Body or glass? WWYD?

[danjama]

Evening all, yes it's that classic question, but hoping for some alternative views and opinions. I've been watching so many gear videos on youtube I feel like my eyes are going to pop out!

I consider myself an advanced hobbyist. I know my filters from my crops and my buttons from my dials etc. In 2016 I'm hoping to become paid for this passion of ours. So of course comes the question - what will I need?

I currently use a Canon 60D. I like it. It's a capable camera but with limitations. ISO 3200 and beyond is quite noisy. It can be slow or difficult to focus in darker places. But it's comfortable to use, has decent fps and nice features. I'll be shooting in low light sometimes if my plan comes to fruition, so I was set to buy a 6D for my main body. This would probably be paired with a 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I would also either keep my 60D as a second body, or sell and replace it with a more capable second body such as a 7d or 70d.

But here's the rub. There's some pretty decent glass available for crop bodies, and with equally decent prices to match! Example, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, Canon 55-250 STM which I already have and impresses me every time I use it. This got me thinking I could buy a second crop body such as a 7d, and invest in some nice crop body lenses. But are these lenses professional lenses or do people expect the red ring? Are they likely to fail after months of hard use?

What really bothers me with crop bodies is that you are losing 1.6x the aperture you would have with a full frame camera. Is this really acceptable when marketing yourself as a professional? Is it too risky?

I feel I could do the job with my 60D or a 6D, however I want the one that will give me the best images more consistently. But what would you do?

Airshows and motorsports/automotive are my hobby and passion, but next year I will be looking to work in weddings. It's becoming pretty clear I will need two bodies as the 4fps of the 6D will not cut it for my hobby, but I think it's well suited to weddings.

Thanks for any thoughts or advice.

 

[andyred]

But what would you do?

Airshows and motorsports/automotive are my hobby and passion, but next year I will be looking to work in weddings. It's becoming pretty clear I will need two bodies as the 4fps of the 6D will not cut it for my hobby, but I think it's well suited to weddings.

Well from this statement, the 6D is the best bet for you as you already have a capable crop body...

 

[andyred]

What really bothers me with crop bodies is that you are losing 1.6x the aperture you would have with a full frame camera.

It's the 1.6 magnification (crop) factor you loose with full frame, not aperture

 

[danjama]

Well from this statement, the 6D is the best bet for you as you already have a capable crop body...

But this is kind of my point ...would I be just as well off buying a second, more capable crop body such as a 7d or 7d ii? Would such a set up match or surpass the 6d option?

 

[andyred]

I currently use a Canon 60D. I like it. It's a capable camera but with limitations. ISO 3200 and beyond is quite noisy. It can be slow or difficult to focus in darker places. But it's comfortable to use, has decent fps and nice features. I'll be shooting in low light sometimes if my plan comes to fruition, so I was set to buy a 6D for my main body. This would probably be paired with a 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I would also either keep my 60D as a second body,

This sounds like you have a plan and an idea Daniel for your needs - personally, I'd stop trying to give yourself too many options, otherwise it gets very confusing (and I have fallen into this trap)

 

[danjama]

Good point Andy! The part you've quoted is kind of what's been formulating in my mind for the past few weeks.

Then I had this sudden realisation that crop body lenses are cheaper!

 

[andyred]

But this is kind of my point ...would I be just as well off buying a second, more capable crop body such as a 7d or 7d ii? Would such a set up match or surpass the 6d option?

I've not used the 6D, but it gets a very reviews and very good following on here...

Does the 60D restrict you at all ? Are you finding it lacking in any other area other than the ISO ? If not, then keep it and look at the 6D to complement it with some nice new glass

 

[Phil V]

Sorry to be unhelpful, but first the internet truism:
If you don't know what gear you need, you're not ready to hang out the ''for hire' sign.
A 6d will do, but the 17-40 and 70-200 f4's wouldn't be a first choice for many as a first pair of lenses, a common first choice on FF would be the 24-105.

Secondly, why weddings?
I've looked at your work and haven't found a single picture of a person, either a well caught candid or a beautifully posed shot. Do you like people, do people like you? What training or preparation are you planning to get better at that?

 

[andyred]

Good point Andy! The part you've quoted is kind of what's been formulating in my mind for the past few weeks.

