When to go FF

Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Had my canon 50d for nearly 2 years now and im getting itchy feet and find myself constantly looking at the 5dii. Now I know that its not always the camera and its the glass that you put on it, but when is a good time to upgrade! At the mo the few lenses i have will go on ff so that's not a prob? I am a bit of a nightmare when it comes to equipment and im always trying to convince myself that 'I need it'
I photograph purely for pleasure although im getting more and more obsessed with the whole thing. I mainly shoot landscape and still life.
 
The easy answer would be when your current camera no longer provides all that you want. More likely to be when you fancy something new or different, think you already know you will be buying it
 
Bobby uk said:
I am a bit of a nightmare when it comes to equipment and im always trying to convince myself that 'I need it'
I photograph purely for pleasure although im getting more and more obsessed with the whole thing. I mainly shoot landscape and still life.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with not needing something but wanting it, if you have the disposable income. It's a hobby, enjoy :D

Personally I think that the latest MFT and APS-C cameras are good enough for me and probably for a lot of other people too. In the days when I had DSLR's I changed my 20D for a 5D because I wanted to use my 12-24mm and 50 and 85mm f1.4's at their 35mm field of view but other than at the highest ISO's I wasn't astounded by any actual image quality improvement over the 20D so it was a want rather than a need.

These days I have MFT and a Sony A7 and to be honest my GX7 is good enough but I wanted an A7 :D
 
tijuana taxi said:
The easy answer would be when your current camera no longer provides all that you want. More likely to be when you fancy something new or different, think you already know you will be buying it
Click to expand...
Actually most likely to be the case when u have enough money to burn :).
 
I faced a similar decision recently. I moved up to a Canon 5D2 which I bought secondhand 6 months with a 10k shutter count and I really enjoy using it. I had been using a Nikon D3200 and D7000 but most of my lenses were DX crop lenses only so I had nothing of value to carry over. The 5D2 was about the same price as a Nikon D700 at the time, and I perceived the Nikon was perhaps a little dated and specification limited. The logical step might have been to go to a D600 but the shutter oil and sensor debris debacle and the poor Nikon response at that time ruled it out. I use the Canon particularly for hobbyist studio portrait work but will use it anywhere where weight and security are not an issue. The low light/ high ISO performance was a revelation, wide angle lenses really are wide and the attraction of less of depth of field when required is desirable, but the autofocus is not as good for fast moving action photos. I have kept all the Nikon equipment but will not add to it. I also have MFT which I use for travel or street photography, but these are generation or two old and fall well behind the 5D2 (itself as generation old) for image quality at A3 or even A4. Overall, the 5D2 is a fine camera which is capable of producing stunning images, if you can spare the investment then go for it!
 
What is it that you cannot do with your 50D that you think the 5Dii would allow you to do?

In my case, it was my old 350D that was just not up to the job of taking low-light stage photos at at high ISOs. But if I was taking landscapes, I'd probably still be using the 350D
 
Like yourself I photograph purely for pleasure and bought a D7100 at the end of last year as an upgrade from a D80. The D7100 is a fantastic camera that can produce some remarkable images that are more than enough for me. A friend of mind recently bought a D610 and there is no doubt a FF camera is a step up and the image quality is better especially at wide angles and low light BUT as a hobbyist for me anyway I don't think the image quality is £1000 better so you need to think of the cost and if it is really worth it for something you do for fun.
 
hamacting said:
What is it that you cannot do with your 50D that you think the 5Dii would allow you to do?

In my case, it was my old 350D that was just not up to the job of taking low-light stage photos at at high ISOs. But if I was taking landscapes, I'd probably still be using the 350D
Click to expand...

At the moment for me its the poor quality at high iso, even when i do turn it up I have always got that niggle in the back of my mind of 'im going to regret that'
A bit of a silly comparison i know but im a carpenter by trade and i know that if i use a b&q 'special' circular saw it will cut the wood, but a Makita/Dewalt will do it a hell of a lot better.
 
How about a high end consumer FF body like the 6D? I guess what you are talking about is the Canon equivalent of D700 vs D610 (legacy pro FF vs non-legacy consumer FF)
 
What budget are you working to ?
I have a 5D2 that I'm happy with and I wouldn't sell it to get a 6D. However if I was buying now I'd be seriously tempted by the 6D from somewhere like Hdew.
 
Last edited:
just buy a couple of sigma dp's
you dont need focusing speed or high iso for landscapes and still life, but the stunning quality and lightweight are great, and mean you can bring a bunch of filters and lightweight tripod
 
Well that's a turn out for the books! Not only has the mrs agreed to me getting a new camera she has also said she will help me finance it! Wohoo! Now I just need to decide on what and where to buy?
 
I had a 40D which was a cracking camera but I was very disappointed with its handling of low light images. Anything above 400iso was very noisy and at 1600 was pretty much unusable.

I considered the 7D but was put off by the focus issues and also the complaints of noise at relatively low ISO's.

