Body upgrade...full frame or not?

Steelo

Steelo

Messages
2,778
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking to upgrade from my 450d over Christmas as a treat for myself, and had the 7d in mind, and just in budget...I shoot primarily landscape, and now friends have thrown moving to full frame in the form of a 5d Mk2 into the mix...

Would moving to full frame, and especially the 5d Mk2, have a bigger advantage for me than the 7d?

I understand my lenses wouldn't be compatible, but i'm after a 17-40L anyhow, which would be fine on full frame?

Opinions/thoughts greatly appreciated.
 
I took my 5d2 out yesterday round a local park. I managed to get birds in flight, squirrels running about and landscapes, waterscapes etc. I had my 100-400L on most of the time and the light in the woods was fairly dull but I managed to get some excellent results. I didn't even take my 7d out the case for the first time ever.
 
The 5DmkII is the perfect camera for landscape photogrpahy. The IQ is noticeably better than the 7D and the viewfinder is also a big improvement. If you want an allrounder the 7D might be better, but for landscapes it's the 5DmkII any day.

Alex
 
Keep in mind that any move to a Full Frame body will have an effect on the lenses you may have, if you don't already have high quality Full Frame compatible lenses, you'll have to get some.

You may already know this, but just for anyone who doesn't know. ;)
 
I have a 5DII and a 60D (same sensor as 7D)
As already noted, the 5DII image quality is massively better; there is so much fine detail in the images that is missing from the 60D, regardless of what glass and settings I use on the 60D.

A couple of words of warning...

First, when I upgraded from a 20D to the 5DII I was initially disappointed with the results. It was better, but not the quantum leap I had hoped for. Turned out most of the problem was poor technique on my part. I had to look very hard at what I was doing (and why) before I started getting consistently good results.

Second, it is arguable that the fine detail that makes the 5DII so special will never appear in an A3+ print; so why buy a 5DII. I'm not convinced by that argument, the 5DII has a richness of texture in subjects like flowing water that seems absent in the cropped sensor cameras. Read this review and head on down to where he compares the 7D and 5DII. I've done a little testing of my own and I'm convinced that even at web size, these images would look no where as rich as they do from the 5DII. Putting this debate aside, the differences on an A3+ print are quite subtle :)
 
Stick in the mud me disagrees that full frame is magically better.

I find that even at A3 there's very little difference between MFT, APS-C and full frame unless you look very closely indeed and even then I don't believe that the differences can be said to be truly significant or unequivocally better. On screen, unless you want to view at very high zoom or crop small sections and view them large I don't think that there's any significant difference.

There are differences in contrast and saturation and things like that even between cameras made by the same manufacturer but I find that these things can usually be equalised in post capture processing. My own little experiments with both on screen and printed images, all taken with good lenses, have convinced me that at low to medium ISO levels it's next to impossible to see any real meaningful difference between the three previously mentioned formats and that it's difficult to decide what camera took what image and even with noise once the images are printed any differences may be nowhere near as easy to spot.

Full frame may get you a different shot as you'll probably be using different lenses and shooting from different camera to subject distances at different focal lengths and apertures but I don't think that these things make the images technically better, they're just different images. At higher ISO levels you'll very probably see an improvement in noise and with full frame you may get a bigger / better viewfinder and those things could be real benefits but it could equally be argued that in 99% of occasions a smaller and lighter kit could be preferable.

So, I'd say go full frame if you fancy it but don't expect your new camera to give you images that'll blow your previous images out of sight.
 
