Upgrading to full frame

B

Brizzol

Suspended / Banned
Messages
37
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello
I’m looking to upgrade my camera/lenses, going from a crop sensor to full frame.
I am on a tight budget so will be going with used gear, probably somewhere like Wex as they offer finance options.
I currently have a Canon 70d, sigma 17-70mm, canon 55-250mm and a couple of other smaller lenses.
I was looking at possibly a 5d mk4 but my budget can’t stretch to that so I’m looking at the 6d mk2.
The first lens im looking at pairing with this is the canon 70-200mm 2.8L is.
I know this is a very old lens but I think it’s still decent? I know the 2nd version of this lens is quite an improvement on the first but it’s around £300 more, which again comes down to my budget.
Also down the line I will be adding a 24-105mm to this set up.
What do you think of my potential choices?
Will I get good results with the 70-200mm? Or do you think this old lens has had its day?
I do occasional paid work with my current set up, shooting stage work which is why I’m looking at the 2.8 L, are there other 3rd party lenses that could compete with this lens for the money?
Thanks for reading.
 
What do you want to improve over your existing outfit, and should you be thinking about more recent, possibly crop, alternatives that might give better sensor and AF performance?
 
ancient_mariner said:
What do you want to improve over your existing outfit, and should you be thinking about more recent, possibly crop, alternatives that might give better sensor and AF performance?
Click to expand...
I know the gear I’m looking at is pretty old and more recent models are much better but I’m on a tight budget.
I need faster lenses with much better low light performance, with my current set up I find I’m shooting at 1600-2000 iso and 160-200 shutter speed.
My 70d is really not good at that sort of iso where I think going full frame with a faster lens will cope much better?
 
So you want better low-light performance. Just changing your basic zoom to the f2.8 job would drop the ISO need to 800-1000 with your current camera.

Don't forget that if you go FF then you may need a longer zoom to get equivalent field of view.
 
I would go the other way and get a MFT camera. The panasonic G9ii for example has 2 card slots and phase detection. with dual stablisation (in camera and in lens) is truely amazing. I used to have a Nikon D810 and was shocked at how much better the G9ii is. oh and now I buy all my lenses direct from Japan. if it is advertised as mint or near mint you would be hard to tell from new. even with import duties on average I have saves about £750 on 4 lenses from Japan
 
Last edited:
What is it that you are not able to do with your existing kit? I have Canon 5D4 with the lenses you mention and it is very good but it is also very heavy. So I have been using a cropped frame Sony A6600 for some time now and though I have a few issues with Sony's poor layout, the quality of image is excellent. In fact I would say the focusing is probably better than the Canon. I keep the Canon for Studio and low light work but have only used the Canon a couple of times in the last 2 years as the weight issue is very critical for me. The original Canon 70-200 f2.8L is excellent and I have never felt a need to upgrade to a MkII.
 
I definitely echo Phil's comment. You might be able to 'solve' this for ~£100 with a copy of DxO PureRaw, Topaz Labs or using Adobe tools. If you've never used get these a free trial of Pure Raw, you'll probably be surprised how good they are. This does assume you're shooting in RAW.

The other thing to note is the 70 - 200 on FF will lose you 50mm from your current set up. I'd look at what mm you take most of your pics at and check if this would work. If you got that lens but used it on your 70D you'd instead have a 112 - 320mm lens which could be a benefit if you're often shooting at 250mm. Would mean you then have a gap at 70 - 112 instead though. This would likely allow you to buy the Mark II as well which has better IQ, better IS (potentially allowing you to shoot at a lower shutter speed and further reduce ISO) and faster AF. Worth noting as Dave says the the lens is heavy, four times heavier than your current 55 - 250.

I'd prioritise lens over body as an L series lens will likely well outlast any body upgrade you do and would work on mirrorless to (with adapter).
 
ancient_mariner said:
So you want better low-light performance. Just changing your basic zoom to the f2.8 job would drop the ISO need to 800-1000 with your current camera.

Don't forget that if you go FF then you may need a longer zoom to get equivalent field of view.
Click to expand...
Whilst I think you are right about just upgrading the zoom, I have budget for a used ff which would improve my shots even further.
I have factored in the reach that I’m losing going ff and the 70-200 will fit my needs.
 