Then I had this sudden realisation that crop body lenses are cheaper!

yes well, there lies another problem to think about, I'm sure someone who does weddings will come along shortly and offer advice re lenses

Edit: There you go, Phil's already posted

 

[snerkler]

If you're in no rush you could always wait to see what the 5D mark IV/5DX has to offer as rumours are (if you believe these) that it will be announced in the first quarter of 2016.

 

[danjama]

I've not used the 6D, but it gets a very reviews and very good following on here...

Does the 60D restrict you at all ? Are you finding it lacking in any other area other than the ISO ? If not, then keep it and look at the 6D to complement it with some nice new glass

Well, as an airshow/motorsport photographer, I always seem to be missing 1 or 2 fps! So perhaps a 7d could fill the slot. I do feel excited at the prospect of the 6D though.

Sorry to be unhelpful, but first the internet truism:
If you don't know what gear you need, you're not ready to hang out the ''for hire' sign.
A 6d will do, but the 17-40 and 70-200 f4's wouldn't be a first choice for many as a first pair of lenses, a common first choice on FF would be the 24-105.

Secondly, why weddings?
I've looked at your work and haven't found a single picture of a person, either a well caught candid or a beautifully posed shot. Do you like people, do people like you? What training or preparation are you planning to get better at that?

Fair points Phil. I guess I've kind of made my decision but I've always been pretty cautious with money so wanted to get some second opinions.

My current employment is in wedding photography, but I want to go independent. You won't find any of it on my personal pages I'm afraid. But yes I do enjoy shooting people, and I think people like me...I hope . But primarily I want to do it because I like weddings and I think I'll be good at it. I believe If you think you can do something better than others who are trying to do it, then you should give it a go IMO. Especially with regards to weddings, which are important to people.

 

[redsnappa]

I remember the same argument years and years ago but the formats in question were medium format & 35mm.
Can your customers tell which format you use to create the images and do they care?

What really bothers me with crop bodies is that you are losing 1.6x the aperture

My f1.8 lens are f1.8 on a crop body and My f1.8 lens are still a 1.8 lens on a full frame body.

 

[snerkler]

Just to reiterate the point above, when I got married 7 years ago I hadn't taken up photography and didn't even know there were different DSLRs (aps and FF). I didn't ask what equipment he used, it never even crossed my mind. I booked him based on his personality and his portfolio. Likewise when I had some family portraits done the following year. Last year I checked the EXIF of the photos and both my wedding and family portraits were taken with crop bodies. So if you like your crop body and lenses and get the images that you want then stick with these.

Also f1.8 is f1.8 regardless of crop, FF, m4/3 etc etc. It's the field of view that changes.

 

[Phil V]

...
Fair points Phil. I guess I've kind of made my decision but I've always been pretty cautious with money so wanted to get some second opinions.

My current employment is in wedding photography, but I want to go independent. You won't find any of it on my personal pages I'm afraid. But yes I do enjoy shooting people, and I think people like me...I hope . But primarily I want to do it because I like weddings and I think I'll be good at it. I believe If you think you can do something better than others who are trying to do it, then you should give it a go IMO. Especially with regards to weddings, which are important to people.

Well then I'm confused, if you're already shooting weddings, you'll have a style and you know exactly what you need to carry on doing that.

If you're after a std zoom for crop though, the Canon 17-55 is so much better at focussing than any of the 3rd party lenses, for shooting the 1st dance that's invaluable, 2nd hand they're a bargain compared to what I paid for mine at launch.

However, none of the Canon crop cameras are 'good enough' in low light compared to the competition. I've been a happy crop user for years, but I felt the need to go FF this year when the 7dII just didn't deliver enough improvement. I'll be adding at least one more FF camera next year.

 

[Phil V]

I remember the same argument years and years ago but the formats in question were medium format & 35mm.
Can your customers tell which format you use to create the images and do they care.

absolutely!

My f1.8 lens are f1.8 on a crop body and My f1.8 lens are still a 1.8 lens on a full frame body.

They might still be 1.8 but their DoF alters as well as their field of view.

 

[danjama]

Just to reiterate the point above, when I got married 7 years ago I hadn't taken up photography and didn't even know there were different DSLRs (aps and FF). I didn't ask what equipment he used, it never even crossed my mind. I booked him based on his personality and his portfolio. Likewise when I had some family portraits done the following year. Last year I checked the EXIF of the photos and both my wedding and family portraits were taken with crop bodies. So if you like your crop body and lenses and get the images that you want then stick with these.

