Should i get full frame as well

billmac

billmac

Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Got a question for you guys I’m sure it has been asked before and am sure it will be asked in the future. What I want to leave out of this question is cost so I have the 7Dii and all L lenses the reason for this is I had the 6D before I got the 7Dii. My reason for getting the 7Dii was I do some wild life and aeroplanes motor sport (bikes) and I was not happy with the 6D. However I like to do landscape and try my hand at astrophotography. So I am think of getting a 6D again or a 5Diii. So what would you guys advice be that have crop and full frame stick with the 7Dii or keep the 7Dii and get a full frame as well.

Lenses 17 -40mm , 24-105mm , 70-200mm , 100-400 ii.
 
Likes already been said, what are you missing that full frame will give you?

If I were you though, I'd pick the 5Diii over the 6D everyou day of the week.
 
Sure full frame is good for landscapes, but unless you're printing large or displaying large it won't make a difference. Maybe compliment your kit with a crop specific wide lens like the 10-22 or 10 - 18?

Honestly, most people won't see a difference, especially on a screen. I've seen some sublime landscape shots taken with Canon Rebels, nevermind a 7d II.

I'm a 6d and 60d owner btw. If I could go back and start again, I'd still buy a 6d but not for the reasons I had dreamed up.
 
At least in my case landscapes are shot in good light with smaller apertures and low ISOs. Those are the circumstances in which it is most difficult to discern image quality differences between crop and full frame.
 
Buy full frame for better low light performance or critical detail resolution (in which case why no MF?), nowadays any other reason is a bit of a moot point.

All recent cameras are capable of exceptional images unless you are pushing the envelope in light and if you're not it's not worth worrying about.
 
There must be some reason why FF is still seen as a step up from cropped sensors. Low light performance, tonal quality, iq? Personally I would have both.
 
Archie747 said:
There must be some reason why FF is still seen as a step up from cropped sensors. Low light performance, tonal quality, iq? Personally I would have both.
Click to expand...
Due to using a longer lens for any given composition larger sensors receive more light (color/tonality/etc). And the larger physical size requires less enlargement for display, and is less demanding of the lens (sharpness/IQ). BUT, the difference in size between APS and FF is not that great, and they have made significant improvements in the efficiency of the smaller sensors. It's only in the very worst of conditions or large display/print that you will see any significant difference between them.
 
UaeExile said:
Because the 6D apart from offering full frame isn't very good IMO. Whereas the 5D's a great camera.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree, the 6d is a really great camera, but it has some designed in limitations* to ensure the 5dIII still gets its market share. The smaller form factor might split opinion, but carrying two all day I see it as a positive.

*3 generations old AF system (with the sweetener of an awesome centre focus point)

*Single card slot
 
Phil V said:
I'd disagree, the 6d is a really great camera, but it has some designed in limitations* to ensure the 5dIII still gets its market share. The smaller form factor might split opinion, but carrying two all day I see it as a positive.

*3 generations old AF system (with the sweetener of an awesome centre focus point)

*Single card slot
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just think they left the gap between the 5Diii and 6D too wide and I didn't enjoy using it.
 
UaeExile said:
Fair enough. I just think they left the gap between the 5Diii and 6D too wide and I didn't enjoy using it.
Click to expand...
I agree the gap is a bit wide, but I love using it, obviously a better AF system would make it perfect.
 
I love full frame.

However the 7dii is a highly regarded Astro camera, read @AndyB1976 's link. Arguably adding an astrotrac would yield better images for less outlay.

The major advantage of buying the extra camera is, having the extra camera as a back up. So when I owned a 7dii and a 5diii I decided that the differing reach was not a good thing so replaced the 7dii with a 6d. Then it was a proper backup, same field of view for my lenses.

Doing mainly landscape the 6d has become the main camera and I wish I had 2 of them instead. Lighter and a hair better iq.

Pixel peeping and importantly with colour especially highlight roll off I'd say I can see the difference between unprocessed raw files crop vs full frame but after processing and printing there is pretty much nothing in it until larger sizes.

