Is Full Frame worth it?

hamster100

hamster100

Messages
818
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All

Pick your brains time, I am debating is it worth the extra expense to move to FF. I'm just a keen amateur and currently use a Canon EOS70D and I'm thinking about what my next body should be. I have a 18-135mm kit lens, but that is my only EF-S lens with all my other lenses being EF, a 50mm F1.8, 70-200mm F4 L and a 100-400mm MK II. Lots of my work is airshows and Motorsport, but i'm looking to get some decent filters have a go at landscapes.

Don't want to start a debate on equipment or Canon v Nikon as these have been done to death before, was just wondering what the experiences of those of you that have made the jump. I know that the lenses will be more expensive and all about the crop factor but I'm prepared to wait to save up for the right equipment.

So over to you guys & girls, the kettles on, so I'll sit back and await the your expert knowledge.

Doug
 
For airshows and motorsport, the extra reach from a crop sensor can bring huge benefits. Unless you are shooting in poor light, or want a wider angle, I don't think that you necessarily need to jump up to FF. All my airshow work has been done on a APS-C sensor to date. I love the fact you get so much more reach from the lens, without any extra effort.
 
Better image quality and noise handling.

What I guess I'm asking is the image quality that much better with FF or world I be better off just getting spending the money on better glass. I have seen what my 70D is capable of with L glass and am happy with the quality or would I see another step up in IQ?
 
I have both, and much as I love my 5D3, I would never give up my 7D2 (unless for a 7D3!) as I find the crop factor so useful for wildlife, aeroplanes etc. Yes, the FF files can be cropped more, but the subject is that much smaller in the frame and therefore harder to focus on. I love the 5D3 for portraits, low light, and the few landscapes I do, but for the moving stuff he crop wins every time.
 
hamster100 said:
Better image quality and noise handling.

What I guess I'm asking is the image quality that much better with FF or world I be better off just getting spending the money on better glass. I have seen what my 70D is capable of with L glass and am happy with the quality or would I see another step up in IQ?
Click to expand...
I would hire or borrow a FF camera to see if you can see any major difference.
 
I won't be getting rid of my 70D no matter what I get in the future, so that the best of both worlds might be the way to go.
 
Get yourself a 6D to dip your toe in.

I've got one and it's great.

Shame my back can't deal with all my kit. May have to look at a smaller system again. :(
 
You could get a used 6d from somewhere like Wex before shelling out on a latest body.
 
hamster100 said:
I won't be getting rid of my 70D no matter what I get in the future, so that the best of both worlds might be the way to go.
Click to expand...

I use both FF and crop bodies. Anything like a wedding or a portrait, the FF comes out. Anything moving at distance gets shot with the crop sensor. You won't be disappointed, and if you can justify keeping both, there is nothing but wins.
 
Image quality is a matter of personal taste, I don't think my DX (crop) images are poor in any way compared to what my FX (full frame) images now are, they are just a bit different

For high ISO, then yes FX; for shooting wide angle, then yes FX; for shooting longer lenses and wanting extra reach then DX; for cheaper great images then generally DX

Glass and technique is more important than FX or DX most of the time

Oh and save your money and don't buy any filters other than NDs, maybe a polariser if you must, grads are a waste of cash now sensors and PP is so good

Dave
 
Depends I think on which FF body you are after. I use a 760D, 7Dmk2 for my crop bodies and added a 5D4 to the mix early this year. For me personally there was no in-between FF body to justify buying one.

The 5D4 simply allows me to work around more extremes when a number of factors would render working with my crop bodies limited to capturing something way less than satisfying.

If conditions are great for a particular genre or subject my crop bodies do it well, though I now rarely use them other than when conditions offer me scope for utilising the additional reach at low ISO levels.

It's not that the other bodies have not served me well, more a case of having become used to having high ISO associated with clean images and a number of other performance gains associated with the 5D4.

I guess human nature pushes me toward using the body which gets me more of the shots which are not sitting, waiting to be had. So perhaps the crux of it for me is that frame size matters little compared to how the other component parts perform.

Put the same performance into a 7Dmk2 crop body, and what a tool one would have. For now, the FF body is my weapon of choice, but that's nothing to do with it being full frame.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for you thoughts and experiences. Just goes to show that there isn't a right answer, just the one that suits the individual best.