The Duke of Bork said:
If the problem is related to high ISO, investing in good denoise software will probably be more cost-effective than changing your gear.
Click to expand...
I have invested in denoise software
And whilst that does make a big difference I would rather not rely on software to get the shots.
 
Dave Canon said:
What is it that you are not able to do with your existing kit? I have Canon 5D4 with the lenses you mention and it is very good but it is also very heavy. So I have been using a cropped frame Sony A6600 for some time now and though I have a few issues with Sony's poor layout, the quality of image is excellent. In fact I would say the focusing is probably better than the Canon. I keep the Canon for Studio and low light work but have only used the Canon a couple of times in the last 2 years as the weight issue is very critical for me. The original Canon 70-200 f2.8L is excellent and I have never felt a need to upgrade to a MkII.
Click to expand...
My current set up just struggles under the conditions that I shoot in.
I am shooting stage performers under stage lighting which can be very challenging, especially in some theatre that like to use dark and moody lighting.
I end up with my iso too high and my shutter speed to low and also struggle with focusing, whether that is down to the camera or the lens or both.
Thanks for your opinion on the original 70-200.
 
kanephotos said:
I definitely echo Phil's comment. You might be able to 'solve' this for ~£100 with a copy of DxO PureRaw, Topaz Labs or using Adobe tools. If you've never used get these a free trial of Pure Raw, you'll probably be surprised how good they are. This does assume you're shooting in RAW.

The other thing to note is the 70 - 200 on FF will lose you 50mm from your current set up. I'd look at what mm you take most of your pics at and check if this would work. If you got that lens but used it on your 70D you'd instead have a 112 - 320mm lens which could be a benefit if you're often shooting at 250mm. Would mean you then have a gap at 70 - 112 instead though. This would likely allow you to buy the Mark II as well which has better IQ, better IS (potentially allowing you to shoot at a lower shutter speed and further reduce ISO) and faster AF. Worth noting as Dave says the the lens is heavy, four times heavier than your current 55 - 250.

I'd prioritise lens over body as an L series lens will likely well outlast any body upgrade you do and would work on mirrorless to (with adapter).
Click to expand...
I do have dxo pure raw which is very good, but I want to be able to get the shots at least mostly right in camera and not rely on software to get the shots.
I have checked all my focal lengths that my photos are at and done the calculations from crop to ff and the 70-200 will cover about 90% of what I shoot.
I am curious to know how much difference it would make to just upgrade the lens to the 70-200 2.8, but my gut feeling is to go ff as the 70d I have is about 10 years old now.
 
realspeed said:
I would go the other way and get a MFT camera. The panasonic G9ii for example has 2 card slots and phase detection. with dual stablisation (in camera and in lens) is truely amazing. I used to have a Nikon D810 and was shocked at how much better the G9ii is. oh and now I buy all my lenses direct from Japan. if it is advertised as mint or near mint you would be hard to tell from new. even with import duties on average I have saves about £750 on 4 lenses from Japan
Click to expand...
That is an interesting option that is worth some research, thanks.
 
My step daughter shoots gigs so has the same requirements- she ended up moving to a Canon R6 (I know this is out of your budget), and EF glass (canon 70-200 F2.8 I, Tamron 24-70 F2.8, Canon 16-35 F2.8 II).

In your shoes I would suggest investing in the glass, and perhaps getting an original 6D, although this is an oldie it’s an absolute monster in low light and if you can live with the lack of focus points - though it has a really decent centre point) and pair it with a Tamron 24-70F2.8 and the best Canon 70-200 F2.8 that you can afford.

That will give you a high ISO capable FF body (the 6D can give excellent images as high as ISO12800) and a pair of lenses covering all your focal length requirements. And the whole lot fits into your budget requirements.

Then at a later date you can upgrade the body.
 
Brizzol said:
but my gut feeling is to go ff as the 70d I have is about 10 years old now.
Click to expand...
Worth pointing out the 5D4 is 9 years old next month.

You can get some early FF mirrorless cameras cheaper such as the EOS R. Worth having a look if they may suit you better. Though remember to price in the cost of the adapter.
 