Bit of a ramble so to answer your question for you with wildlife etc reach is king so stick with the 7dii. Even for aviation and motorsport it's AF is great and it has a better frame rate and buffer than the 5diii even. Probably add an astrotrac or a fast lens for your Astro itch. Arguably the 7dii is a good single file ISO 100 landscape camera, because you can push the shadows without banding it has a good usable dynamic range.
 
I'm not saying this a reason alone to opt for full frame but I'm mentioning it only because I rarely see it mentioned as one of the big benefits. Large view finder! I know this really only applies to DSLR's rather than mirrorless but it is something that I notice particularly when picking up an APSC camera after using full frame for a while. Really hard to adjust to. That said, not all viewfinders are made the same and I have no idea how the 7D2 stacks up. A 7D2 and 6d sounds like a nice pairing though if you have the spare £'s.
 
Phil V said:
I agree the gap is a bit wide, but I love using it, obviously a better AF system would make it perfect.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem was I was forced to free up some cash by going from a 5D3 to 6D so I was sort of dragged kicking and screaming to it!
 
I use a crop sensor for mainly wildlife photography, am tempted to go for the 6D as well but purely because I take a lot of badger pictures and the low light capabilities of the 6D would be beneficial.
 
billmac said:
Thanks for the replies.

danjama why would you still buy the 6D
Click to expand...

Because the image quality and low light quality is brilliant. People will tell you it's no good for focusing but they overstate this issue. It focuses amazingly in low light as the centre point as super sensitive. And I've used it to shoot very fast moving and hectic motorsports and had better results than with my old 60d with better fps and all cross type AF points. So the 6D is much better at focusing and fast action than people will have you believe. Also it's just a lovely camera to use. Very intuitive controls, lights but a good size, well balanced with most lenses. Just a joy to use and own. I loved my 60d before getting the 6d. They do compliment each other well, but the 60d felt obsolete in comparison. I know that's not technically true at all but its just a feeling.
 
Hi billmac,

This is my very humble contribution.

Hi have a 40D and a 5Dc.
I like very much the 40D. It's a very good body, more recent than the 5D, with faster AF (not necessarily better, though).
I absolutely love the 5D. Old tech, but incredible image quality, better ISO, etc..

I'd say full frame is always better if you don't need the extra reach, for the reasons others have already noted. Mainly with higher ISO.

I did this photo the other day, in very bad light, ISO 800, low shutter speed handheld near MFD . It was then uploaded to FB, so it was compressed again (loosing some quality).
It is very grainy and I enjoy it very much. :)
Anyway, my question: can you tell what body did I use?

15137542_424890157899092_6366740423690338102_o.jpg


Cheers,
Luis
 
UaeExile said:
Because the 6D apart from offering full frame isn't very good IMO. Whereas the 5D's a great camera.
Click to expand...
The 6d is a brilliant camera, I can shoot pretty much anything with it, from fast jets, birds in flight and F1 to serene landscapes. Its a very, very good camera (and this isn't fanboyism, I'm sat here looking at 4 different bodies, the 6d is by far the best even though some in front of me 'out spec' it on paper).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
This doesn't make sense, as the 6d is by far the better low light performer.
Click to expand...

His reasoning is to do with very low thermal dark current in long exposures, and deep analysis of the random/pattern nature of the noise characteristics. I've used both for Astro and the 6d is my preference but the 7dii is no slouch.
 
odd jim said:
This doesn't make sense, as the 6d is by far the better low light performer.
Click to expand...

He claims to own both, then subsequently goes through such a rigorous test so why would he say otherwise?


Final Comments

I am very impressed with this camera, so much so, that it is now my preferred camera for night imaging except when I need wider angles, then I'll use my Canon 6D, the next best low light camera in the Canon lineup. I'll also use the 7D Mark II for all my action photography. That makes the 7D Mark II an amazing all-around camera, from sports and wildlife action to night photography.
Click to expand...
 
AndyB1976 said:
He claims to own both, then subsequently goes through such a rigorous test so why would he say otherwise?
Click to expand...
The physics don't add up. I can't make sense of his numbers either? Can anyone on here make those work?

If it works for him then there's no argument which is best for him, but I do wonder if he is doing something wrong with the 6d. I don't find the 7d2 a patch on the 6d for low light and high(er) ISOs.
 
odd jim said:
The physics don't add up. I can't make sense of his numbers either? Can anyone on here make those work?