Last edited:
I changed this year and went full frame when the prices dropped and have no regrets, but you do have to think more about what you are doing, for me it was like going back to the film days.
I also do landscape, urban and portrait and am pleased with the results even though very few photo's will make it to A3 print.
Only downside for me was the poor performance in low light but I knew that when I bought it.
treat yourself if you can afford it
 
Disagree with woof woof, I have a G1 and image quality is not a patch on that if the 5D. If you get the exposure even slightly wrong, noise is noticeable even at base ISO. And the lack of bokeh is a real pain for subject isolation unless you have a mega fast lens. IQ of my 60d is decent enough, but Raw output from the 5D is definitely cleaner with more definition. But I pixel peep ;)
 
I think you have to go try it to see it. my d300 is great up to 1600 and upto iso 800 it will keep up with the d700 but over that the d700 is just wow, when i first got the d700 and used it out on a dull day taking pics of my kids the iso was up around iso 4000 to 6400 and i was worried when i saw that on the cam screen but when i got home it was like wow where is the noise (the d300 i would of maxed at 3200 and had to do alot of p&p), not only that the colours are just streets ahead.
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
Disagree with woof woof, I have a G1 and image quality is not a patch on that if the 5D. If you get the exposure even slightly wrong, noise is noticeable even at base ISO. And the lack of bokeh is a real pain for subject isolation unless you have a mega fast lens. IQ of my 60d is decent enough, but Raw output from the 5D is definitely cleaner with more definition. But I pixel peep ;)
Click to expand...

Oh dear, sorry that you aren't getting the results that you want from your G1. Sometimes when I'm having doubts about a piece of kit I look on line at the stuff that other people are producing with it and that usually inspires me to try again and this time to up my game. I have a G1 and I'm quite happy with the results at base to mid ISO even though high ISO shots were initially a disappointment with both it and my GF1 but since I realised that both tend to overexpose (IMVHO) and started to correct that and do some noise reduction in CS5 I've been much happier.

I don't really understand your comment about bokeh. I have a 14-42mm which gives acceptable bokeh. The key is to work with the focal length, aperture and camera to subject and subject to background distances and relationships. A 5D will appear to make shallow DoF easier, but the reason for this is that you'll probably be closer to your subject and things like this don't make a better shot, just a different shot. The character of the bokeh, if that's what you mean, is down to the lens.

I produced two prints today, both with my G1 and the person I did them for is very happy with them, one was a portrait and it got a "Oooh that's good."

I do think that full frame is capable of producing a better image but IMVHO the difference isn't massive and probably next to insignificant at low to mid ISO.
 
Last edited:
No Alan, that doesn't hold up.

Depth of field is dependant upon:
- physical aperture
- focussing distance

Physical aperture is related to focal length. f2.8 at 50mm gives an aperture half the size of that f2.8 at 100mm. 17.85 mm versus 35.7 mm.
When trying to compose the same shot on a 2.0x crop versus 1.0 crop you have two options.

1. Change Focal Length
A focal length of 50mm and an aperture of f2.8 on an Olympus E-P1 (2.0x crop) focussed at 5 meters gives a depth of field of 0.84m
A focal length of 100mm and an aperture of f2.8 on a Nikon D700 (1.0x crop) focussed at 5 meters gives a depth of field of 0.42m

2. Change Subject Distance
A focal length of 100mm and an aperture of f2.8 on an Olympus E-P1 (2.0x crop) focussed at 10 meters you obtain a depth of field of 0.84m
A focal length of 100mm and an aperture of f2.8 on a D700 (1.0x crop) focussed at 5 meters you obtain a depth of field of 0.42m

Whether you go for a different focal length, or reposition your subject you are in effect going to end up increasing your depth of field with a crop sensor. That's unless you are defying physics in some way?

In terms of subject distance, don't forget limitations on how much they fill the frame and MFD. Oh, and repositioning the camera or subject, assuming a fixed focal length, it's possible to get the same perspective on the subject with different size sensors, but not the same perspective also on the background.
 
Last edited:
ed_o_brain said:
No Alan, that doesn't hold up.

Depth of field is dependant upon:
- physical aperture
- focussing distance
Click to expand...

I don't know what your point is. What I said was...

"Full frame may get you a different shot as you'll probably be using different lenses and shooting from different camera to subject distances at different focal lengths and apertures but I don't think that these things make the images technically better, they're just different images."

and...