One thing which would put me off the Canon 6D is that the max shutter speed is 1/4,000 which will give issues if shooting with wide apertures in good light. If there is a similar option with 1/8,000 or more available then I'd always go for the higher shutter speed and avoid the need for ND's as they're waaay too much faff on.
 
Personally if I wanted a cheap FF camera then I'd look for a Sony A7 original, possibly using the Canon L 70-200 with a sigma MC11 adapter for AF.
 
Brizzol said:
My current set up just struggles under the conditions that I shoot in.
I am shooting stage performers under stage lighting which can be very challenging, especially in some theatre that like to use dark and moody lighting.
I end up with my iso too high and my shutter speed to low and also struggle with focusing, whether that is down to the camera or the lens or both.
Thanks for your opinion on the original 70-200.
Click to expand...
I understand, as I have done some stage shooting in the past and I did use the Canon 5D4 for that. Stage photography is also quite high contrast so a real challenge.

Dave
 
Mr Perceptive said:
My step daughter shoots gigs so has the same requirements- she ended up moving to a Canon R6 (I know this is out of your budget), and EF glass (canon 70-200 F2.8 I, Tamron 24-70 F2.8, Canon 16-35 F2.8 II).

In your shoes I would suggest investing in the glass, and perhaps getting an original 6D, although this is an oldie it’s an absolute monster in low light and if you can live with the lack of focus points - though it has a really decent centre point) and pair it with a Tamron 24-70F2.8 and the best Canon 70-200 F2.8 that you can afford.

That will give you a high ISO capable FF body (the 6D can give excellent images as high as ISO12800) and a pair of lenses covering all your focal length requirements. And the whole lot fits into your budget requirements.

Then at a later date you can upgrade the body.
Click to expand...
I'm certain that I'm gonna buy the 70-200mm 2.8 is, I was slightly concerned at first as I didnt actually realise how old that lens is, but I've spent a lot of time reading reviews and watching videos about it.
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna buy the mk1 version as well as I didnt think the difference in that and the mk2 version is enough to justify the price difference imo.
Interesting what you say about the mk1 6d, do you have any experience with this camera? Do you think it is better than the mk2 in terms of low light performance?
 
Last edited:
kanephotos said:
Worth pointing out the 5D4 is 9 years old next month.

You can get some early FF mirrorless cameras cheaper such as the EOS R. Worth having a look if they may suit you better. Though remember to price in the cost of the adapter.
Click to expand...
Now I'm googling used EOS R! One thing that puts me off mirrorless is the electronic viewfinder, I just dont like the idea of it and prefer an old fashioned viewfinder.
But on saying that it is a good option.
I've also read that using EF lenses on an RF mount can cause distortion, how true that is I dont know.
 
Last edited:
Dave Canon said:
What is it that you are not able to do with your existing kit? I have Canon 5D4 with the lenses you mention and it is very good but it is also very heavy. So I have been using a cropped frame Sony A6600 for some time now and though I have a few issues with Sony's poor layout, the quality of image is excellent. In fact I would say the focusing is probably better than the Canon. I keep the Canon for Studio and low light work but have only used the Canon a couple of times in the last 2 years as the weight issue is very critical for me. The original Canon 70-200 f2.8L is excellent and I have never felt a need to upgrade to a MkII.
Click to expand...
Apparently the A6700 has a more user-friendly menu system now. I don't have any trouble with the button layout on the A6600, except for the lack of a front-wheel. Which has also been fettled in the 6700.
 
Not sure if your going to be changing your body and lenses, so in effect starting again.? If so, I would also look at a used Nikon D750 and and the Nikon lenses.
 
Gold said:
While MFT has many pros, low light performance is not its forte.

The DpReview tool is useful for comparison in this research: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...t=1&x=0.625056490082852&y=-0.9831137879214802
Click to expand...

Yup but Canon DSLR's weren't exactly at the cutting edge of sensor technology so a newer MFT v an older Canon DSLR could be more of a fair fight than you'd think. A newer MFT v an older FF Canon DSLR is IMO a valid comparison to at least make.