If it works for him then there's no argument which is best for him, but I do wonder if he is doing something wrong with the 6d. I don't find the 7d2 a patch on the 6d for low light and high(er) ISOs.
Click to expand...

His images are awesome though so id take it that he does know what he is talking about...
 
snerkler said:
Poppycock, there are numerous areas/scenarios where FF has an advantage (y)
Click to expand...
Disagrer they are different and with exactly the same body lens etc etc all being equal they are different.

So why not MF if sensor size is the only issue?
 
Why not anything? Everything is different, it's up to the individual to decide if the benefits are worthwhile (and FF does have benefits over smaller formats, that's physics). I've certainly seen technical benefits with my FF body over my cropped and 1" cameras.
 
andyscott said:
Disagrer they are different and with exactly the same body lens etc etc all being equal they are different.

So why not MF if sensor size is the only issue?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're trying to say with the first paragraph? But yep, MF has advantages over FF in the same way FF has over APS. Don't forget, when 35mm film was brought in it was considered small but helped bring photography to the mass markets, a lot of pros still used MF and LF. To a large extent APS digital cameras allowed DSLRs to enter the mass market as FF sensors were too expensive to produce (and still are for a lot of consumers) whilst MF are still über expensive now. Truth be told if ultimate IQ was your concern and you weren't limited by cost, size, weight, and file size I think we'd all be shooting MF, or even LF. However, there's always compromises.

That being said, the advantages of larger sensors has been diminishing at a rapid rate which is why we now have threads like this discussing why people would choose FF over APS. All things considered equal FF is still better, but not by much and for many not enough to justify the extra weight and cost.
 
Craig_85 said:
His images are awesome though so id take it that he does know what he is talking about...
Click to expand...

I agree they're awesome, but all that means is he's a great photographer who's good at using what he's using. It doesn't make the argument for the physics and maths.

In actual fact, if you're doing Astro to the level he does (tracking mounts, ending with hundreds of stitched and stacked shots) sensor performance is actually less important (though an advantage is still an advantage wherever that advantage lies).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Why not anything? Everything is different, it's up to the individual to decide if the benefits are worthwhile (and FF does have benefits over smaller formats, that's physics). I've certainly seen technical benefits with my FF body over my cropped and 1" cameras.
Click to expand...

And they are also worse in some ways (although I hate using better and worse, they're subjective terms).
 
Nawty said:
And they are also worse in some ways (although I hate using better and worse, they're subjective terms).
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about size and weight rather than IQ?
 
snerkler said:
All things considered equal FF is still better, but not by much and for many not enough to justify the extra weight and cost.
Click to expand...

My first paragraph was my fat fingers hitting the keyboard or too much whiskey, not sure which.

Anyway, the trouble is with electronics, FF and APS are never all things equal, different processing engines, different manufacture dates, different filters, etc etc. You can never compare apples to apples.

Better is subjective, alot of it is theoretical also, and never seen in the output, only by lab measurements.
 
odd jim said:
(and FF does have benefits over smaller formats, that's physics). I've certainly seen technical benefits with my FF body over my cropped and 1" cameras.
Click to expand...

Benefits? extra perceived reach? what benefits one does another.

FF body is different, different electronics, therefore different physics and engineering are at play.
 
andyscott said:
My first paragraph was my fat fingers hitting the keyboard or too much whiskey, not sure which.

Anyway, the trouble is with electronics, FF and APS are never all things equal, different processing engines, different manufacture dates, different filters, etc etc. You can never compare apples to apples.

Better is subjective, alot of it is theoretical also, and never seen in the output, only by lab measurements.
Click to expand...
Ahh I understand now. And to an extent you're right, and based on this you could say that it's pointless comparing Nikon to Canon, Sony to Fuji, cameras with and without aa filters etc etc. However, we have to draw a line somewhere in order to do some comparisons. I think when people refer to physics giving FF the edge they are talking about the fact that FF sensors gather more light than APS-C, and the fact that there's less enlargement of the image. These things are purely physics and not down to manufacturers, processors or anything else (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top