Also f1.8 is f1.8 regardless of crop, FF, m4/3 etc etc. It's the field of view that changes.

Thanks for that! Good points

Well then I'm confused, if you're already shooting weddings, you'll have a style and you know exactly what you need to carry on doing that.

If you're after a std zoom for crop though, the Canon 17-55 is so much better at focussing than any of the 3rd party lenses, for shooting the 1st dance that's invaluable, 2nd hand they're a bargain compared to what I paid for mine at launch.

However, none of the Canon crop cameras are 'good enough' in low light compared to the competition. I've been a happy crop user for years, but I felt the need to go FF this year when the 7dII just didn't deliver enough improvement. I'll be adding at least one more FF camera next year.

Thanks Phil. The Canon 17-55 is probably one I will pick up, put it on my crop body and leave it there. It seems to be just that bit better than the Sigma 17-50, a case of when a little can be a lot.

I think I'll always need at least one crop body due to my main interests, but as you say I don't think they will cut it in low light.

 

[Phil V]

If you're keeping a cropper, I'll tell you I could shoot almost an entire wedding with my 6d, 7d, 35mm Art and 85mm 1.8, though I do tend to use more than that (a lot more )

Bear in mind though, that does work as 4 different lenses (35 1.4, 56 f2, 85 1.8 and 135 2.8).

 

[snerkler]

absolutely!

They might still be 1.8 but their DoF alters as well as their field of view.

Due to the relative subject distance in order to achieve the same frame

 

[Phil V]

Due to the relative subject distance in order to achieve the same frame

OT, but due to the physical size of the sensor, which is why we get massive DoF on a compact with a 1.8 lens and we need tiny apertures on 5x4 cameras to get reasonable DoF for normal shots.

 

[snerkler]

OT, but due to the physical size of the sensor, which is why we get massive DoF on a compact with a 1.8 lens and we need tiny apertures on 5x4 cameras to get reasonable DoF for normal shots.

Without dragging this thread off topic too much I've seen many 'myth buster' threads showing that the sensor size doesn't effect DOF per se, it's all down to the field of view and subject distance. There's even images proving this. For example, if you stand in the same place and take a pic of a subject at 85mm f1.8 on both a crop body and FF the framing will obviously look different (further away on FF), but if you crop the FF to give the same frame as the crop body DOF is the same. If you frame the subject the same to start with FF will have shallower DOF as you're closer to the subject. You can use the same example with m4/3, compacts etc.

I always thought sensor size directly affected DOF but according to my latest research it doesn't. However, I'm not set in stone and always open to new evidence

 

[danjama]

If you're keeping a cropper, I'll tell you I could shoot almost an entire wedding with my 6d, 7d, 35mm Art and 85mm 1.8, though I do tend to use more than that (a lot more )

Bear in mind though, that does work as 4 different lenses (35 1.4, 56 f2, 85 1.8 and 135 2.8).

Thanks for the great tips. I do have the 85mm already and love it. That 35mm ART I would love, perhaps I'll treat myself when it can pay for itself

 

[Phil V]

Without dragging this thread off topic too much I've seen many 'myth buster' threads showing that the sensor size doesn't effect DOF per se, it's all down to the field of view and subject distance. There's even images proving this. For example, if you stand in the same place and take a pic of a subject at 85mm f1.8 on both a crop body and FF the framing will obviously look different (further away on FF), but if you crop the FF to give the same frame as the crop body DOF is the same. If you frame the subject the same to start with FF will have shallower DOF as you're closer to the subject. You can use the same example with m4/3, compacts etc.

I always thought sensor size directly affected DOF but according to my latest research it doesn't. However, I'm not set in stone and always open to new evidence

Comparing FF and crop doesn't give you a big enough difference to measure it, particularly when you have complications around the amount of magnification of the image.

But we don't need all that, because we all know that at reasonable distances a camera phone gives a huge DoF with a relatively small f no and a plate camera gives a tiny DoF in the same circumstances.


I've deleted the rest, because it does drag it miles off topic.

 

[odd jim]

Evening all, yes it's that classic question, but hoping for some alternative views and opinions. I've been watching so many gear videos on youtube I feel like my eyes are going to pop out!

I consider myself an advanced hobbyist. I know my filters from my crops and my buttons from my dials etc. In 2016 I'm hoping to become paid for this passion of ours. So of course comes the question - what will I need?