Just looked up my aging MFT Panasonic GX9 v Canon 6D and the GX9 comes out as "clear winner" in this comparison...

apotelyt.com

Canon 6D vs Panasonic GX9 Comparison Review

Detailed comparison of the Canon 6D and the Panasonic GX9. Click through to find out about their relative size and key specifications.
apotelyt.com apotelyt.com

MFT may not be a "clear winner" for everyone but compared to an old DSLR MFT is IMO at least worth a look.
 
Last edited:
Brizzol said:
Now I'm googling used EOS R! One thing that puts me off mirrorless is the electronic viewfinder, I just dont like the idea of it and prefer an old fashioned viewfinder.
But on saying that it is a good option.
I've also read that using EF lenses on an RF mount can cause distortion, how true that is I dont know.
Click to expand...

An evf is much better than an ovf at low light levels, because it will gain up to show more clearly what's going on, and will also give an idea of how the exposure will look. It's less of an advantage with fast lenses, but with a smaller aperture like f2.8 or f4 it can really help.
 
I'm with you on EVF concerns but I've been pleasantly surprised. Toni discussed a few advantages above but I also like the level of info you can show on the EVF - histogram for example.

Definitely worth trying one out in a store though. The EOS R EVF is a little under the norm resolution wise, but seems like it has good refresh rate.
 
Another thumbs up for the EVF. It's an invaluable tool for seeing the adjustments you make in real time.
 
Brizzol said:
Interesting what you say about the mk1 6d, do you have any experience with this camera? Do you think it is better than the mk2 in terms of low light performance?
Click to expand...
I have a 6D and it was excellent in low light, reviews thought that the 6D2 didn’t improve the high iso capability and some felt that the original was better. The original has limitations though in number of focus points and as @woof woof says in terms of max shutter speed (though this could be negated by using a 2 or 3 stop filter)

That all said my Stepdaughter (gig photography) found using an EVF a revelation and much prefers it to a DSLR OVF. But I would caution rushing into mirrorless at the expenses of decent glass. As with most things, what we really want is out of budget and you usually get what you pay for. the EOS-R although a good camera has limitations and you would be much better served with an R6 (for focus speed and burst rate), so I would put that in your memory, decide what glass you really want, buy it and then buy an interim body (for which the original 6D is a good cost effective option), then when funds permit upgrade the body to something like the R6

Note this only my view and YMMV
 
My problem with ND's to keep the shutter speed under 1/4,000 is that if you point the camera in another direction or close the aperture down you may want to remove the ND to keep the shutter speed up or ISO down. When I had a camera limited to 1/4,000 I found that I was constantly fitting and removing the ND and I found this very annoying,

Given the choice I'd always choose a camera with a higher shutter speed unless there was some compelling reason to do otherwise, such as going for a leaf shutter etc. There are variable ND's but I've never had one so I can't say if they make this less of an issue or not.
 
woof woof said:
Given the choice I'd always choose a camera with a higher shutter speed unless there was some compelling reason to do otherwise, such as going for a leaf shutter etc.
Click to expand...
Everyone's needs are different. The OP specifically referred to stage performers under stage lighting..

Often shooting in poor (or very poor) light levels and preferring to stop down to f4 or smaller if I can Lightroom tells me I've taken 28 shots (out of over 100,000) in the last 15 years at 1/8000sec. And it looks like most of those were mistakes! :ROFLMAO:
 
Brizzol said:
I'm certain that I'm gonna buy the 70-200mm 2.8 is, I was slightly concerned at first as I didnt actually realise how old that lens is, but I've spent a lot of time reading reviews and watching videos about it.
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna buy the mk1 version as well as I didnt think the difference in that and the mk2 version is enough to justify the price difference imo.
Interesting what you say about the mk1 6d, do you have any experience with this camera? Do you think it is better than the mk2 in terms of low light performance?
Click to expand...

Brizzol said:
Now I'm googling used EOS R! One thing that puts me off mirrorless is the electronic viewfinder, I just dont like the idea of it and prefer an old fashioned viewfinder.
But on saying that it is a good option.
I've also read that using EF lenses on an RF mount can cause distortion, how true that is I dont know.
Click to expand...
I've info to add to several points here.

