still a cropper.

 

[kris3291]

There is an argument that you don't need a mid focal zoom like a 24-70. You can get by with the 70-200 you already have then a 16-35 or 17-40 or similar along with 50mm prime. I can't comment i'm still a cropper.

Well I have a nifty fifty and a kit lens but it's ef-s so obviously won't transfer. Didn't mention the nifty as everyone has one.

 

[rjbell]

Well I have a nifty fifty and a kit lens but it's ef-s so obviously won't transfer. Didn't mention the nifty as everyone has one.

I would be tempted to go with the 17-40 to begin with an see if you can live without a 24-70. Currently £575 on amazon there is also £55 cashback offer available.

 

[Bristolian]

I'm shortly going to take the plunge and invest in FF - I currently use Nikon D300.

My reasons are predominantly technical: lower noise at higher ISO, wider field of view (for any given focal length) and better viewfinder (my eyes ain't what they used to be). Of course, I'm also looking forward to the decrease in DOF and subject isolation that should bring with it. There are, of course, other benefits to FF but these are the ones that really matter to me.

I too have seen FF snobbery on here and elsewhere. It's sad really but doesn't sway me one way or the other.

Good luck with whatever you choose

 

[kris3291]

I would be tempted to go with the 17-40 to begin with an see if you can live without a 24-70. Currently £575 on amazon there is also £55 cashback offer available.

Soo tempted. Cheers for that spot.

I'm shortly going to take the plunge and invest in FF - I currently use Nikon D300.

My reasons are predominantly technical: lower noise at higher ISO, wider field of view (for any given focal length) and better viewfinder (my eyes ain't what they used to be). Of course, I'm also looking forward to the decrease in DOF and subject isolation that should bring with it. There are, of course, other benefits to FF but these are the ones that really matter to me.

I too have seen FF snobbery on here and elsewhere. It's sad really but doesn't sway me one way or the other.

Good luck with whatever you choose

Thanks mate

 

[Phil V]

I don't know what your budget is, but if you're planning to shoot weddings you'll need 2 cameras, 2 7ds is a better kit than a 5d and 550d.

You definitely need a 2.8 std zoom, again don't buy a 24-70 hoping for a future upgrade, buy what you need now. Stop thinking about bragging rights and concentrate on the tools needed for the job.

Because they are just tools.

A wa zoom, 2.8 std zoom, 2.8 tele zoom, enough other lenses you feel you need for backup. 2 bodies and a couple of flashguns. A bag you're happy to work out of, the wherewithalll to shoot everything you'd planned to shoot outside inside.

Whether that means a full set of mains flash or some flashguns and triggers,

But the most important kit is the 10" behind the viewfinder. Whether that's FF or not is completely irrelevant.

 

[pmac]

I'm a Nikon user and a few years ago went from a d90(50d equivalent) to a d700
(5dmk2 equiv.) mainly because I could.

The improvements I found were as people said better iso,AF(may not be that better as that seems to be the sore point with the 5dmk2) shallower DOF and another main thing was better handling and controls.

Did it improve my photography? I would say it did slightly, but only slightly.

At the time the only lens I had was 50mm and it did seem better but that was probably due to the points above and the FOV as it felt better being a 50 not 75mm.

I was lucky in the fact that my wife bought me a load of pro glass soon after. I got a 85mm 1.4g for my birthday about a month after,followed by a 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 about 6 months after.(best wife I know )

This made the biggest difference I would say and had I not been lucky enough to get these I may have regretted going FF.

I dont want to open a can of worms but .On the whole wedding side.. Have you seconded at all.
I don't know your skill level but it seems everyone wants to be a wedding photographer and thinks having the kit will make them able to do it,when there's a lot more involved than the kit, it takes a lot of skill to be a wedding photographer( I know modesty and knowing there real skill level is something a lot of photographers have issues with,ideas of grandeur and all that) and a lot more work than most think.
I've only shadowed/seconded once and was well out my skill and comfort zone,with the main photographer going non stop for the hole day. Knowing exactly what to do when and where ,checking pictures on the back of her camera 99% seemed right even in the heat of it all.
It's not something I will be looking at doing anytime soon.
Then there's the fact that you will need a second set of kit.

