When to go FF

Yeah sorry your right should explain that a bit better! I didn't mean 'still life' I meant it more as nature ie butterfly's, woodland stuff ect (things outside that don't always move) The last couple of trips out I have been in a situation where the light has been poor so have turned up the iso to get the shutter speed. But personally anything over 800 on my 50d is far to noisy.
Still thinking about a 5d2 as I feel if im going to upgrade I might as well go ff now, but also been looking at the 7d? Any thoughts?

P.s im all covered on the pod front
 
Last edited:
With you now. I cheated and bought a 50D to complement my 5D. I'm quite happy shooting at 1600 on the 5D when I need to- though having grown up with film a bit of noise doesn't bother me.
I can't imagine you'll find the high high ISO performance of the 7D a big step up from the 50D- though the AF is probably much improved over the 50D.
I'd look at the 5Dii or 6D.
 
Bobby uk said:
Yeah sorry your right should explain that a bit better! I didn't mean 'still life' I meant it more as nature ie butterfly's, woodland stuff ect (things outside that don't always move) The last couple of trips out I have been in a situation where the light has been poor so have turned up the iso to get the shutter speed. But personally anything over 800 on my 50d is far to noisy.
Still thinking about a 5d2 as I feel if im going to upgrade I might as well go ff now, but also been looking at the 7d? Any thoughts?

P.s im all covered on the pod front
Click to expand...

I have a 5d2 and 7d and prefer to use the 5d2 for most things. If you can find the 6d for a good price it's well worth looking at as well though.
 
OH had a 50D (sold here recently) and then bought a 5D2, both complement each other, the 5D2 allows better use of 17-40 and 24-105 lenses....
go for it
 
Upgrading to FF for me was for low light ability and to get the most out of some beautiful primes.

And I shoot a lot of landscapes so finite detail was important and the ability to pull out shadow detail.

However, I still use my cropped bodies, it doesn't make them less useful, and I haven't suddenly lost the ability to produce good photographs from them :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Thanks for all the replies guys. ........ has anyone got a 5d2 for sale :D
 
I am still annoyed this is going to come out so soon after I bought a D610 thinking there wouldn't be a D700 replacement, but I'll probably get over it and buy one! My D300s is still well loved due to its nice size, pro build, good button layout and decent AF spread.
 
I think UK price for D750 will be more like £1800 - £2000 starting price. They never go for the same as USA price equivalent over here.
 
Full frame will give better quality but glass is far more important. What lenses do you have currently?

One other advantage of FF that is often forgotten is lens choice at a given focal length (or range of lengths). As an example, say you want a top-end wide angle lens - on FF you have the 17-40 f/4, 16-35 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4 IS to choose from. If you want the same field of view on a crop, you're looking at the EF-S 10-22. Much as that's a very good lens (I used to own one), it doesn't have the build quality nor weather sealing of the FF equivalents. The same applies to other ranges, such as the 24-105, the crop equivalent of which is the 15-85 which again lacks weather sealing and doesn't have the same constant aperture.

What I'm saying is that, if you're pursuing the best possible image quality then it's a factor of both body and glass and I feel the latter is actually more important. That said, if you're in the market for high-end glass, then such lenses are more "tailored" to use on FF than crop so the two kind of go hand in hand, regardless of any inherent quality differences between the sensor formats themselves.
 
When i went from my 60D to a 5DMKIII it wasn't just about FF, but for the camera itself.
A mate had the 5DMII and although it produce great images i felt the camera itself was pretty basic and not as ergonomic as my 60D. I had a play with a 5DMKIII and i felt so at home with it i instantly that i got it.
To me the 5DII lacked the nicer features of the more modern Canon camera's, and on the whole the IQ isnt that much over a mid range XXD body.

Of course FF was a bonus, and i had wanted the better high ISO's FF offered, but the downside was i had to change a few lenses, so the cost to go FF shot up.

I still dont think i need FF, and would happily jump back to crop If i had to (i still use my 650D), but the 5DMKIII is such a nice camera that i cant see me changing any time soon.
 
If you genuinely weren't fussed about FF but more the ergonomics of the 5D3 why didn't you get a 7D instead? Ok it's no 5D3 but the ergonomics are very similar and it's a fraction of the price.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Full frame will give better quality but glass is far more important. What lenses do you have currently?

