Two questions regarding Canon crop sensor and full frame cameras

DaelpixPhotography

DaelpixPhotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,801
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
How much of a difference is there using lenses between a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera?

Also, between the Canon 6d mkII and the Canon 5D mkIV, which is better for landscapes, macro, wildlife and street photography?

I would be planning on selling all my incompatible gear I have now to fund towards a new camera. The lenses I have looked at are the Canon 24-70L f2.8 mkII and the Canon 70-200L f4 Non IS.
 
When I moved from a cropped sensor to a full frame, the main things I noticed were...
1. The lenses get heavier and more expensive.
2. You lose a bit of zoom for a given focal length lens.
3. You attain a narrower depth of field (for a given aperture)
4. The camera is more expensive and heavy.
5. The full frame handles low light better.

I'm not familiar with the attributes of the Canon 6D ii, but I suspect that the 5D iv would be better for wildlife with it's speed of focusing and frames per second. I expect the 6Dii would be cheaper and lighter, but I haven't studied the specs.
 
Can't use EF-S lenses on full frame. Other than that it's down to field of view differences.

Don't know about how good the 6D2 is but I think the 5D4 will be better overall. Which it should be given the price difference. My 5D4 has taken over macro duties from my 1DX and 1DX MkII. It gives me more options.
 
Someone answers the question that you asked and you roll your eyes at them?

I'd start doing some research on Google, because I don't think you'll get much more help on here!
 
If you put a non EF-S lens on a crop camera then the field of view is smaller, you appear to have cropped the image, all that has happened is that the image circle is greater than the sensor size so you have not used it all. An EF lens on a crop camera may appear to be sharper at the edges simply because you are not using all the image circle.
As far at the camera comparison is concerned I very much doubt if you would see much difference in IQ but for £1300 more you get more whistles and bells on the 5D , if they are worth it only you can judge but the difference would take you from the 70-200 Non IS to the IS version and probably to the 2.8 IS or a 400mm f5.6 whatever takes your fancy, if you are after wildlife 200mm is not very long
 
The general technical aspects of FF/APSc have been covered (there are also millions of other threads on the subject), however there is also the practical aspect to consider. As has already been mentioned the lenses (and bodies) get heavier and more expensive. What wildlife do you photograph? There is a difference between deer etc and birds in flight for example, also what proportion of your time do you spend on each genre, is it say mostly landscape, street, macro with a bit of wildlife?

Also if you are willing to sell most of your kit and start again, why are you limiting yourself to Canon?

Sorry for the all the questions, but given your requirements (and your interest in street), I wouldn't be choosing a FF Canon. (I'm not anti-Canon by the way, I have shot Canon for nearly 30 years)
 
Dael_Pix said:
How much of a difference is there using lenses between a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera?
Click to expand...
In what way? Quality? Not much if any.
Dael_Pix said:
Also, between the Canon 6d mkII and the Canon 5D mkIV, which is better for landscapes, macro, wildlife and street photography?
Click to expand...
For wildlife-, macro- and street photography Im not sure I'd pick a full frame camera over apsc at all.
Dael_Pix said:
I would be planning on selling all my incompatible gear I have now to fund towards a new camera. The lenses I have looked at are the Canon 24-70L f2.8 mkII and the Canon 70-200L f4 Non IS.?
Click to expand...
Ive been looking at your pics at Flickr and 500 pixel and saw some great compositions. From those I dont think youll gain much from moving to a full frame camera. Coming this far you should rather Invest in yourself, something like workshops and trips etc and you can take it to the next levels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I changed from a 7D to a 5DIII I particularly noticed the improvement in image quality. The full frame handled higher ISOs much better, and the colour in the images was much improved. Yes, you do lose a bit in zoom distance but this is very much compensated for by the improved image quality.

Apart from the EF-S lenses many other lenses fit both crop sensor and full frame, especially if you buy other than Canon. Lenses by other manufacturers are often as good or, in some cases, better than the Canon equivalents, though others might disagree with me on this. If you are careful which particular lenses you buy those manufactured by both Sigma and Tamron can provide high performance alternatives at a very competitive price.

Suffice it to say that I have not been tempted to change my 5DIII for any of the later iterations as I still like the quality my present camera produces.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I know you can't use EF-S lenses on FF.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Surely it's better to be told something that you already know than not to be told it?

Your incompatible gear could be anything.
 
I've just gone the other way round..

Covering weddings with a friend using a 5Diii I got bored and I normally use my camera for trackdays and family, so sold up.

I got the 7Dii and it's the same size as the 5..