 

[kris3291]

I'm a Nikon user and a few years ago went from a d90(50d equivalent) to a d700
(5dmk2 equiv.) mainly because I could.

The improvements I found were as people said better iso,AF(may not be that better as that seems to be the sore point with the 5dmk2) shallower DOF and another main thing was better handling and controls.

Did it improve my photography? I would say it did slightly, but only slightly.

At the time the only lens I had was 50mm and it did seem better but that was probably due to the points above and the FOV as it felt better being a 50 not 75mm.

I was lucky in the fact that my wife bought me a load of pro glass soon after. I got a 85mm 1.4g for my birthday about a month after,followed by a 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 about 6 months after.(best wife I know )

This made the biggest difference I would say and had I not been lucky enough to get these I may have regretted going FF.

I dont want to open a can of worms but .On the whole wedding side.. Have you seconded at all.
I don't know your skill level but it seems everyone wants to be a wedding photographer and thinks having the kit will make them able to do it,when there's a lot more involved than the kit, it takes a lot of skill to be a wedding photographer( I know modesty and knowing there real skill level is something a lot of photographers have issues with,ideas of grandeur and all that) and a lot more work than most think.
I've only shadowed/seconded once and was well out my skill and comfort zone,with the main photographer going non stop for the hole day. Knowing exactly what to do when and where ,checking pictures on the back of her camera 99% seemed right even in the heat of it all.
It's not something I will be looking at doing anytime soon.
Then there's the fact that you will need a second set of kit.

Well this is starting to go in the direction I thought it would. So let me explain.

No I don't think owning the gear makes you a better photographer by magic. I know I'd need a lot more than just a 5d to have a stab at shooting weddings. No I don't expect to be shooting weddings the same day as I buy said camera. Yes I am aware of the need for backups to everything.

Unfortunately, I can't come up with the 10-15k it would take to buy it all at once. Sorry.

The question really wasn't about what would I need to move to instantly become a mass hit wonder best wedding photographer ever. I was almost loathed to mention the distant idea of shooting weddings because it becomes an entirely different conversation and one that frankly sees some people get very defensive and/or presumptuous. I'd been discussing this with a wedding photographer previously who was nothing but clinical in his response.

I want to make a real go of improving and advancing all aspects of myself and my photography. I'm looking to those in the know to advise me on what I asked to begin with. Not look to become some spoilt point and shoot wedding photographer who steals work and ruins life. I'm aware of the difficulties generally though through lack of experience not intimately.

I would like to go about taking the first steps in the right direction. And looking for any chance to second someone in the process.

P.S. sorry if the tone of that came across as rude or ******. Was not the intention but having read it back could see it being taken that way. Can't be arsed to re-write it though.

 

[pmac]

I'm sorry if that's how my post may have come across also.
I was not trying to have a go at you, but more trying to say buying the kit will and won't make you a better photographer. And that I don't think the wedding photographer was right in saying you Need to have FF.

I wouldn't advise anyone not to go FF as I do prefer this myself and as I said it did improve my photo's to an extent.But it didnt improve me as a photographer.

It's a slippery slope though as when I went FF, I found I wanted more glass that cost a lot more than said glass for DX.

 

[Phil V]

I was hoping to balance the over-riding view on this forum that FF is some kind of magic bullet and a requirement for anyone that wants to be taken seriously. Clearly I'm such a minority voice that I must be smoking something :shrug:

Whether you go FF or not is insignificant compared to what you need in addition.

If it was my money, I'd be buying a more robust camera and some good glass, but if buying a FF DSLR and having 2nd rate glass gets you into 'the club', then who am I to argue?

