Beginner Full frame or not

Moorcroft

Moorcroft

Messages
3
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Eeveryone

This is my first post and I'm looking for some advice.

I have a Canon 7d and Canon F2.8 17-55mm which I use most of the time. I also have a Canon f2.8 200mm L lens. My photography is mainly indoor of groups and individuals and sporting events such as Indoor Bowls but not action shots.

My quandary is whether or not to change to a full frame Canon 6d with a Canon f4 24-105mm lens. The 17-55mm is a cracking lens and is faster than the f4 24-105mm. The full frame format will give a better bokeh with close-ups.

What do members think?
 
If what you've got gets the results and you're happy with it, why change? - or is it an itch you've got to scratch?

Going to the larger sensor will allow a shallower depth of field (although none of the lenses you've listed are fast lenses for razor thing depth of field) but it won't give better bokeh. Bokeh is not a function of sensor size, it's a rather nebulous, subjective and qualitative property of the lens in combination with the shooting conditions and settings. A larger sensor does show the some of the character of the edges of the image circlecast by a lens that a smaller sensor doesn't, but this may or may not be the quality of bokeh you're looking for.
 
Moorcroft said:
Hi Eeveryone

This is my first post and I'm looking for some advice.

I have a Canon 7d and Canon F2.8 17-55mm which I use most of the time. I also have a Canon f2.8 200mm L lens. My photography is mainly indoor of groups and individuals and sporting events such as Indoor Bowls but not action shots.

My quandary is whether or not to change to a full frame Canon 6d with a Canon f4 24-105mm lens. The 17-55mm is a cracking lens and is faster than the f4 24-105mm. The full frame format will give a better bokeh with close-ups.

What do members think?
Click to expand...

Welcome to TP :)

The advantage of full-frame is better image quality (sharpness, noise, dynamic range) and reduced depth-of-field (for same framing, at same f/number - if that's an 'advantage'). Set against FF's greater cost, size and weight.

The difference in DoF is just over one stop, eg the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 - it's certainly noticeable, but not massive. Try that comparison and see what you think. But to get that advantage on a FF 6D over your current outfit you'd need an f/2.8 lens, eg 24-70/2.8.

'Better bokeh' is pretty vague. If you mean more blurred background, then there are other ways of enhancing that, as well as reduced DoF. Try to get the subject as far from the background as possible, and be sure to fill the frame. Often the most effective technique is to move back and shoot with a longer lens, which has the effect of enlarging the background relative to the subject so it stands out much more. Try that with your 200mm/2.8 against the 17-55/2.8 and there'll be a very significant difference.
 
Last edited:
It isn't an easy choice to make and the difference in real terms between the ranges of the two lenses is not a lot. I suppose it comes down to whether or not a full frame has any advantages some of which you mention and the benefits or otherwise of Canon 7d v 6d.

By bokeh I was meaning depth of field and losing distracting background which you covered.
 
bovey9 said:
I know its a mind blowing amount of money but if there is any way you can stretch to the 24-70 F2.8 MKII it's a stunning lens, so much sharper than the MKI and the 240-105 F4
Click to expand...

I second this. I went from a crop with a 17-55 too. The only way to keep the quality in my opinion was to go with the 24-70II. It is a fantastic lens and the price has come down but it is still a lot of money. Personally I would skip right over the 24-105. That lens is unimpressive to me.

:canon:
 
Moorcroft said:
It isn't an easy choice to make and the difference in real terms between the ranges of the two lenses is not a lot. I suppose it comes down to whether or not a full frame has any advantages some of which you mention and the benefits or otherwise of Canon 7d v 6d.

By bokeh I was meaning depth of field and losing distracting background which you covered.
Click to expand...

If you can live with the different framing use a longer focal length and/or reduce your camera to subject distance and you'll get a different look.

One possible disadvantage with FF is if you want more DoF you may well find yourself shooting at smaller apertures and raising the ISO to keep your shutter speed up. Personally I think that for handheld shooting the sweet spot is more MFT/APS-C than FF... but I live in northern England where the light is often relatively quite poor.
 
bovey9 said:
I know its a mind blowing amount of money but if there is any way you can stretch to the 24-70 F2.8 MKII it's a stunning lens, so much sharper than the MKI and the 240-105 F4
Click to expand...

That was a really hard pill to swallow when I went full frame. I too had the 17-55 2.8 and didn't want to go backwards in performance so the only real choice was the 24-70II. The good news it has come down in price some. At least it's cheaper than what I had to spend. And yes, it is a great lens.
 
exactly the same, I still have the 7D but couldn't afford to keep the 17-55IS...lovely lens

So I went with the Tamron 27-70 VC
much cheaper than the Canon. nearly as good and I have tested them side by side. However, one thing in canon's favour is the focusing speed which is supposed to be better.
on the flip side, the tamron has VC which is unavailable to canon (or nikon)
It's a great lens, esp for indoor shots for this purpose. so f/2.8 and IS...great combo.
Full frame is lovely but not essential really. the 6D will get you nicer images in challenging light, I think. esp versus the 7D.
However, you will really miss the focusing points on the 7D. My advice would be to borrow a 6D and see if you can live with it.
Also then you have to change your memory cards too. CF -> SD
 
Full frame will mean you can only use full frame lenses. Crop frame allows you to use both full and crop. You can get wider with full frame at the same focal length, but that also means you need a physically bigger lens, which is not always a plus due to weight. This is in fact what crop frame is mostly for: being able to design smaller, and hence cheaper (most of the time), lenses.

I use a full frame most/all of the time, but in today's technology, a crop frame with the proper lenses works just the same. Unless you are going Medium Format, this is where you will see th difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top