Thinking of going full frame

lartamax

lartamax

Suspended / Banned
Messages
900
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Thinking of going full frame so maybe some full frame users can help me make up my mind.
Current set up is a 50D and am considering changing to a 5D MKII
I initially started photography due to my interest in wildlife and landscapes. At this time the cropped sensor was fine as many wildlife photographers go for cropped sensors for the extra reach.
Recently I have managed to get some part time work for shops and the photos printed in magazines and have been attending some studio work for products and portraits. Here I basically help out and am learning the ropes but would like to spend more time at studio work and as full frame cameras seem to be the norm 1 should I consider a full frame. 2. Will a full frame make much difference reach wise to my wildlife photography. My long teerm plan would hopefully be to pack in the job and go full time into photography.

John.
 
I thought long and hard about going full frame. I've only just gone from a 550D to a 7D about a month ago. I decided in the end the call was too loud, so I gave the 550D to the wife and ordered a 5D MkII.
Unfortunately, I cant tell you much about it at the moment cause I only got it today and only took about 40 shots so far. If we get decent weather tomorrow I might get out and try it out. I've got a 100-400 L to put on it amongst others so reach shouldn't be too much of a problem. Still got the 7D as backup though, just in case I need to revert back for a bit.
 
Would be interested to know how you get on tomorrow if you get a chance to do some comparison shots.
 
You will lose a fair amount of "reach" by moving to full frame. I think the 5D II crops down (1.6x) to something like 8.0MP. However, there is just something about full frame images that I can't describe. I much prefer the images from my 5D classic to those of my 60D.
 
It really depends on what kind of wildlife you want to do. The amount of cropping will eventually affect the image quality particularly with small birds where feather definition is important.

It can be difficult enough to approach filling the frame on a crop, a full frame is therefore much more demanding.

A full frame like a 5D or 5D2 will have slower AF and poorer tracking than a "made for wildlife" body like a 7D, having said that there are many people on here who use a full frame body for action/wildlife and produce excellent results.

I've noticed that they are the more experienced photographers though!

My take on why the images from a full frame body look "better" is that the larger sensor takes in more light (2.5x I think) than a crop and therefore can produce images which appear cleaner and less noisy. This is because the processing that takes place at the pixel level will have a better signal to noise ratio.

Therefore images taken in low light with higher ISO are less noisy to begin with or require less NR in post-processing.

As I said it's my take.
 
If I had my choice in your position and thought this photography thing was going to go somewhere I would still say stick with crop sensors like a 7D.

It is true that full frame pics have a bit of a different look to them but it comes with a significant increase in expense from a crop body/lens setup.

You unfortunately lose reach and that is where the biggest expenses come in. Longer lenses come into play......which equals more expense than the bodies alone. Now you need a 400-500mm when you might have been able to live with a nice 300mm 2.8 and maybe TC. Don't forget your wide to ultra wide lenses are going to be more expensive as well.

If you are not made of money, go to a 7D unless you can figure out a way to pay for full frame. If you are only made of a little bit of money, concentrate on laying your cash down on nice long glass instead which can be used with either until you are sure you want to pay the money for FF.

One last thing.....try not to compare your 50D pictures to the full frame pics. Try a 7D first if you can. It will save you a lot of money.
 
I don't seem to share what seems to be the consensus that FF images look somehow and almost indescribably "different." I find that at normal screen and print sizes I have trouble seeing any real quality differences between MFT, APS-C and FF and if I don't look at the file names or instantly remember taking the shot I have real trouble deciding what it was shot with, for low to mid ISO's anyway, but FF is better at the higher ISO's and FF images seem to take noise reduction better. Other than that there are minor differences in contrast and colour between cameras, not just format sizes, but I find that these largely disappear in post capture processing although one thing that is apparent is that vignetting is much more evident with FF.

Of course with FF the chances are that I'll use a different lens and possibly the field of view, framing, camera to subject distance and DoF will all be different and all these things add up to give a different image but I don't think that there is actually any great difference in image quality (other than ISO) in most images.