One other advantage of FF that is often forgotten is lens choice at a given focal length (or range of lengths). As an example, say you want a top-end wide angle lens - on FF you have the 17-40 f/4, 16-35 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4 IS to choose from. If you want the same field of view on a crop, you're looking at the EF-S 10-22. Much as that's a very good lens (I used to own one), it doesn't have the build quality nor weather sealing of the FF equivalents. The same applies to other ranges, such as the 24-105, the crop equivalent of which is the 15-85 which again lacks weather sealing and doesn't have the same constant aperture.
Click to expand...

If you're looking at the 10-22mm you're not looking at the Canon 10-18mm and you're not looking at the various third party lenses available in that focal range either. I've had a Canon 10-22mm and I didn't rate it and it's not a lens I'd recommend but that leaves the other APS-C lenses to consider.
 
dave_bass5 said:
I still dont think i need FF, and would happily jump back to crop If i had to (i still use my 650D), but the 5DMKIII is such a nice camera that i cant see me changing any time soon.
Click to expand...

I think this would sum up my situation exactly, it was really only some redundancy money and the "double cashback" offer earlier this year that made me jump to FF.

David
 
woof woof said:
If you're looking at the 10-22mm you're not looking at the Canon 10-18mm and you're not looking at the various third party lenses available in that focal range either. I've had a Canon 10-22mm and I didn't rate it and it's not a lens I'd recommend but that leaves the other APS-C lenses to consider.
Click to expand...

Yes there are usually third-party alternatives but often not in the same class. Take the new Canon 16-35 f/4L IS as an example - you simply can't get an equivalent lens for crop which offers the same image quality, build quality or weather sealing.
 
Vertigo1 said:
If you genuinely weren't fussed about FF but more the ergonomics of the 5D3 why didn't you get a 7D instead? Ok it's no 5D3 but the ergonomics are very similar and it's a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...
Well I never said I wasn't fussed about it, just that it wasn't the only reason I got the 5D3.
I said I wanted better high ISO. Getting a 7D wouldn't have given me that.
 
Willid1 said:
I think this would sum up my situation exactly, it was really only some redundancy money and the "double cashback" offer earlier this year that made me jump to FF.

David
Click to expand...
Well the 5D3 is a very nice camera, and if going for FF I'd recommend it over the lower specified 6D.
IMO there are some really nice cameras crop cameras around now. The Higher ISO is better than it was a few years ago when I got my 5D3, and I would expect the soon to be released 7DmkII to be a very well specified camera.
If it was me I'd wait and see what this offers, it will also mean you have a bigger lens choice as well.
 
dave_bass5 said:
When i went from my 60D to a 5DMKIII it wasn't just about FF, but for the camera itself.
A mate had the 5DMII and although it produce great images i felt the camera itself was pretty basic and not as ergonomic as my 60D. I had a play with a 5DMKIII and i felt so at home with it i instantly that i got it.
To me the 5DII lacked the nicer features of the more modern Canon camera's, and on the whole the IQ isnt that much over a mid range XXD body.

Of course FF was a bonus, and i had wanted the better high ISO's FF offered, but the downside was i had to change a few lenses, so the cost to go FF shot up.

I still dont think i need FF, and would happily jump back to crop If i had to (i still use my 650D), but the 5DMKIII is such a nice camera that i cant see me changing any time soon.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised anyone would say "To me the 5DII lacked the nicer features of the more modern Canon camera's, and on the whole the IQ isnt that much over a mid range XXD body."

I'd disagree with the IQ part, certainly above 400 ISO.
 
hamacting said:
What is it that you cannot do with your 50D that you think the 5Dii would allow you to do?

In my case, it was my old 350D that was just not up to the job of taking low-light stage photos at at high ISOs. But if I was taking landscapes, I'd probably still be using the 350D
Click to expand...

The 350D was an excellent camera which could give excellent results even at high ISOs if you knew how to use a NR ptogram like Neat Image properly.

In fact most sensors haven't really progressed much from there as far as noise is concerned - what gives the impression of less noise at high ISOs is the varying degrees of onboard NR by the manufacturers and, of course, the larger image size of a FF which allows the noise at high ISOs to appear much less at any magnification.
.
 
odd jim said:
I'm surprised anyone would say "To me the 5DII lacked the nicer features of the more modern Canon camera's, and on the whole the IQ isnt that much over a mid range XXD body."

I'd disagree with the IQ part, certainly above 400 ISO.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, each to his own.
I will say this, no matter what I tried I couldn't get the 5Dmkii LCD to flip out ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top