The gear has to be usable, and having a camera that can shoot clean high ISO's is useless if your lens won't focus. Take that any way you want, but ask any working pro if they'd give up their best lenses for a better camera and they'll look at you like you're stoopid. We'd rather have sharp grainy pictures than fuzzy pictures - no matter how clean, you can't sell them.

Of course in an ideal world we'd like top have clean sharp pictures, but whilst we're making compromises, they need to be business based.

 

[kris3291]

I was hoping to balance the over-riding view on this forum that FF is some kind of magic bullet and a requirement for anyone that wants to be taken seriously. Clearly I'm such a minority voice that I must be smoking something :shrug:

Whether you go FF or not is insignificant compared to what you need in addition.

If it was my money, I'd be buying a more robust camera and some good glass, but if buying a FF DSLR and having 2nd rate glass gets you into 'the club', then who am I to argue?

The gear has to be usable, and having a camera that can shoot clean high ISO's is useless if your lens won't focus. Take that any way you want, but ask any working pro if they'd give up their best lenses for a better camera and they'll look at you like you're stoopid. We'd rather have sharp grainy pictures than fuzzy pictures - no matter how clean, you can't sell them.

Of course in an ideal world we'd like top have clean sharp pictures, but whilst we're making compromises, they need to be business based.

Very helpful advice, though with a tinge of anger about having to talk to a 'lesser'. Lens before camera, but the camera will help with clarity. Message received. The ISO improvement was a big draw for me but as you say if the lens is **** as mine are, it's useless.

Not sure what club I was trying to join, but I look forward to getting my membership card and t-shirt.

 

[jamesLglass]

I would recommend you get the 5d mk2 if you are going to be doing weddings simply because of the low light ability I get usable images at 12800 on my 1dx and 5dmk3 that print beautifully in albums I got usable images at 6400 on 5dmk2 I couldn't get the same with a crop sensor camera I used a 60d for a while great camera but just cannot compete when the light levels drop. Just make sure you are going to be using good glass.

 

[rjbell]

I was hoping to balance the over-riding view on this forum that FF is some kind of magic bullet and a requirement for anyone that wants to be taken seriously. Clearly I'm such a minority voice that I must be smoking something :shrug:

Whether you go FF or not is insignificant compared to what you need in addition.

If it was my money, I'd be buying a more robust camera and some good glass, but if buying a FF DSLR and having 2nd rate glass gets you into 'the club', then who am I to argue?

The gear has to be usable, and having a camera that can shoot clean high ISO's is useless if your lens won't focus. Take that any way you want, but ask any working pro if they'd give up their best lenses for a better camera and they'll look at you like you're stoopid. We'd rather have sharp grainy pictures than fuzzy pictures - no matter how clean, you can't sell them.

Of course in an ideal world we'd like top have clean sharp pictures, but whilst we're making compromises, they need to be business based.

I can't find where she has mentioned 2 second rate lenses?

 

[Phil V]

I can't find where she has mentioned 2 second rate lenses?

She's a he and said he didn't think he could buy the 5d AND 24-70, so I assumed he'd be using the 5d with lesser lenses, he's acknowledged the fact later.

 

[TareqPhoto]

It is really so impressive or interesting to see how those FF bodies became so popular and most wanted, in the past we were dreaming about them in digital world not talking about film, and now i hear even beginners looking for FF so soon to replace their entry-level or advanced cameras, i wasn't wrong at all when i bought FF as my 4th/5th DSLR very quick after my first 3 DSLRs, in fact the only cameras i use know since 2007 are my FF and fast 1.3x crop bodies [1D3 and before that 1DIIn], i will not include my digital medium format here because that is another class or level of camera.