For wildlife you'll be better with a new Crop than a FF, sure you can use the depth of field but cropping an image down is a waste of time in my eyes..
My Canon 70-200 F4 was an amazingly sharp lens.. Your Flickr feed shows you'd probably benefit the APSc more than the FF..

Unless you're changing paths,

But, I will say this.. I used my Sigma DC 17-35mm 2.8 on my FF and it worked fine :p
 
Given that you haven't specified a budget (although you have mentioned the 5D4), if it was me and FF is a requirement I would be choosing either the Sony A7rii or the A9 dependant on what the main requirement. They both have a smaller body suitable for street, the A7rii is great for picking out fine detail and also carrying out heavy crops due to the high MP, excellent DR for landscapes again the A7 can pull a lot of detail out of the highlights and shadows. If you require something for moving wildlife, then the A9 is the winner as it has a much better AF system and also 20fps.
 
Dael_Pix said:
... which is better for landscapes, macro, wildlife and street photography?
...
The lenses I have looked at are the Canon 24-70L f2.8 mkII and the Canon 70-200L f4 Non IS.
Click to expand...
Why those lenses? Neither of them are particularly good for most wildlife, and neither of them are particularly good for macro.

Why exactly do you want to go to a full frame camera? What do you think it will do for you?
 
For me I think that one of the biggest differences between APS-C and FF was the depth of field.

I used film for decades and when switching to a DSLR it had to be APS-C as there weren't any FF ones in those days :D I adapted quite quickly and the only real issue was not being able to quite understand why 28mm wasn't all that wide anymore, in fact it was a bit tight :D I used my Canon APS-C DSLR's for something like 10 years and I then moved to a 5D and actually I think I struggled more going back to FF than I did when going from 35mm film to an APS-C DSLR and the reason why was that I had to relearn shooting at smaller apertures and dealing with the subsequent shutter speed and ISO issues.

These days many people would I assume have never used a "FF" 35mm film camera and maybe grew up with digital compact cameras and APS-C DSLR's and even smartphones and the deeper depth of field that these all give and maybe getting used to a FF DSLR might take a while.
 
Last edited:
If I were you I would just upgrade to something like a 77D. I find that it's not all roses with full frame. Added weight, cost. One of the main benefits of fullframe is less noise at higher ISO so unless the majority of your photos are taken at ISO 3200 and higher you find noise irksome... The other main benefit of fullframe is if you reall want to get the full background blur of fast f1.2 and f1.4 lenses for portraits. I noticed that your using the 450D, I still have that camera and hate the sensor, so I was amazed at the quality of your landscape shots in your Flickr stream. In terms of value for money and biggest bang for your buck the 77D is my recommendation.
 
Last edited:
Mintchocs said:
If I were you I would just upgrade to something like a 77D. I find that it's not all roses with full frame. Added weight, cost. One of the main benefits of fullframe is less noise at higher ISO so unless the majority of your photos are taken at ISO 3200 and higher you find noise irksome... The other main benefit of fullframe is if you reall want to get the full background blur of fast f1.2 and f1.4 lenses for portraits. I noticed that your using the 450D, I still have that camera and hate the sensor, so I was amazed at the quality of your landscape shots in your Flickr stream. In terms of value for money and biggest bang for your buck the 77D is my recommendation.
Click to expand...

This is something that's said quite a bit but I usually disagree, with caveats. Yes, it's at the extremes of ISO and depth of field and sharpness that the differences are more obvious but IMHO and comparing the compact, 1", MFT, APS-C and FF cameras I've had the differences are still there to be seen at more ordinary settings if you go looking for them. If you can resist the urge to pixel peep and look at larger and small format pictures side by side and nit pick the differences you may be perfectly happy with APS-C but if you're the type to go looking for finite differences that may matter to you I think you may find them.
 
Having gone from APS-C to Full-Frame twice now, I have settled on Full-Frame as the differences are noticeable and no amount electronic/processing wizardry will make a APS-C sensor work like a Full-Frame one.
But as mentioned you have to question the cost/weight/size differences between the two formats and evaluate if the difference is worth it for your needs/wants/requirements.
 