I currently use a Canon 60D. I like it. It's a capable camera but with limitations. ISO 3200 and beyond is quite noisy. It can be slow or difficult to focus in darker places. But it's comfortable to use, has decent fps and nice features. I'll be shooting in low light sometimes if my plan comes to fruition, so I was set to buy a 6D for my main body. This would probably be paired with a 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I would also either keep my 60D as a second body, or sell and replace it with a more capable second body such as a 7d or 70d.

But here's the rub. There's some pretty decent glass available for crop bodies, and with equally decent prices to match! Example, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 10-20 f/3.5, Canon 55-250 STM which I already have and impresses me every time I use it. This got me thinking I could buy a second crop body such as a 7d, and invest in some nice crop body lenses. But are these lenses professional lenses or do people expect the red ring? Are they likely to fail after months of hard use?

What really bothers me with crop bodies is that you are losing 1.6x the aperture you would have with a full frame camera. Is this really acceptable when marketing yourself as a professional? Is it too risky?

I feel I could do the job with my 60D or a 6D, however I want the one that will give me the best images more consistently. But what would you do?

Airshows and motorsports/automotive are my hobby and passion, but next year I will be looking to work in weddings. It's becoming pretty clear I will need two bodies as the 4fps of the 6D will not cut it for my hobby, but I think it's well suited to weddings.

Thanks for any thoughts or advice.

You don't lose any aperture, that's the same no matter what lens / body like for like.

The field of view on cropped bodies is, we, cropped by 1.6, that's the only difference.

Yes I know, I'm late to the party...

 

[danjama]

Does £725 seem a reasonable price for a used 6D with grip and 3 batteries?

DigiRev are selling new for £830 but I'm not good at waiting for deliveries.

 

[Gary Kinghorn]

From a camera perspective I have both crop and FF bodies and can be creative with both (or at least try to be). I wouldn't say one was better than the other though. Just different. From a wedding perspective I would be drawn towards FF as the low light capability is better. I use a 5d3 as opposed to a 6d though, but from what I read it's a great and capable camera.

With regard to lenses the good old 24-105L is still a reasonable bit of kit and can be had for cheap money. It's versatile and covers a good range, so it shouldn't be discounted. And for that matter the sigma variant is supposed to be as good or better.

Whatever you go for you will need a back up plan for if something fails, but I'm sure you have that in mind too.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Without dragging this thread off topic too much I've seen many 'myth buster' threads showing that the sensor size doesn't effect DOF per se, it's all down to the field of view and subject distance. There's even images proving this. For example, if you stand in the same place and take a pic of a subject at 85mm f1.8 on both a crop body and FF the framing will obviously look different (further away on FF), but if you crop the FF to give the same frame as the crop body DOF is the same. If you frame the subject the same to start with FF will have shallower DOF as you're closer to the subject. You can use the same example with m4/3, compacts etc.

I always thought sensor size directly affected DOF but according to my latest research it doesn't. However, I'm not set in stone and always open to new evidence

I have both crop and ff bodies here. I can set up a tripod and shoot the same image with both bodies with the same lens at the same settings. If I crop the ff image to match, it will still have shallower depth of field. Have tried this loads of times. Difference is about a stop.

As for the original post, I had the 6D and the 60D at the same time at one point and the image quality of the 6D is clearly superior. I found it clean enough up until ISO 10000, whereas I didn't like using the 60D past iso 1600. Guess this would be important if you can't use flash in some venues?

 

[BacktotheFuji]

One more thought - I shoot (non-professionally!) almost exclusively with a Fuji crop camera now, as the fast primes are excellent, negating the need for extreme high ISO.

 

[snerkler]

I have both crop and ff bodies here. I can set up a tripod and shoot the same image with both bodies with the same lens at the same settings. If I crop the ff image to match, it will still have shallower depth of field. Have tried this loads of times. Difference is about a stop.

As for the original post, I had the 6D and the 60D at the same time at one point and the image quality of the 6D is clearly superior. I found it clean enough up until ISO 10000, whereas I didn't like using the 60D past iso 1600. Guess this would be important if you can't use flash in some venues?

Interesting as I've said I've seen shots to the contrary. I'll have to try it myself one day

 

[odd jim]

I have both crop and ff bodies here. I can set up a tripod and shoot the same image with both bodies with the same lens at the same settings. If I crop the ff image to match, it will still have shallower depth of field. Have tried this loads of times. Difference is about a stop.