Well, 6D or D600 are best entry FF cameras in the market now, and 5DII after discontinued and availability of 5DIII it became more affordable than before, i can get 5D2 body only new now for about £1050, but i know i will not use this camera maybe at all because i have 1DX and 1DsIII, 5D3 will be a best buy for me, but i don't want to spend more and more on many bodies and i will keep investing more on glasses, I am very happy with my 1DX and one day i will buy another Canon body that can be great compliment/backup for 1DX than my both 1-series MKIII bodies.

 

[TareqPhoto]

By the way, i still have 5D classic [mk1] but the mirror fall off and i can't fix it for free in my area as i hear in NA or Europe, so i can't sell it in that condition which will never give me a good price for it if i want to sell, i also put my 1Ds2 which is in very great condition too for sale, but Canon killed me when they produced many new cameras so no one will think about old cameras for good price for me, that if i have to ship it overseas.

 

[rjbell]

Sorry Kris i thought you were a girl!

She's a he and said he didn't think he could buy the 5d AND 24-70, so I assumed he'd be using the 5d with lesser lenses, he's acknowledged the fact later.

I'm not sure its about buying second rate lenses, it seeing if she can make do with the 2 great lenses she already owns.

 

[kris3291]

She's a he and said he didn't think he could buy the 5d AND 24-70, so I assumed he'd be using the 5d with lesser lenses, he's acknowledged the fact later.

Errr

Well the intention was to get a 24-70 L with the 5d mk ii and somehow still be married at the end of the transaction.

Anyways. . .

Yes I am a guy so lets hope that's cleared up. Still unsure as to what to do in this position, but think I'm just going to look at a new lens or two, I wasn't ever in the belief I could just be a better photographer by buying a ff cam, but this discussion and those of a similar nature always get a bit off topic whenever weddings are mentioned.

Will have to ponder some more.

 

[drb5]

Kris, buy whatever you want and don't let anyone tell you different...although you did ask for opinions.

I have ran a 5Dc and 5D2 at different times with only a 50mm 1.8 lens on them. Bliss in my eyes, but then I wasn't about to photograph weddings. Thing about that is, to the trained eye they would spot the tell tale signs of a cheaper lens, but the customer....not a lot of them I'd EXPECT would be able to and if your only dabbling ATM, then I see no harm in that.

 

[Phil V]

Kris, buy whatever you want and don't let anyone tell you different...although you did ask for opinions.

I have ran a 5Dc and 5D2 at different times with only a 50mm 1.8 lens on them. Bliss in my eyes, but then I wasn't about to photograph weddings. Thing about that is, to the trained eye they would spot the tell tale signs of a cheaper lens, but the customer....not a lot of them I'd EXPECT would be able to and if your only dabbling ATM, then I see no harm in that.

I never really wanted to make this about weddings, and it isn't, but as you brought this up:

The point isn't any kind of snobbery, I've tried to use 3rd party 2.8 zooms in a typical dark reception, and they just don't focus. The image quality is 'good enough' but if you can't get a shot because the flaming crap lens won't flipping focus, then it's a doorstop. OTOH a Canon 2.8 zoom with a USM motor will usually AF where I can barely make out the subject.

So a 7d with a 17-55 Canon lens is a better combo than a 5dii with a Sigma 24-70. Not to mention the fact that 2 7d's are cheaper than a 5d III

 

[Ivor]

One thing I have noticed is that their seems to be a snobbery with some photographers that you're just an idiot with a cheap camera until you buy a FF, but then the same people try to convince the world and his wife not to spend money on one as what you have is sufficient.

Hi Kris,

If you go onto Flickr, you can look at photos taken by any camera, including yours, and there are some brilliant photos there. If you look at these great photos there is absolutely no way you can tell what camera was used to take them.

There's a lot of consumerism driven peer-pressure to upgrade a camera when the differences between models are actually quite tiny - despite what reviewers say. Usually I would say that if you can take good quality pictures with your camera why change it?