I will continue to use my 70D and give its some real thought before i part with any hard earned cash. If I do by a FF body, it's likely to be a 6Dmk II, i can't justify the cost of a 5d MkIV, but dependent on when i purchase it I will consider all options from 6Dmk I, 5D mk III

Filter wise, it will be some ND and a polariser to begin with, but that's another question...

and agreed I've nothing to lose, but some cash!
 
Went from canon 70D to nikon d750 (which is FF). The high iso capability of the d750 is really miles ahead, i have some wildlife shot at iso 5000 that i find still pretty good and shot milky way at iso 6400 with great results where i used to see great limitation from the 70d. I like wildlife and i replace my 100-400 mk1 by a sigma 150-600 c so kept the reach unchanged (also if i had a 150-600 on a crop sensor i would have even more reach...). I'm very happy with the upgrade.
 
Last edited:
There are other things to think about. Have a try and feel of a 6d and 5d series cameras. They are more different to handle than you might think.
I much prefer the glass lcd`s, 8 way controller , aperture ring / set button combo on the 5d series.
The 6d has 2 plastic lcd`s, no 8 way controller, and I don't like the aperture, set button, d-pad combo. Its too cramped for me and my fingers are quite small really.
 
GTG makes a good point - the cameras are often different in their control layout depending on the model that you choose.

My, personal uses, are very focal length limited - probably why I have some silly lenses! Having said that I find that FF cameras are superior under the majority of situations that I face. For reference my cameras are the 7D2 and 1DX and, unless I am expecting perfect conditions, then the 7D2 stays at home. Don't get me wrong the 7D2 is a great camera - but the 1DX is so much more reliable and gives great images when the 7D2 fails.

It is very much down to your personal uses and a good photographer will get great images regardless of what she/he uses. My preference is for full frame bodies - but that is a preference not a magic bullet!
 
I think it depends what you shoot to what you can justify spending! If your a wildlife photographer on a budget you'd buy crop and a 150-600 sigma! If you have deep pockets you'd go full frame with 600mm 2.8 prime at 15k total !

I'm a landscape tog with longest lens is 35mm and full frame Nikon! I'd never shoot wildlife unless two feet in front! I don't even bother trying as I can't afford it!
 
It's perfectly possible to shoot decent landscapes using a crop body. A good solid tripod, great glass and technique will contribute more than the change from crop to full frame IMHO. On the other hand, if you're producing A2+ fine art prints or shooting subjects in difficult light at high ISO, then adding FF will help.
 
Glass is more important.... indeed! Zeiss glass better on a d50 nikon than a D5 with a milk bottle on
 
One thing that stood out very clearly to me when I moved to full frame was how, when shooting a kids footy match, the players had much more separation from the background. This was using the same lens as on my crop frame camera.
 
Yeah full frame gives me more sense of depth and layers to my landscapes
 
Have a go, pick up a used 5D Mk2 and a used 17-40 f4, if you don't like it you won't loose much
 
You could wait a bit while you save up for the extra IQ you'll get from FF. Or you could just wait for a bit until the IQ of the latest DX sensor has improved to the IQ of today's FF sensor. That upgrade will cost you a lot less. The point is that while FF buys you extra IQ, the DX sensor cameras and lenses remain the technological sweet spot where you get the most IQ for your money. FF is well into the region of diminishing returns where you have to pay increasingly large sums of money for smaller and smaller improvements in IQ.

The reason I've stuck with crop sensor bodies is that at least 99.5% of my photographs are never viewed larger than Facebook can show (2048 pixels on the long side) or printed larger than A4. At that kind of downsizing the differences between a DX image and an FF image are simply not visible. I reckon I get better improvements in IQ by spending my photographic cash on such things as better tripods and lenses.
 
Is full frame worth it - Yes!

However - Lots of my work is airshows and Motorsport, - so depending on what lenses you have, then the crop factor must be taken into consideration for this. You can add a 1.4xtc to a full frame camera (autofocus to f8) on 5D mk3 as an example
 
Production cycle/availablity drove me to the 5D3, by that I mean I had (still have sitting unused!) a 7D but was getting disappointed by the AF not being as good as the next logical AF capable model the 5D3......note this was a good while before the 7D2 was out (only being mentioned in Canon rumors :LOL: ) plus the 7D files needed much too much care to control noise. I kept telling myself it was just like the nice grain in my film days!