There are some physical advantages and disadvantages, with FF you probably get a bigger viewfinder, that's nice, but you'll probably end up with a bigger and heavier body and lens combination and that's not so nice.
 
what you notice is the oof areas are significantly smoother and the graduations between focus an oof are smoother too.

compared to the 7d its a different world.
 
have the 50D and 5D mkII and will keep both as they are different beasts for different days and shots, what I will say as I have only had the 5d for a couple of months is, its very different and for me more like going back to film style photography, I know you can play with images with software but find I have to think a little more these days.
But the sound of the shutter and the pics it produces when I get it right are worth it for me and I do mainly landscape with it and have played with portrait so early days. But I do understand those who are happy with their crop bodies as its the photographer that makes the difference.
if you can afford it I would say buy it but keep both and make sure you have at least on piece of L glass.
 
Jackwow said:
Sorry, but what does this mean, perhaps another language? :thinking: :shrug:
Click to expand...
:lol::lol:no, not another language. What he means is what I was alluding to in my post.
If you crop a full frame image to match that of a crop then that's how your pixel concentration will be.
If you have X number of pixels spread over a full frame sensor and the you crop out a bit in the middle(say) then you wont still have X number of pixels in that new frame, the total number of pixels will have been reduced.
 
We had a fire engine outside last night (shock) for a while and decided I'd take a few on the 5D2 to see how it copes in low light ie night with no other lighting apart from the normal streetlights etc. Had a couple that weren't up to much but on the whole I'm quite happy with the output. Speed went from 10 seconds to 1/125 and from auto iso to 6400. Like I said I'm quite happy with the pictures, but perhaps not the best way to get accustomed to a new body.
 
POAH said:
what you notice is the oof areas are significantly smoother and the graduations between focus an oof are smoother too.

compared to the 7d its a different world.
Click to expand...

i still own both these bodies & constantly compare them, i completely agree with your reply.............the 5D mkii (in my opinion) is a different gravy
 
It's a bit like HiFi cables - some people will pay thousands of pounds for cables that there is no scientific proof make any difference whatsoever yet they swear they can hear a difference but I would happily put my mortgage on a bet that they couldn't on a proper double blind test.

Basically it's a fundamental human flaw, if you know what is being tested then any subjective results can not be relied on at all.

I love my D700 but does it produce better images in good light than the D90 it replaced? wouldn't like to say but it does have better AF and better ISO performance and in particular much less noise in the shadows which means you have much more leeway in exposure and editing.

Funnily enough, the things I like about my D700 are actually measurable, not left to subjective opinion.

I'd be interested to know of anyone who's conducted a double blind test of images shot with FX vs. DX (to give the same field of view) with lenses that out resolve the sensors... Maybe it's possible but I'd bet most couldn't tell the difference.
 
APS-H on the 1D series might be the perfect gap-filler for you; wider than standard 1.6x crop but still with a bit better 'reach' over full frame
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting thread. I'm not ready to "move up" to a full frame yet as I'm still trying to master my first dslr but always had it in my mind that I'd like to be good enough one day to justify getting one. Having read people's replies, it's sounds like this sort of thinking could be wrong.

It'd be interesting to know how many other FF owners, like skiwhiz and drexyl, have kept a crop body and still use both?
 
AlfyB said:
It'd be interesting to know how many other FF owners, like skiwhiz and drexyl, have kept a crop body and still use both?
Click to expand...

The 1DIII does count as a crop body to you? Well it sort of does get used every now and then if I need the 10 fps or just not shooting anything very important. The full frame gets 95% of time in my hands... If I had 7D and something long as a backup it would only go out for wildlife... I think I've said it all.
 
I bought a 7D and a 5DII this year and would want to keep both of them. The 7D for my birds/wildlife and the 5D because I'm trying to develop my creative side and at the moment that involves a lot of low light stuff.
 