As for the original post, I had the 6D and the 60D at the same time at one point and the image quality of the 6D is clearly superior. I found it clean enough up until ISO 10000, whereas I didn't like using the 60D past iso 1600. Guess this would be important if you can't use flash in some venues?

But you'd expect the 6d to be significantly better!

 

[BacktotheFuji]

But you'd expect the 6d to be significantly better!

Obviously. I think the point is - buying an f/2.8 lens for a cropper doesn't necessarily give the same low light capability as a full framer with an f/4 lens.

 

[odd jim]

Obviously. I think the point is - buying an f/2.8 lens for a cropper doesn't necessarily give the same low light capability as a full framer with an f/4 lens.

Definitely. These days I don't think fast lenses benefit as much as some of the sensors that you can really push now do. Obviously, a combo of the two is always best bet

 

[HoppyUK]

Without dragging this thread off topic too much I've seen many 'myth buster' threads showing that the sensor size doesn't effect DOF per se, it's all down to the field of view and subject distance. There's even images proving this. For example, if you stand in the same place and take a pic of a subject at 85mm f1.8 on both a crop body and FF the framing will obviously look different (further away on FF), but if you crop the FF to give the same frame as the crop body DOF is the same. If you frame the subject the same to start with FF will have shallower DOF as you're closer to the subject. You can use the same example with m4/3, compacts etc.

I always thought sensor size directly affected DOF but according to my latest research it doesn't. However, I'm not set in stone and always open to new evidence

OT...

As you say, larger sensors do not affect depth-of-field directly, but that is the underlying fundamental that drives other changes - and the net result is reduced DoF. Saying larger sensors reduce DoF is a widely used shorthand.

You're not comparing like with like. A true comparison is the same subject, framed the same, and from the same position/distance to maintain perspective. This requires focal length to be adjusted by the crop factor, and for DoF to stay the same, the f/number must also be adjusted by the crop factor. Eg, 100mm lens at f/4 on a 1.5x cropper will be the same as a 150mm lens at f/6 on full-frame - a difference of one and a quarter stops.

Obviously. I think the point is - buying an f/2.8 lens for a cropper doesn't necessarily give the same low light capability as a full framer with an f/4 lens.

If you're meaning low light ISO/noise performance, in theory, it should. By using f/2.8 on the cropper vs f/4 on the FF camera, you can reduce the ISO by one stop and maintain the same shutter speed. That doubles the photon count, and restores ISO equivalence (near as makes no difference).

 

[BacktotheFuji]

If you're meaning low light ISO/noise performance, in theory, it should. By using f/2.8 on the cropper vs f/4 on the FF camera, you can reduce the ISO by one stop and maintain the same shutter speed. That doubles the photon count, and restores ISO equivalence (near as makes no difference).

Assuming sensors are of the same technology generation I guess. The 6D sensor is way better than the 60D sensor though.

 

[odd jim]

Assuming sensors are of the same technology generation I guess. The 6D sensor is way better than the 60D sensor though.

Physics won't change between generations, though technical improvements are always made as the years go on

Which is why for example, a 7d2 can't compete with a much older 5d2 in terms of noise / sensor performance.

 

[snap-happy]

Comparing FF and crop doesn't give you a big enough difference to measure it, particularly when you have complications around the amount of magnification of the image.

But we don't need all that, because we all know that at reasonable distances a camera phone gives a huge DoF with a relatively small f no and a plate camera gives a tiny DoF in the same circumstances.


I've deleted the rest, because it does drag it miles off topic.

Never s truer word. Owning a camera does not make you a photographer. If you don't understand the equipment you need you must not offer yourself for hire. You just risk giving all real pros a bad name!!

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Physics won't change between generations, though technical improvements are always made as the years go on

Which is why for example, a 7d2 can't compete with a much older 5d2 in terms of noise : sensor performance.

Can it compete with a 5D classic though?

 

[odd jim]

Can it compete with a 5D classic though?

Probably, though the 5dc was never that great to start with IMO (not that I'm saying it was a bad camera). I had one for a bit but sold it on. It wasn't much better than the 50d I was running alongside it at high ISO IMO (which of course is a couple of generations newer but I didn't get the 5dc on release).

I don't think Canon engineered it for very high ISO abilities as it was released early in the days of commercial / consumer digital cameras where we were already shooting at ISOs we weren't able to with our film cameras.

There's an 11 year difference between the two though so I'd hope Canon's modern crop tech could match it