Eventually I took the plunge and went for the 6D which I have never regretted. Granted the focus system is a bit outdated but it's good enough for my needs and the image quality is superb, much better than my 40D.

With the 40D I would never really go above 400ISO which would mean on many occasion my shutter speed was to slow and I would end up with blurry images. With the 6D I mostly have auto ISO turned on for handheld use with a minimum shutter speed of 1 /focus length. My keeper rate is much higher and even images shot at 12500 ISO are more than acceptable with some minor noise reduction in lightroom.
 
When you can afford to I'd say. It's not the gigantic leap some say it is. I went from a D90 to a D800E and the transition was effortless. In fact, I find FX to be a lot easier to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ChrisHeathcote said:
Oh dear, sounds like she may be after something, could end up expensive :)
Click to expand...
Well we have just had our 3rd child (4weeks) and only moved 6 months ago so other then a new car im hoping there is nothing else.......... what am I saying! she is a woman of course there will be something else!!
 
wave01 said:
Hi can you lets know what equipment you have at the moment
Click to expand...

Bobby uk said:
Had my canon 50d for nearly 2 years now and im getting itchy feet and find myself constantly looking at the 5dii. Now I know that its not always the camera and its the glass that you put on it, but when is a good time to upgrade! At the mo the few lenses i have will go on ff so that's not a prob? I am a bit of a nightmare when it comes to equipment and im always trying to convince myself that 'I need it'
I photograph purely for pleasure although im getting more and more obsessed with the whole thing. I mainly shoot landscape and still life.
Click to expand...

:D
 
woof woof said:
Just on the want v IQ thing, I like this...


This is mainly about mirror v mirrorless but they talk about smaller systems and IQ too...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/the_mirrorless_revolution.shtml
Click to expand...


This is why I like Zach Arias. Just talks sense, and doesn't give a s**t.

Been saying this for ages. APS-C? "full frame"? Both are teeny weeny toy formats, so who cares. So far as I'm concerned, the only reason to chose FF over a smaller format is if you need to squeeze that little extra out of big prints. However... I'll tell you something here. I've only been using a "full frame" DSLR camera for around 2 or 3 years. It was AFTER I stopped shooting for money that I decided to do so, as it was AFTER I stopped shooting for money (although I still do the odd job here and there) that I started shooting for MYSELF. Only THEN did I actually need to make big prints because I started to exhibit my work. When shooting for clients, I hardly ever shot FF. The fact is, fewer and fewer people care about quality these days anyway. Those that did demand quality, I used medium format digital, not a 35mm DSLR. My personal work doesn't demand, or require the use of hired or borrowed MF gear, and there's no budget to sustain that, so 35mm digital is a compromise I've arrived at.

Here's an interesting thing. I just loaded an archived folder back into my Lightroom catalogue. It's an archive of images taken professionally between 2006 and 2013... for money... for real clients. Some small local businesses like local Estate Agents, some large, like the Carsleberg Group, and Beyerdynamic... some for private clients ranging from people wanting a folio of their cat, to test shoots for transsexual models... basically... the entire gamut of stuff a great many professionals shoot... which is incidentally... anything that you're paid to do. I'm just a photographic prostitute, as most professionals are. You give me cash, I give you a picture.

I filtered by metadata.

5ODDFUH.jpg



By far the camera used most on professional jobs? A D7000. Basically I used what was appropriate. Studio? Medium format... location, DSLR. Simple as that. There are even jobs in there shot with a Canon EOS 350D. It was the lightest camera I owned, so occasionally... when weight was an issue... out it came. Most of this gear isn't mine either. I borrow, rent, and once... even stole (although technically it was borrowing without permission as I did return it :)) A good photographer uses whatever is A) Appropriate, and failing that B) Whatever is to hand. That list is only the digital images too... doesn't include 6x7cm, 5x4in or 8x10in film.

The other notable thing is there are only 7 thousand images there. Professionals don't go around spraying the landscape at 8 frames a second unless they shoot sport, press or weddings/events/schools.. etc. In which case you'll probably be more concerned about speed and professional build than quality of images.


So.. when to switch to full-frame? Whenever the hell you want to, as it's no one's concern other than yours. Just be aware.... unless you do something uber-critical, you'll probably not notice much of a difference... and even then.... you're still using a teeny weeny toy format, so who gives a toss. Stop thinking of "full frame" as the pinnacle of what you can achieve. It's not - it's 35mm.

Good photographers create good images... not cameras.

However... to finish off: Stop trying to find a justification. It's your money, you want it.. buy it... be happy. However... your photography will NOT improve as a result. So long as you know that.
 
Last edited:
Ido Scharf said:
I'd love to try that 0.0 mm f/0.0 lens!
Click to expand...


Imagine that? 100% light transfer and infinitely wide :)


Just dodgy metadata... probably from a film scan.


