Questions Re Full Frame (60D to 6D)

Tom Tom

Tom Tom

Suspended / Banned
Messages
309
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone, I'm considering the jump from a Canon 60D to 6D but just wondering where exactly I'm likely to see noticeable differences and is it worth making this jump. I tend to shoot alot of landscapes at the moment and it bugs me I lose alot of the picture on a crop sensor but i have read a few reviews on full frame vs crop and some say that sharpness is lost towards the edge of the frame on full frame depending on the lens?

Current Equipment:

Canon 60D
70-200 F4 IS
50mm F1.8
10-22mm
24-105 F4 IS

Mainly use the 10-22mm at the moment. So maybe i need to look at changing not only the body but lenses to benefit fully from achieving good landscapes with full frame? Just need to clarify this point. Any advise is appreciated especially from those who moved up from a 60D to 6D.

Tom :)
 
Losing sharpness is due to the quality of the lenses and the fact that a crop body doesn't use the full fov of the lens (unless it's an efs designed for a crop). I think you have to pixel peep pretty hard though with decent glass. The upsides are much better noise control, dynamic range and low light. But I didn't have a 60D so can't make a direct comparison. The 24-105 is pretty wide on a FF and imho works well on a 6D. The only lens you have that won't work is the 10-22 so if you still need wider then a 17-40 would not be a huge additional outlay (your 10-22 is approx a 16-35 ff equivalent).
 
I used a 20D for seven years before going to a 5D.

The biggest differences I noticed were that the 5D was much better at the higher ISO's and I'd expect that still to be true for newer APS-C v FF models too.

Other than that... the lenses will obviously have a different (wider) field of view (and I know that you do know that your 10-20mm is APS-C only) and as a result I found that I was using longer lenses than I was using on APS-C and using them at smaller apertures. I didn't see a massive jump in image quality at low to mid ISO settings.

I can't say that I noticed any drop in quality towards the edges of full frame but I suppose this depends upon your lenses, camera settings and expectations.

If you do go full frame I think that you should not have too great expectations for a jump in image quality unless you shoot at the very highest ISO's or print very very big. If you know what you are doing with APS-C you should be able to get very good results without the magic FF bit :D
 
You will need to sell the crop lens 10-22mm and buy a 16-35 or 17-40 to gain similar field of view. Your other lenses will look wider in the bigger full frame viewfinder.

The less sharp on the edges talk is false when also changing from crop lens (10-22) to full frame lens (17-40). Crop lenses are designed to project a smaller image circle designed for crop sensor, in turn full frame lenses are designed to project full frame image circle. This means both lenses will be similarly sharp around the edges.

HOWEVER you will see ever so slight less sharp edges on your 24-105 and 70-200. This isn't a downside to going full frame, this is a side effect of having a larger sensor able to use the whole image circle produced by the lens. Think of it like this, you were using a 3l engine in a small basic car, the chassis can't handle the power and trimmings are terrible. You upgrade to executive saloon with the same engine, although it feels slower, but you are actually using the engine to its full capability and everything feels much much better. (in this case: larger view finder, better high ISO, better dynamic range and more DoF control)
 
Best and most honest advice...don't do it.

If you have to ask about differences/what you can expect etc. then why are you really considering moving to full frame?

In regards to your issue RE: 'losing picture' - if you've got a 10-22mm lens for crop sensor bodies already, that really is pretty wide already.

Know and work out what you need to do the job/fullfill your hobby and buy/adjust your kit around that. Don't gear lust and then try and find a reason to justify it.

Each to their own though :)
 
Last edited:
Thank you for all the advice guys.

Christo said:
Best and most honest advice...don't do it.

If you have to ask about differences/what you can expect etc. then why are you really considering moving to full frame?

In regards to your issue RE: 'losing picture' - if you've got a 10-22mm lens for crop sensor bodies already, that really is pretty wide already.

Know and work out what you need to do the job/fullfill your hobby and buy/adjust your kit around that. Don't gear lust and then try and find a reason to justify it.

Each to their own though :)
Click to expand...

Appreciate the advice. Im not gear lusting so to speak, i am doing my research and trying to gather a full understanding of full frame before i make any decisions but i do understand where you are coming from, thats why I'm asking these questions to clarify a few things. It was mainly the low light advantages and wider angle i was interested in and the 6D seems to fit the bill nicely.
 
Last edited:
Tom Tom said:
Thank you for all the advice guys.

Appreciate the advice. Im not gear lusting so to speak, i am doing my research and trying to gather a full understanding of full frame before i make any decisions but i do understand where you are coming from, thats why I'm asking these questions to clarify a few things. It was mainly the low light advantages and wider angle i was interested in and the 6D seems to fit the bill nicely.
Click to expand...

You have to be careful when expecting a wider view though as you can go pretty wide with APS-C and I think that when you look at what lenses are available there's only a 1mm or so between APS-C and FF and I think that at one time (and maybe it's still true...) you could actually go wider with APS-C than with FF.

You will however get a wider view from your existing lenses.

I mainly went FF for three reasons, all of them Sigma :D

The Sigma 12-24mm, 85mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4.

I owned all three and they were lovely on my 5D :D
 
I own the 6d and previously had 500D. The low light is brilliant and highly recommend it. I cant comment on the wider view. However you do have the 24-105L which i have used and i have the 70-200 so with both of them you should be fine, they are good quality lenses. Was it landscape you wanted the low light for? I use my 6d for gig photography and have got much sharper images in very dark venues than i have with the use of 5d2.
 
Are you really not getting everything in the frame that you want to see with a crop body and the 10-22, which is 16mm on FF equivalent fov?
Not sure what lens you'd put on a 6D to give you a wider view than 16mm and still get perspective without distortion at the frame edge e.g. a fisheye 8mm is exactly that a "fish eye" view, everything near the lens is wildly out of shape, verticals go barrel shaped etc. So your lens choice for a flat field wide angle will be very limited. Having said that I adore my FF camera because of the nicer IQ (in my view), richer colours and greater lattitude between highlights/shadow.
 
MatBin said:
Not sure what lens you'd put on a 6D to give you a wider view than 16mm...
Click to expand...

Sigma 12-24mm?

A great lens with next to no distortion at all :D Might be a bit too wide for some but fantastic on FF if wide is your aim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I think as has been said with regards to lenses, you won't notice much difference other than the lenses will feel shorter, I actually find the 70-200 is more useable now, before it felt too long for an everyday lenses.
The main difference will be the low light. I moved from the 60D to the 5D3 and where I was nervous about pushing the ISO past 1600 on the 60D. I am now happy to let it go to 12800. By all accounts the 6D handles noise slightly better due to the slightly lower MP
 
woof woof said:
Sigma 12-24mm?

A great lens with next to no distortion at all :D Might be a bit too wide for some but fantastic on FF if wide is your aim.
Click to expand...

Not tried it as my landscapes tend to be taken with my 70/200 :) saves me getting out of the car (when its raining).
12mm is clearly wider than 16mm but is it worth it when you consider how much a new lens & camera will cost, but obviously if the OP wants to do it then who am I to discourage him, which is why I asked what is missing from the edges of his pictures that demands wider than 16mm.
 
Having moved from the 60D to the 6D last year I can definitely recommend it. Image quality is brilliant and the ISO is incredible - before I had the max at 3200 but now let it run to 12800. For me ISO as well as full frame were the big advantages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top