"The key is to work with the focal length, aperture and camera to subject and subject to background distances and relationships. A 5D will appear to make shallow DoF easier, but the reason for this is that you'll probably be closer to your subject and things like this don't make a better shot, just a different shot. The character of the bokeh, if that's what you mean, is down to the lens."

My point was that the images from different formats look different because you use different lenses, focal lengths, apertures and distances and that that makes shots look different... but not necessarily better.
 
I don't really understand your comment about bokeh. I have a 14-42mm which gives acceptable bokeh. The key is to work with the focal length, aperture and camera to subject and subject to background distances and relationships.
Click to expand...

Firstly, here you are confusing bokeh with depth of field. Bokeh is a specific quality of how out of focus detail and highlights are rendered. It is a fixed characteristic of a lens. You do concede that later on, but only after describing techniques to change depth of field in the context of changing bokeh.

Secondly, in some situations you are restricted in how much you can manipulate aperture and focussing distance/background distance in order to get your required depth of field. Smaller sensors are very limiting in this way.

I don't think that these things make the images technically better, they're just different images.
Click to expand...

Again this is wrong. The lower pixel densities of FF frame sensors over their smaller counter parts afford many benefits in terms of IQ. There are also benefits offered by the high resolution of the 5DmkII. The avoidance of very wide lenses in order to get the same FoV also helps improve IQ.

"A 5D will appear to make shallow DoF easier, but the reason for this is that you'll probably be closer to your subject and things like this don't make a better shot, just a different shot."
Click to expand...

Yes a 5D will appear to make shallow DoF easier and that is because it can physically achieve a lower depth of field for a given scenario.
If the OP (or anyone else for that matter) defines better as having more control over DoF than yes, you will get technically better shots with a larger sensor.

Your argument is a bit like saying you might as well buy a compact camera and decrease your distance from the subject relative to the background for all the benefit a full frame dSLR will give you. In the real world, unless you have full control of the situation, it just doesn't work like that.

I've used 1.0x crop, 1.5x crop and 2.0x crop extensively. The crop factor does have it's uses - 1.5x crop is perfect for my sports and product photography and in studio conditions, the image quality is comparable to what I'm getting at 1.0x crop. At a wedding in dubious lighting? Shooting a landscape shot? The 1.0x crop demonstrates a significant improvement.

2.0x crop is a headache for distortion. Great for candid work and documenting travel, but I wouldn't bother for any other regular commercial application.
 
Last edited:
I have a 5dmk2, but i have been planning a full frame upgrade for many years, and so had the associated kit for it (eg. lenses). I didn't even consider another camera. I do mainly shoot landscape though, and therefore it made the choice fairly straightforward.

The focusing is awful though, and i shoot manual focus a lot of the time. The viewfinder is good though, as is the soft shutter button (i hated it at first, but love it now).
 
Matt. said:
I have a 5dmk2, but i have been planning a full frame upgrade for many years, and so had the associated kit for it (eg. lenses). I didn't even consider another camera. I do mainly shoot landscape though, and therefore it made the choice fairly straightforward.

The focusing is awful though, and i shoot manual focus a lot of the time. The viewfinder is good though, as is the soft shutter button (i hated it at first, but love it now).
Click to expand...

Focussing in fine :shrug:.
 
Matt. said:
The focusing is awful though
Click to expand...

If you're having trouble using the AF for shooting landscapes, you have a faulty camera. 5D mk II's AF is good enough for shooting sports (check out my previous thread for some rugby pics), landscapes will give it no trouble at all.

A.
 
Matt. said:
I have a 5dmk2, but i have been planning a full frame upgrade for many years, and so had the associated kit for it (eg. lenses). I didn't even consider another camera. I do mainly shoot landscape though, and therefore it made the choice fairly straightforward.

The focusing is awful though, and i shoot manual focus a lot of the time. The viewfinder is good though, as is the soft shutter button (i hated it at first, but love it now).
Click to expand...