You know your way around the camera, you can take good pictures with it. Historically, people would keep the same 35mm film SLR for twenty years. I could understand the upgrade culture when digital imaging was in its infancy, but now the improvements between models are miniscule and mostly superfluous. (Although Messers Nikon and Canon won't tell you that.)

But, when you do start doing weddings, I would really recommend having two camera bodies. Imagine being halfway through a shoot and the camera dies. (I know someone who this happened to.) It makes sense to have a new camera that is compatible with your existing range of lenses and has a high ISO ability for indoor shots without flash. The latest APS-C sensors are fantastic and the advantages of full frame are being eroded.

By far the most important part of the photographic kit is you. If you haven't learnt the skills to take good wedding shots yet don't start until you have. There is nothing worse than a happy couple getting an album full of mediocre pictures. I saw a friend's album recently and most of the horizons were wonky and the compositions were dire. They paid a lot of money for this sloppy trash.

Going pro is a big step that I have no personal interest in doing. It is a very competitive market and getting harder and harder to break into. So be prepared for a financial struggle, as any new business faces.

The very best of luck with your venture,

Ivor

 

[Dino f]

Kris, personally I'd get the glass you really want/need. That's the best investment, manufactures upgrade lenses a lot less than bodies.
A good selection of L glass will keep you in good stead.
Then, if you want, upgrade the body. Don't expect miracles, but ff will bring certain features crops struggle with.
Dean.

 

[kris3291]

Hi Kris,

If you go onto Flickr, you can look at photos taken by any camera, including yours, and there are some brilliant photos there. If you look at these great photos there is absolutely no way you can tell what camera was used to take them.

There's a lot of consumerism driven peer-pressure to upgrade a camera when the differences between models are actually quite tiny - despite what reviewers say. Usually I would say that if you can take good quality pictures with your camera why change it?

You know your way around the camera, you can take good pictures with it. Historically, people would keep the same 35mm film SLR for twenty years. I could understand the upgrade culture when digital imaging was in its infancy, but now the improvements between models are miniscule and mostly superfluous. (Although Messers Nikon and Canon won't tell you that.)

But, when you do start doing weddings, I would really recommend having two camera bodies. Imagine being halfway through a shoot and the camera dies. (I know someone who this happened to.) It makes sense to have a new camera that is compatible with your existing range of lenses and has a high ISO ability for indoor shots without flash. The latest APS-C sensors are fantastic and the advantages of full frame are being eroded.

By far the most important part of the photographic kit is you. If you haven't learnt the skills to take good wedding shots yet don't start until you have. There is nothing worse than a happy couple getting an album full of mediocre pictures. I saw a friend's album recently and most of the horizons were wonky and the compositions were dire. They paid a lot of money for this sloppy trash.

Going pro is a big step that I have no personal interest in doing. It is a very competitive market and getting harder and harder to break into. So be prepared for a financial struggle, as any new business faces.

The very best of luck with your venture,

Ivor

Thanks for the advice. Really helpful and I have a lot to think about.

Kris, personally I'd get the glass you really want/need. That's the best investment, manufactures upgrade lenses a lot less than bodies.
A good selection of L glass will keep you in good stead.
Then, if you want, upgrade the body. Don't expect miracles, but ff will bring certain features crops struggle with.
Dean.

Thanks also. Will be having a good hard think about this. I think you are right about lenses being a sounder investment. Thanks again.

Thanks to all replies. I appreciate the time taken and love how helpful this forum can be.

 

[ShoeQueen]

I went FF this year - from D90 to D700 & got a 24-70 about the same time. For all the reasons stated here - ISO, AF, more robust, DOF, better controls - it's just a better tool for what I need. A 70-200 is next on my list.

And as said - having better kit doesn't suddenly make you a better photographer - but having kit you can push a bit further means you can focus more on getting the shots you want & the extra controls make changing settings easier.

I do low light stuff (and yes, have started doing weddings after some second shooting, courses & kit upgrade) & the D700 & 24-70 combo just makes that easier.