[edit].... just checked.... Macro extension bellows were responsible for that :)
 
Last edited:
i think you misunderstood me do you have any extra lenses for the 50d
 
Bobby uk said:
I mainly shoot landscape and still life.
Click to expand...
Then almost anything will do. So the question needs to be "for what final use?"
If you want to be able to do high resolution large prints (i.e. fine art) then I would say go for a high MP FF camera. If not, then maybe something with better color/resolution like the Sigma DP's.
 
Pookeyhead said:
This is why I like Zach Arias. Just talks sense, and doesn't give a s**t.

Been saying this for ages. APS-C? "full frame"? Both are teeny weeny toy formats, so who cares. So far as I'm concerned, the only reason to chose FF over a smaller format is if you need to squeeze that little extra out of big prints...

So.. when to switch to full-frame? Whenever the hell you want to, as it's no one's concern other than yours. Just be aware.... unless you do something uber-critical, you'll probably not notice much of a difference... and even then.... you're still using a teeny weeny toy format, so who gives a toss. Stop thinking of "full frame" as the pinnacle of what you can achieve. It's not - it's 35mm.

Good photographers create good images... not cameras.

However... to finish off: Stop trying to find a justification. It's your money, you want it.. buy it... be happy. However... your photography will NOT improve as a result. So long as you know that.
Click to expand...

Great post Pookey :D

I'd add a reason to go FF but I suppose it's equally applicable to going the other way and choosing another other non FF DSLR camera too... wanting to use a particular lens or some other gear. One of the biggies that lead me to move from a 20D to a 5D was wanting to use my Sigma 12-24, 50 and 85mm lenses on a 35mm camera rather than on APS-C at x1.6.

I can equally see someone falling in love with something like the Voigtlander range of manual f0.95 lenses and getting a MFT camera to use them on or falling in love with old Rokkors and Zuikos and buying a Sony A7.

I used to shoot with 35mm film cameras and for a while I continued to print everything when I went digital but the biggest I've ever printed is A3 and for me even MFT holds up well to A3 at anything other than stratospheric ISO settings. Over the years the amount of printing I do has reduced to... maybe one smallish print a week with most of my pictures sitting on and being viewed on my pc or being shared with others in electronic format 2000 pixels wide. I suspect that many people are the same and don't need the capacity to print really big these days, but I may be wrong.
 
FX for me was about the better on body control, wider view, more robust build, weather sealing and then the better IQ - which, it does, as you're also usung, or should be, better lenses to match.

But it was definitely much more about the quality of the body over better quality of image.

Had 4 DX bodies and all of them fell a bit apart over time. Whether it was rubber grips starting to pull apart, buttons starting to jam, sensors mis-aligning [had a sony A200 where this happened] or whatever. With FX you get what you pay for I feel. Better ergonomics, control and longevity.
 
I'm glad I read this thread.
Been thinking of upgrading my D7000 to either a D7100 or D610.
I was put off the D610 by the close grouping of the focus points but felt it would be more of an upgrade than the D7100 IQ wise.
I was put off the D7100 as it was still a crop sensor but felt it had a higher spec than the D610.
Dilemmas.
I'm now thinking that the D7100 would be the better option (and cheaper) for me - if in fact I bother changing at all now.
 
JulesP said:
Because I was beginning to think it was time - and also I have managed to save some spare cash for once in my life:)
Looking at it again though I think the D7000 is more than good enough for me for a while yet. I don't think I will gain anything at my level for a while.
Click to expand...
You'd be better off spending that money elsewhere. Maybe a lens or two, maybe a tripod or another accessory. But best of all - a trip, from which you'll come back with beautiful photos.
 
Ido Scharf said:
You'd be better off spending that money elsewhere. Maybe a lens or two, maybe a tripod or another accessory. But best of all - a trip, from which you'll come back with beautiful photos.
Click to expand...
No need for any lenses as already got good glass. Got just about every other accessory I need too but the trip idea could be a good one:)
 
JulesP said:
No need for any lenses as already got good glass. Got just about every other accessory I need too but the trip idea could be a good one:)
Click to expand...
And/or a large print of one or more of your favorite photos.
 
JulesP said:
No need for any lenses as already got good glass. Got just about every other accessory I need too but the trip idea could be a good one:)
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with simply wanting and enjoying new kit and it's nice to treat yourself to new gear if you're lucky enough to have the disposable income. It's something that I sometimes do but if you can't think of anything else you want, and this is a serious suggestion as I've been there, you could reward yourself with the trip idea or just with time to yourself to enjoy photography (assuming you can get away and I know it's not always possible) or get into something that costs a little less (like collecting cheap old manual lenses) and using the unused part of your disposable income for something else like an early retirement pot, helping family and friends or charitable donations.
 
Bobby uk said:
At the moment for me its the poor quality at high iso
I mainly shoot landscape and still life.
Click to expand...


Bit puzzled as to why you're using high ISO for those static subjects. Sounds like you just need a decent tripod buddy. Don't worry- they can be shiny and expensive too ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top