Compared to what? Focusing is fine, and there are very few cameras out there that are actually better. In the Canon range, only the 7D and 1-series cameras.
 
I really can't understand the issue people have with the AF on a 5DmkII (or 5D for that matter) been using a combo of these for years without issue.

How about a little more extreme then I think the 3rd photo in the below thread ( shot with 5mkII and 600mm f4 with 1.4x TC) should put the argument to bed for good! :)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=365848
 
Daniel,

I think we're at cross purposes and you've possibly misunderstood much of what I was trying to say. As I'm not too good withthe quote thingy and don't know how to quote in sections and answer please forgive me for doing it this way...

"Firstly, here you are confusing bokeh with depth of field. Bokeh is a specific quality of how out of focus detail and highlights are rendered. It is a fixed characteristic of a lens. You do concede that later on, but only after describing techniques to change depth of field in the context of changing bokeh."

There's no confusion, I know the difference and I did actually say that bokeh is down to the lens :D

"Secondly, in some situations you are restricted in how much you can manipulate aperture and focussing distance/background distance in order to get your required depth of field. Smaller sensors are very limiting in this way."

I know this and I did say that you have to work with it :D

"Again this is wrong. The lower pixel densities of FF frame sensors over their smaller counter parts afford many benefits in terms of IQ. There are also benefits offered by the high resolution of the 5DmkII. The avoidance of very wide lenses in order to get the same FoV also helps improve IQ."

What I actually said is that in my opinion unless you look very closely there's very little difference, except in high ISO performance and I also mentioned cropping and printing or viewing BIG. I can accept that you think otherwise and I'm quite sure that you can accept that for me in anything other than higher ISO situations I think that there's little significant difference, for me :D

"Yes a 5D will appear to make shallow DoF easier and that is because it can physically achieve a lower depth of field for a given scenario.
If the OP (or anyone else for that matter) defines better as having more control over DoF than yes, you will get technically better shots with a larger sensor."

Under the strict definition of "better" being having more control over DoF I'd agree that full frame could give more options in some situations but conversely there are situations or shots in which MFT, for example, will give you a shot that'll look like it has less DoF than a full frame image :D I think that generally although the images from different formats will be different it's up to the individual to decide if they are actually better :D

"Your argument is a bit like saying you might as well buy a compact camera and decrease your distance from the subject relative to the background for all the benefit a full frame dSLR will give you. In the real world, unless you have full control of the situation, it just doesn't work like that."

Nope, that's not what I said or what I meant, at all, please see my closing comments :D

"I've used 1.0x crop, 1.5x crop and 2.0x crop extensively. The crop factor does have it's uses - 1.5x crop is perfect for my sports and product photography and in studio conditions, the image quality is comparable to what I'm getting at 1.0x crop. At a wedding in dubious lighting? Shooting a landscape shot? The 1.0x crop demonstrates a significant improvement."

No need for me to comment, it's a personal thing.

"2.0x crop is a headache for distortion. Great for candid work and documenting travel, but I wouldn't bother for any other regular commercial application."

I don't get any significant distortion but I do agree with your other points.

My general point was that for me other than higher ISO usage I find IQ differences between MFT, APS-C and full frame to be generally insignificant. Images from the different formats may well look different, but IMVHO that doesn't necessarily make them better :thumbsdown: :thumbs: :D

Others are free to disagree and most probably will :gag: :D
 
Last edited:
Ahhh two the best ongoing arguements..."ff v aps-c v m43" AND "5D v AF"...both in the same thread :D

As primarily a manual focus lens user, my views are a bit different. I tend to use the same lenses on all formats for different reasons. This obvious restricts me with m43rds. A very fast (f0.95) prime might work for me, but I wouldn't want to spend that sort of money when I can use FF instead :)

Anyway, I stick to my view that the results from my G1 don't touch that of my Nex or 60D or k-x. I love the design of the camera though and the EVF is surprisingly good! Horses for courses ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top