It was that wise old sage Canon Bob who made me realise that instead of spending loads on longer lenses when I got a 5d (FF) I should get a 30d (ie crop body) as well. I had and used both for a very long time and if money permitted would have both a crop and FF again.
Sure FF bodies like the 5d2 I now have are wonderful, but the advantages a crop body offers can make the investment very worthwhile especially compared to longer lenses !
 
AlfyB said:
It'd be interesting to know how many other FF owners, like skiwhiz and drexyl, have kept a crop body and still use both?
Click to expand...

I've kept a crop body, not for reach but to use it as a travel kit as it is much lighter (D60 + 18-55, 55-200 + 35mm). Image quality is perfectly fine, especially in good light and covers pretty much any situation I could want. Not so good at high ISO though...

TBH, the only time I use it is for travel where weight is a real issue (e.g. trekking). I'm quite physically fit so the extra weight of the the D700 doesn't bother me for day to day use and if it must be compact (or beer might spill!) I take my Canon S90 which is fine for me up to ISO 800.
 
I have both and can honestly say I think the low ISO files from both cameras are equally wonderful. As everyone else says the ff body has low light advantages and better af, but I get the reach with the crop and greater resolution.
 
AlfyB said:
......I'm still trying to master my first dslr but always had it in my mind that I'd like to be good enough one day to justify getting one.....
Click to expand...

It is seen as a rite of passage by some to own a full frame camera, which is a pointless way to look at things - I'd say that most people on here who moved up to FF did so because it offers them something a crop body can't. It doesn't make anyone a better photographer.
 
So I have just moved to full after owning a 7D for a year and for me it was.

1. I found myself never shooting birds/sport etc to take advantage off the excellent autofocus! I looked through every picture I had taken with the 7D even the zoo trips and most of the pictures people are either moving slowly or static.

2. Some people would argue with me but even at low ISO I found my pictures slightly noisy.

3. I needed a camera that would give me the best pictures quality with a decent price range and it's a fact that is a 5D mkII. It cost more for a reason!!

4. I have been using a 35mm 1.4 for a few months on my old 7D which gave me 56mm field of view, now I have mounted it on my 5D it's so much better to look through the view finder and look at at 35mm.

Conclusion for me is that you can't mock the 7D it's an excellent camera with tons of features but you don't buy the 5D for features you buy it for picture quality and thats where it shines at :)
 
I shoot full frame, but have kept a 1.6x crop body for the odd days I shoot sport.

My main reason for switching to FF was that I'd stopped shooting sport and was concentrating more on landscapes, it was a case of having the right tool for the job. To be fair my 1D did take good landscape pictures, but the 5D does it better & in a smaller package.
 
i used to shoot a 50d. i then bought a 5D mkii. i did intend to keep my 50D as a backup body but i ended up selling it and adding a little cash to get a 5D classic.
it obviously depends on what you like to shoot but for me full frame is a massive difference. the high iso performance (of both bodies) is a giant leap from my 50D.
i tend to leep my 24-70 on my 5D2 and my 70-200 on my 5Dclassic but FF really shines (to me) when you get a decent prime attached.

if you dont need the range or the autofocus capability, i wholeheartedly recommend FF. i havent found my 5d's to be lacking in autofocus but i dont shoot much sports/wildlife.
As a post above said, if you need the range, buying long glass for FF is very expensive.
 
Last edited:
Another option worth thinking about is keeping the 50D and buying a 5D classic you have the best of both worlds and a back up body if one was to fail and at around £600.00 you are'nt breaking the bank and you have 1.6 crop and full frame.
Regards
Richard
Im going to be cheeky im selling one at the moment
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=364963
 
I'm also thinking of the 5d mk2 as I currently shoot with a 60d. My main interest is Landscape, portrait and architecture. Image quality is my aim and I was wondering if the 5d would give me this. I have the 24-70L and 50mm f1.4 but would also get either a 17-40 or 16-35?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top