woof woof said:
This is something that's said quite a bit but I usually disagree, with caveats. Yes, it's at the extremes of ISO and depth of field and sharpness that the differences are more obvious but IMHO and comparing the compact, 1", MFT, APS-C and FF cameras I've had the differences are still there to be seen at more ordinary settings if you go looking for them. If you can resist the urge to pixel peep and look at larger and small format pictures side by side and nit pick the differences you may be perfectly happy with APS-C but if you're the type to go looking for finite differences that may matter to you I think you may find them.
Click to expand...
I had the chance to borrow a A7II to compare with my A6000 and yes side by side there are differences the A7II shows a bit better image quality but not that much, in fact I was kind of dissapointed it wasn't more obvious and in everyday use I dont feel it's lacking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The biggest difference I noticed when I switched to FF from a crop-sensor DSLR was depth of field. I could get the type of nice, shallow, bokeh-filled DoF that I'd not had since I moved to digital from film photography some 15 years previously! The only reason I might be tempted back to crop-sensor (part time) woud be to get the additional magnification on lenses for wildlife photography... but then again, I could probably just crop in on a FF shot instead. :whistle:
 
StewartR said:
Why those lenses? Neither of them are particularly good for most wildlife, and neither of them are particularly good for macro.

Why exactly do you want to go to a full frame camera? What do you think it will do for you?
Click to expand...

I know that. I have the Sigma 150mm-500mm and the Canon 100mm Macro lens, both are in my signature.



My top priorities in using the camera for is 1) Landscapes 2) Macro 3) Wildlife i.e. deer, large/small birds of prey, garden birds 4) Whatever else may turn up.


Mintchocs said:
The other main benefit of fullframe is if you reall want to get the full background blur of fast f1.2 and f1.4 lenses for portraits. I noticed that your using the 450D, I still have that camera and hate the sensor, so I was amazed at the quality of your landscape shots in your Flickr stream. In terms of value for money and biggest bang for your buck the 77D is my recommendation.
Click to expand...

There are times when I would have wanted the background blurred out more such as in the shots of the Hummingbird Moth, and flower images....and thank you. To be honest, I think the landscapes could be more in focus, as for the birds (the hooded crow and mandarin duck), I'm not keen on them. Maybe it's down to user error (no tripod/monopod etc) or something else.



Other answers to questions

The Sony A9 is too expensive and out of my reach. To be honest I'd rather stick to Canon and go for either the 6D mkII or the 5D mkIV. I've scanned the internet for wildlife shots taken with the mk IV and they appear to be excellent.

I would like a FF for low light and have a higher range of ISO, and since I tend to shoot HDRs mostly, I think a FF will enhance the capabilities that my crop sensor cannot maintain/achieve.
Able to print larger images.
I hate how grainy some of my images are. I use Lightroom to process all my images. I take the grainy-ness out then

sharpen it and I'm not keen on how the images turn out as I don't think they appear sharpened.

As for added weight - If I can carry my Manfrotto 055XPRO tripod without using it for 4 miles (last distance I walked), I'm sure I wouldn't have a problem with weight. I'll be upgrading to a carbon tripod in the future.

Mr Badger said:
would be to get the additional magnification on lenses for wildlife photography... but then again, I could probably just crop in on a FF shot instead. :whistle:
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking too.
 
Last edited:
If you want a FX body for low light and high range of ISO I'd consider swapping to Nikon or you may be disappointed.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
If you want a FX body for low light and high range of ISO I'd consider swapping to Nikon or you may be disappointed.
Click to expand...
I think you have an excellent point. The Nikon D850 would be perfect. If you have to change then it makes sense to consider all options.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
If you want a FX body for low light and high range of ISO I'd consider swapping to Nikon or you may be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Since I have 3 EF lenses, I will not transfer to Nikon.
 
He doesn't need to go for the D850.

The D750 would be perfect, much cheaper and he'd be able to afford some fast glass to go with it for the low light shots.
 
anisah said:
When I changed from a 7D to a 5DIII I particularly noticed the improvement in image quality. The full frame handled higher ISOs much better, and the colour in the images was much improved. Yes, you do lose a bit in zoom distance but this is very much compensated for by the improved image quality.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing and found the same. It was also much more feasible in terms of image quality to crop well down into the image with the 5d3.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet but the crop factor with Canon is 1.6x. So your 70-200 mm lens on full frame is the equivalent of a 98 - 320 lens on a crop. I have no knowledge of crop only lenses.

If I was starting over I would go for the Nikon d850. It looks like a brilliant camera, although I believe Canon has a better range of lenses.
 
From reading through the whole thread again, I think you would be best with 5div. A number of people have made suggestions on alternative solutions and all have been met with a similar response. I get the feeling you have an itch which you need to scratch and until you do you won’t rest. Both camera you have suggested will do the job you want as would any xxD/xD series body. If you do go FF, I would also factor in changing the 150-500 for the 150-600 . To frame subjects in the view finder in the same way as you do now, you will need somewhere in the region of 800mm (a 150-600 with a 1.4x TC will get you there).
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
Since I have 3 EF lenses, I will not transfer to Nikon.
Click to expand...