The original 70-200 IS was I believe slightly worse than the older non IS version (which is cheaper still if it suits) but the IQ didn't get markedly better till the mkIII version.

The 6d is indeed a low light monster, the low light IQ is amazing (due to the low pixel pitch) and the central focus point is about as good as focus points get. Unfortunately it's a centre point only tool in low light which by modern standards is borderline unacceptable. I wouldn't be surprised if the IQ is as good or better then the MkII but I'd be surprised if the mkII wasn't more usable. I shot weddings with the mkI for a few years.

I can happily confirm 2 things - an EVF is much more usable in low light than an optical vf, until it's pitch black, then it goes downhill rapidly, should be better in a theatre, but you might want to 'test drive' to see what you think. A used R6 is about a grand, and I can't imagine a better camera for the money.

And there is categorically no distortion using the EF adaptor, all the adaptor does is put the EF lens the same distance on an R body as it is on native EF. There's loads of R camera users on here using only EF lenses.
 
What type of theatre and do you want this to be used only for events?

There is a big difference in light levels, subject speed and subject depth of field between amateur/commercial, single subject/group shots or acting/musical theatre. If they are doing dance numbers with lots of people in crappy lighting you are going to need much better gear than a single person in a carefully lit static monologue.

I think a 5D Mk 3 or 4 would be fine for most performance based stuff. As would a D750 (which I've got). If it is for very challenging light levels then the 1DX range might be better but they are huge and heavy. I'm sure someone would be able to comment on a 1DX v's 5D.
 
EF 70-200L f2,8 is a must really, and though the 5Div is a very good DSLR the 6D is a cheaper option. However I hate the very limit AF points on 6D, and the 6Dii is a very good improvement with perhaps slight les dynamic range.
However what puts a cat in the pigeon house are the Sony A7 range which are really good, and capable cameras.

I used A6600 with sigma 18-50 f2,8, and canon R7 withe the same sigma lens plus some good L telezooms which I also use on the A6600 via sigma MC-11 adapter.

The dynamic range on the 70D is pretty limited when compared to A6600, 6D, A7's, 5Div etc. o my advice is get the f2,8 lens first and the camera body second as the glass you will keep for also forever unlike the camera body !
 
Kevin
your talking about stage lighting is the main things you photograph.Well I took this with my camcorder which has a small sensor same as an MFT camera

Shot this on a visit to South Korea. I bet you can't watch the whole video but I had no issues relighting.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p461U7Jry74&t=1s

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB3_a143noE

I can't believe I videoed it , not the most exciting thing, But the young lady sat beside me all the time which made up for it. So a Pana G9ii camera for stage work should be no problem with a panasonic F1.4 or F1.7 lens . As I said before and can't emphasis enough the hand held stability is the best you can get. you didnt mention that for stage work you use a tripod- gimbal or just hand held. For myself being 80 years old weight becomes an issues. FF lenses get really heavy to hold for a long time and worse if a large mm one is being used. This is one reason why I went down the MFT route

Others who have posted have their preferences which is fair enough, but also not posted any examples of situations your thinking about. It is very east to say this is better than that in low light but showing is something different.
 
Last edited:
Brizzol said:
My current set up just struggles under the conditions that I shoot in.
I am shooting stage performers under stage lighting which can be very challenging, especially in some theatre that like to use dark and moody lighting.
I end up with my iso too high and my shutter speed to low and also struggle with focusing, whether that is down to the camera or the lens or both.
Thanks for your opinion on the original 70-200.
Click to expand...

I would be looking at the dynamic range in addition to better low light performance due to the extremes of stage lighting. A used R6 would be where my focus would be as it will excel at everything you need and then some, such as AF; you'll save money over the longer term from not having to upgrade again any time soon. Worth bearing in mind that as the ISO is ramped up the dynamic range gap between cameras will narrow a little.

