Upgrading from crop to full frame - experiences please

T

tbm

Messages
459
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm getting the itch as I really think the upgrade to FF would benefit my shooting (namely shallower dof for people shots and better high ISO performance for low light).

tbh this thread is mostly just a carrot dangling exercise as I can't really afford it - could almost afford a 5D II if I flogged my 40D and efs lenses, but would kind of like to have that as a second body anyway, and of course would then be left sans std zoom and wide angle.

I'd be interested to hear the experiences of those who have upgraded to full frame, (40D > 5D II especially, but all input gratefully received). Did you find the IQ that much better? dof so much nicer? In terms of noise, what ISO speed would you suggest is similar to the 40D at ISO 1600?

Half of me thinks I'm just being a materialistic tart as I rarely make money from my gear and it's only earned me about 20% of my initial outlay back through jobs on the side..

Still need a 5D II though :bang:
 
I'm a Nikon user, changed from a D90 to a D700.

Pro's
Brighter viewfinder
Ability to shoot to ISO6400 without concern
Lovely DOF
Proper focal lengths (no crop factor)
Exquisite detail in images

Con's
Expensive body
Highlights weaknesses of lenses
Getting used to proper focal lengths (no crop factor)
If you shoot wildlife, aircraft, etc. you will probably miss the crop-sensor field of view

Just my initial thoughts. :)
 
I went from 40d to 5d2.
Only thing I miss is 6fps...I needed them while shooting sports...

all the other things are for + :)
bear in mind that after you get 5d2 you will want to get some nice L lenses :bonk: and thats not cheap ;)
 
I've been using the cnon "D" range ever since they bought out the D30. I've not really found a huge step up through to the 30D which is my current weapon of choice. I won't be upgrading again until I can afford a FF job so I'm upgrading the Lenses to L glass first.

the point is this - the biggest differenc I have seen in my pictures is through upgrading the glass. The bodies may have had nicer toys and more pixels but the glass has made all the difference. I'll still go FF when I can but the glass has become much more important to me.
 
My 70-200 (Sigma) balances better on the D700 than it does on the D70, F80 or F65. Same with a 24-70 f/2.8. Drop down to a 50mm f/1.8 and the smaller bodies balance better than the bigger one and the same goes for a 90mm Tamron macro. The 70-300VR is equally nice on all the bodies.
 
all depends on what you shoot IMO. the 5D MK2 is a mint body, but 90% of my shots are with tele lenses so it would cause me major problems.

If portrait / landscape stuff is your thing, then FF wins, but when you need the length a crop body nails it.

my 400mm would need to be upgraded to a 640mm on FF, which i cant justify doing.
 
sdb123 said:
In what regard?
Click to expand...

Well for lack of a better word the "zoom" how does the actual focal length rather than a crop focal length affect the image i.e. say i put it on 200mm on my d200 what would it look like at 200mm *on the lens* on a d700?
 
or imaging using a 45-135 on a crop body, dont think there is one, but thats the general range.
 
Thanks monkey, was considering moving up to a D700 but dont really want to have to end up at 300mm or so to get the equivalent of my 70-200 2.8 as thats going to cost some serious cash, *prays the d400 will have decent 6400iso performance*
 
Heh just a bit, would be so limiting only other option would be a 120-300mm 2.8 from sigma and thats 2k right there........ i think im going to stick with my crop :D
 
A used 5D might be worth a look? Re ISO performance, it's not just about noise but also the clarify drops as well. Perhaps investing in some more lighting might be a better option?
 
Thanks for the replies :)

Whilst I've dabbled with wildlife and sports stuff I'm crap at it and my main interests are reportage / documentary / street photography / low light stuff so I think full frame would be a sensible choice. Would be in two minds about flogging the 40D as I'd lose a lot on it and it'd probably be worth more to me as a second body.

As far as glass and lighting goes I think I've reached the limit of crop kit - having the 40D, 10-22, 17-55, 70-200/2.8 and 580EX II amongst other things.

Obviously if I did flog the efs kit to upgrade to a 5D II I'd still need wide and standard zooms, so would eventually have to find another £2k for a 16-35 and 24-70..

It did cross my mind that if I flogged absolutely everything I could probably afford a 5D II and 24-70 or 35 / 50L, but this seems a bit backward as I currently have everything from 10-200mm pretty much covered with the 40D.

Thinking about it from another angle I'd probably miss more pictures with a 5D II and 24-70 or prime due to the reduced focal length range compared to what I have with my current kit.. assuming the light's good of course :thinking:

I did consider a second hand 5D, but rightly or wrongly think of S/H electrical goods as a bit of a gamble, plus IIRC the ISO stops at 3200 (or is it 1600?) so whilst offering better image quality wouldn't allow me to shoot in that much lower light. On the flipside I suppose an already used body shouldn't depreciate that much should I need to sell it in the future.

Hmm.. decisions decisions. I'm thinking the best approach at the moment might be to forget about it for a while and try to save for a 5D II body outright (once I've pulled my finger out and found some income) then perhaps flog the efs lenses to fund some L equivalents and relegate the 40D to telephoto / backup duties.

Thanks again for the opinions, nothing's ever sodding simple is it? :p
 
I went from 400D with 18 - 55 kit lens to 5DmkII with 16-35 2.8 L

The amount of time I process on the computer has reduced dramatically, I find I forget to sharpen for web as the shots are so sharp that sharpening in PS doesn't cross my mind. 16 on FF is wiiiiide, which is perfect for me. I have 50mm 1.4 and 85 1.8 they're no L glass but bloody good lenses sharp and quick great for the 5D I really enjoy shooting them and I feel im making the most of a good quality lens with FF

I'd fully recommend it if you have the cash!

Dave
 
All depends in your style of street, i use a d200 with a 70-200 2.8 len so its not exactly small kit :D
 
I would consider the 5d as the IQ on it is awesome (and theres nowt wrong with secondhand cameras - the only bought new thing in my bag is my 430exII)

That would enable you to chop in the 17-55 and 10-22 for a 16-35L and a 50f1.4 which along side a 70-200 would be a nice lineup

I would LOVE to pick up a 5d at a good price but its not easy
 
I moved from a 10D to 5D a few years back and like has been said found the view finder the main difference also having lenes act like they were made to do view wise. If you are mainly in to wide to short tel then it is great. The IQ prosor of camera was a lot better I got the 10D just before I heard about the 20D coming out, so was a bit of a jump from the 10D to the 5D. Quality wise apart from file size might not be as big form the 40D to 5D mk II. It also depends on what you want to do with your photos, if you are wanting to make big high quality prints then it might well be worth the jump, if not and you are wondering about costs, then maybe not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top