GreenNinja67 said:
He doesn't need to go for the D850.

The D750 would be perfect, much cheaper and he'd be able to afford some fast glass to go with it for the low light shots.
Click to expand...

This.

I've just moved to Nikon and the point is if you are comparing a £3350 5d4 and a £1599 d750 the argument that you have too much invested in canon glass is rubbish.

You won't lose money, you will make money even selling your EF glass at secondhand prices and buying new Nikon you have a buffer of £1751 up your sleeve!

Also, you will find the d750 compared to your existing canon will literally give you the equivalent of an HDR file with a single raw. Just minus the noise.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
From reading through the whole thread again, I think you would be best with 5div. A number of people have made suggestions on alternative solutions and all have been met with a similar response. I get the feeling you have an itch which you need to scratch and until you do you won’t rest. Both camera you have suggested will do the job you want as would any xxD/xD series body. If you do go FF, I would also factor in changing the 150-500 for the 150-600 . To frame subjects in the view finder in the same way as you do now, you will need somewhere in the region of 800mm (a 150-600 with a 1.4x TC will get you there).
Click to expand...


I agree but with the following proviso. There's no need for a converter; there is so much potential for cropping full-frame images that a maximum of 600 mm will be fine.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Think I'll stick to my 'Canon glass rubbish'.
Click to expand...

I didn't say canon glass is rubbish.

I said the commonly banded about argument that owning 3 lenses from one manufacturer means you are tied to them for life is rubbish.

Especially when the equivalent camera from another manufacturer is less than half the price.

Your loss mate. I've shot canon for over a decade, tried Sony mirrorless, and wished I'd bought a d750 the day it was released.
 
I already said I was staying with Canon, I even said I was deciding between the Canon 6D mkII and the 5D mkIV in my first post.

I think it seems stupid to me that I would sell all my lenses and get less than what I paid for them just to buy a Nikon body AND more lenses to use.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to stick with Canon buy the 5D4. It's a nice camera, sensor is much better that the 5D3 and it produces great images.

You don't have a huge investment in lenses so if you're prepared to swap then it can be done with careful buying of lenses especially if you go grey.

D850 has got to be the ultimate one camera do everything body now but to get the very best out of it across all genres is going to cost you the thick end of four grand by the time you factor in grip batteries charger etc. Without the grip it just feels completely unbalanced even with short lenses on it. Same can be said for the 5D4 though.
 
It's not stupid when the Nikon body saves you so much money it pays for any losses on the lenses, if it is the best camera for you.

Money obviously isn't an issue to you anyway if you have the luxury of choosing between the 6d2 and the considerably more expensive 5d4.

I love Canon, and if you are adamant about staying with them just get the 5d4.

Or consider a 2 body approach of 7d2 for wildlife and 6d2 or original 6d for landscapes etc.

If you want the best all round camera with the best image quality for an excellent price buy a d750 and make the switch.
 
However many good suggestions the OP is given, by his argumentative answers it's obvious he has all the knowledge already.

Deal-pix: I and others were trying to help you.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I already said I was staying with Canon, I even said I was deciding between the Canon 6D mkII and the 5D mkIV in my first post.

I think it seems stupid to me that I would sell all my lenses and get less than what I paid for them just to buy a Nikon body AND more lenses to use.
Click to expand...

Personally I think it is stupid to rule out what could be a perfect system based on 2 lenses, combined these 2 lenses probably have a value of circa 600, with new costs of about 1000, this can easily be offset by purchasing second hand or grey. Wex currently have a couple of d750’s for about £1200, about £500 cheaper than new. Chances it won’t lose a huge amount more.

I’m not saying that the d750 is the right camera, just that to rule out a system based on a couple of relatively low value lenses is foolish.

I appreciate your stance, I put off switching for ages based on your logic. However having finally switched to Sony, I wish I hadn’t done it sooner.

Anyway my final word, however I feel it will fall on deaf ears. In which case, the 5div will be a huge step up from the 450d
 
Been watching some Youtube vids using the camera and I think I'm making a good choice.

Getting a price via Digitalrev, they seem to have the 5D MKIV at a lower cost than in the UK. Also going for the 17-40mm f4 L (I think).
I have the EF 70-300mm (kit lens I think). Not a bad lens, haven't used it since I got a longer zoom lens. So I'll be keeping that one.

Other lenses I've considered are:
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L MKII
Canon 16-35mm f4 L
Canon 70-200mm f4 L Non IS


I have the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM
 
I preferred the viewfinder on a ff camera.
Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top