Suffice to say I like my 5D3 and my biggest lens is the 100-400mm MK2

I have a watching brief on when & whether I can justify a 5D4, in an ideal situation if more money available then (bearing in mind AFAIK the improvement in lower noise) a 7D2 would be great to have as well.........oh, and a 500mm prime;)

I have to control the GAS urges and keep my sensible head on!
 
Last edited:
The biggest difference is signal to noise ratio. Nikons D500 already comes very close to matching the dynamic range of the D750 but falls off in signal to noise.

Canons 7D2 is way off the pace compared to a 5D4 and pretty far off the pace compared to a 6D2.

If you want to shoot high ISO with Canon then you are better off with FF.

I've had a 7D2, 5D3, 1DX, 5D4 and would take the FF bodies over the crop every time irrespective of crop factor.

I really miss the 1.3 crop sensor that was in the 1D4. That to me was the best of both worlds.
 
hamster100 said:
Thank you all for you thoughts and experiences. Just goes to show that there isn't a right answer, just the one that suits the individual best.

I will continue to use my 70D and give its some real thought before i part with any hard earned cash. If I do by a FF body, it's likely to be a 6Dmk II, i can't justify the cost of a 5d MkIV, but dependent on when i purchase it I will consider all options from 6Dmk I, 5D mk III

Filter wise, it will be some ND and a polariser to begin with, but that's another question...

and agreed I've nothing to lose, but some cash!
Click to expand...

If you go FF with canon, ensure that you don't get a really out of date focusing system like the one of the 6D.
I have a 7D2 and 5Diii and the options for focusing on the 5Diii are inferior to the 7D2 (which is similar to the 70D I think). Going backwards to t a 9 point AF system would really wind you up.
 
I agree. The 6D outside the centre point was woeful.

I regularly shoot with an outer AF point on my 5D4 and it's very accurate.
 
hamster100 said:
Better image quality and noise handling.
Click to expand...

That's down to the individual sensors as much as the format. Physics says that FF images can be sharper but sharpness is only one aspect of image quality.

There are two ways of thinking about it
  1. You've got a full frame itch which you've just got to scratch
  2. Your current system is limiting you in some way - in which case a change of format is just one aspect of the problem.
 
gremlin16 said:
the extra reach from a crop sensor can bring huge benefits.
Click to expand...


Sorry Sir, but that is a misconception; no
extra reach nor extra benefit in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Wow, thanks guys, some really good useful information and advise you've all given me. Some of which I hadn't given that much thought too like the handling and ergonomics of the body. I know they are larger and heavier but hadn't thought about the handling. I will try before I buy.

I just want to make sure that I make the correct choice before parting with my hard earned. It's not so much a desire to have the best gear, but after 40 odd years of taking pictures I still want to continue improving my photography and don't want to make the wrong choice. The money is not so much an issue as I will have to save up anyway, but just want to ensure I spend it wisely.

I'm in no rush, so I will do my homework first, and no doubt I will let you all know what I decide and of course post some of my efforts on TP

Thanks to you all

Doug

PS Keep the advice coming.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Sorry Sir, but that is a misconception; no
extra reach nor extra benefit in that regard.
Click to expand...

I am generally in agreement with you on this, however if you consider only the image seen in the viewfinder, then you 'appear' to have more reach (as the entire viewfinder is of a tighter crop of the scene), which may be an advantage in accurate placement of AF point, for example.
 
Let's be honest it's purely down to budget.

If money wasn't an issue how many would be extolling the 'benefits' of a crop sensor when they could be using a D5 and 600/4 for the air shows and motorsport?

Crop sensor has no benefits other than it's significantly cheaper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I bought a 5D3, but I wouldn't buy a mk 4, to me there's not enough improvement to justify the cost.
I wouldn't buy a 6D either, so for me if I had a crop that I was happy with I wouldn't buy a new Canon FF body.
I haven't looked at other manufacturers because of the investment I have made in other Canon parts and I like the service I get from Elstree.
In your shoes I might be looking at a low mileage 5D3.
Matt
 
Brazo said:
Let's be honest it's purely down to budget.

If money wasn't an issue how many would be extolling the 'benefits' of a crop sensor when they could be using a D5 and 600/4 for the air shows and motorsport?

Crop sensor has no benefits other than it's significantly cheaper.
Click to expand...
And lighter.
 
I have a 7d2 it's just great. I use mainly for wildlife but I use it for portraits landscape and macro work. My thoughts are I should be able to take decent shot with any modern camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top