WEX do a used one at £1,189 and you can spread the cost, but Park Cameras have one at £899 so a saving of almost £300 and you can spread the payments with them as well.

www.parkcameras.com

Used Canon EOS R6 Body | Park Cameras

Buy the Used Canon EOS R6 at Park Cameras today. Free delivery available!
www.parkcameras.com www.parkcameras.com
 
Some really good advice and though I am canon user I would go down the R6 route as future lens up grade ( when funds permit ) will be good future planning. However the G9ii is a very good choice indeed.
So there is another question of staying with an eco system you know and how to use with possible upgrade's to kit in the future i.e. lenses. Over changing systems, and learning new menus and functions of a camera system is some times quite dauting.
Saying that I use Canon R7, 7Dii, and have Sony A6600, and NEX5R and I often put my Canon L glass on the Sony A6600.
 
Swanseajack said:
Not sure if your going to be changing your body and lenses, so in effect starting again.? If so, I would also look at a used Nikon D750 and and the Nikon lenses.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna be sticking with Canon as all my gear is Canon and I'm far rtoo stuck in my ways to learn a new system lol!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I have a 6D and it was excellent in low light, reviews thought that the 6D2 didn’t improve the high iso capability and some felt that the original was better. The original has limitations though in number of focus points and as @woof woof says in terms of max shutter speed (though this could be negated by using a 2 or 3 stop filter)

That all said my Stepdaughter (gig photography) found using an EVF a revelation and much prefers it to a DSLR OVF. But I would caution rushing into mirrorless at the expenses of decent glass. As with most things, what we really want is out of budget and you usually get what you pay for. the EOS-R although a good camera has limitations and you would be much better served with an R6 (for focus speed and burst rate), so I would put that in your memory, decide what glass you really want, buy it and then buy an interim body (for which the original 6D is a good cost effective option), then when funds permit upgrade the body to something like the R6

Note this only my view and YMMV
Click to expand...
I think going mirrorless will be an option for the future but I think I'm gonna stick with what I know for now, I 'm pretty sure I'm gonna go with the 6d mk2, the iso is on par with the mk1 and even tho the dynamic range is slightly less on the mk2, that only applies under 400 iso (if my research is correct)
I love the touchscreen on my 70d so thats another pro for the mk2 and also the built in wifi which I do use a lot.
I think the R6 is a really good option but as you mentioned I want to ensure i get the glass I want, or at least the best I can afford first and foremost.
 
Phil V said:
I've info to add to several points here.

The original 70-200 IS was I believe slightly worse than the older non IS version (which is cheaper still if it suits) but the IQ didn't get markedly better till the mkIII version.

The 6d is indeed a low light monster, the low light IQ is amazing (due to the low pixel pitch) and the central focus point is about as good as focus points get. Unfortunately it's a centre point only tool in low light which by modern standards is borderline unacceptable. I wouldn't be surprised if the IQ is as good or better then the MkII but I'd be surprised if the mkII wasn't more usable. I shot weddings with the mkI for a few years.

I can happily confirm 2 things - an EVF is much more usable in low light than an optical vf, until it's pitch black, then it goes downhill rapidly, should be better in a theatre, but you might want to 'test drive' to see what you think. A used R6 is about a grand, and I can't imagine a better camera for the money.

And there is categorically no distortion using the EF adaptor, all the adaptor does is put the EF lens the same distance on an R body as it is on native EF. There's loads of R camera users on here using only EF lenses.
Click to expand...
I will def need the is version due to what I'm shooting, I would like to get the mk2 version but I cant stretch my budget that far and the side by side comparisons i've seen the mk1 more than holds its own.
Thanks for the info on the mirrorless, I think I'm gonna hold off on making that switch until I can stretch to an R6.
 
Erty said:
What type of theatre and do you want this to be used only for events?

There is a big difference in light levels, subject speed and subject depth of field between amateur/commercial, single subject/group shots or acting/musical theatre. If they are doing dance numbers with lots of people in crappy lighting you are going to need much better gear than a single person in a carefully lit static monologue.

I think a 5D Mk 3 or 4 would be fine for most performance based stuff. As would a D750 (which I've got). If it is for very challenging light levels then the 1DX range might be better but they are huge and heavy. I'm sure someone would be able to comment on a 1DX v's 5D.
Click to expand...
Smallish theatres, generally school theatres seating 300-500.
Most of these places have pretty crappy lighting and yes it is dancing so the 2.8L lens is a must!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top