Full Frame or not

Genoma

Genoma

Genoma

Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Posts
2,347
Location
Shropshire
So, I'm not really serious about this but must admit I'm toying with the idea.

I've been shooting with my 650D and 18-135 kit lens and a 50mm prime and really enjoying it. As you guys now I'm considering my glass upgrades. On the buy list there are the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. And at some point later add a EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS or Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

Now the first two are just over a grand in investment in crop lenses and it's bugging me... Should pull the trigger now on them or keep saving longer and just move on to a full frame body? I'm leaning towards stay on crop for next 12 months or so then rethink again on the basis of crop = more portability, less weight + less fear of loosing/breaking/having a 5D or a 6D setup stolen...

The EF-S lenses can always be sold later. Does this sound like a better approach? I think I'm just getting gear lust... Answers on a postcard please :D
 
I think you need a reason to move to full frame, and you haven't listed one. For me, the main driver is lower noise, and to be honest I'm not noticing that noise on my bodies (40D and 50D) is limiting me to any great degree.

Field of view is another driver, but with careful lens range selection that's not a big issue either. Also bear in mind that with full fame lenses, crop bodies tend to get the benefit of the centre optical sweet spot.

Also to my thinking I'd give up some features if I moved to an affordable full frame body (I'd be limited to a 5D or maybe a 1Ds II), stuff like older firmware, slower burst rates, no focus micro adjustment etc.

And lastly there are a few things that full frame doesn't yet have- a sub £1000 stabilised f2.8 general zoom like the 17-55, or lenses like the upcoming Sigma 18-35f1.8.

Everyone's criteria are different but that's my reasoning for not making the jump so far.
 
Last edited:
I've had the same thoughts. I've just bought the EF-S 10-22 but as I got it second hand (I paid £390), when I come to sell it on I'll probably get 95% of what I paid for it back as long as I don't wreck it in the mean time. I'll do the same if I ever get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8
 
Genoma said:
So, I'm not really serious about this but must admit I'm toying with the idea.

I've been shooting with my 650D and 18-135 kit lens and a 50mm prime and really enjoying it. As you guys now I'm considering my glass upgrades. On the buy list there are the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. And at some point later add a EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS or Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

Now the first two are just over a grand in investment in crop lenses and it's bugging me... Should pull the trigger now on them or keep saving longer and just move on to a full frame body? I'm leaning towards stay on crop for next 12 months or so then rethink again on the basis of crop = more portability, less weight + less fear of loosing/breaking/having a 5D or a 6D setup stolen...

The EF-S lenses can always be sold later. Does this sound like a better approach? I think I'm just getting gear lust... Answers on a postcard please :D
Click to expand...

Why do you want full frame?
As CGrieves says, you need a reason. Is it razor thin DoF which is way over used these days? Is it more light gathering? In which case how do you know you will do any better than a 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8? e.g, many people end up with a 24-105mm f/14 on their 5D because they gawk at the price of the 24-70 - but then you have just lost the advantage FF had over a crop + 17-55mm f/2.8. And even if you got the 24-70mm, you have given up on IS, so are you sure you will get photos in lower light (hint, FF will gain you around 1 stop, the IS around 3 stops for static subjects)?


Don't fall for the peer pressure and buy a FF just because you think it is a must do thing. There are as many cons as pros - not least you end up with big expensive bodies with big expensive lenses and have lost a ton of reach for sports and wildlife




Lastly, there is nothing wrong with buying crop lenses and when you finally decide you will make use of a FF camera selling your gear and moving. the amount of money lost in selling the gear is minimal compared to the massive increase in cost of buying a FF setup. E.g., you spend 5500 quid on a 5DMKIII + 24-70 + 16-35 +accessories and would only loose a few hundred quid on selling your old gear. In the mean time you have used the old gear for a few years so the daily cost of rental might be like 20p a day, per photo might b 1-2p.

if in doubt buy second hand and the loss is minimal to non existent. Heck, it is possible to make a profit!
 
I love full frame. If you can afford it I'd say go for it.

That said, what others have said is a valid point.

Something I would say mind, is if you're considering going FF in the future, don't bother with the 70-300, for the same price buy the 100-400. If you want something for wildlife, and Motorsport and stuff, the 70-300 will be fine on crop, but when you go FF you're going to miss that extra 100. Plus, the 70-300 doesn't work with the extenders I don't think. As someone who has FF and had to make the 70-300 vs 100-400 option, whilst the 100-400 is heavier, considering they're practically the same price, it was so much more worth it. But, I'm still finding myself wanting a 70-200 (or prime equivalents) for portraiture/parties.

kd
 
All I know is I would never want to shoot with an APSC DSLR again instead of 35mm.
I played with an x-pro1 today but it's just not the same, although I loved the camera body itself. Also full frame camera & lenses don't have to be big.

Personally I'm waiting for sony to release their interchangeable lens equivalent of their RX1.
Having spoken to a tipsy olympus employee, apparently they are pooling allot of R&D resources and sharing tech with Sony such as their impressive stabilisation & autofocus.
I can't imagine how cool it would be to shoot a small compact and light full frame camera with fast lens that also focuses fast, especially when combined with very high performing stabilisation. It would likely be a lowlight king, so I'm already weighing up a possible system change when the time is right.


 
An Exception said:
I can't imagine how cool it would be to shoot a small compact and light full frame camera with fast lens that also focuses fast, especially when combined with very high performing stabilisation. It would likely be a lowlight king, so I'm already weighing up a possible system change when the time is right.
Click to expand...

That would be the dream eh!?

But it will happen, one day.
 
Other thing to factor in is exactly what you shoot.

I have a full frame but still use my crop because its really handy for shooting anything ranged such as motorsport, wildlife or any event where I take my camera and I'm a long way back.

I'd imagine you also haven't had a 650D that long?
In which case your money would far better be spent on glass which will outlast any DSLR anyway.
 
The glass won't outlast the body if he caves later down the line and decides to jump on FF.
If that happens, he would be better off getting what he really wants to begin with. I suspect Op will likely have an itch he cannot scratch if he stays with APSC.

Sometimes for certain personalities the right decision isn't about 'needs' as it is about 'wants'.
 
An Exception said:
All I know is I would never want to shoot with an APSC DSLR again instead of 35mm.
I played with an x-pro1 today but it's just not the same, although I loved the camera body itself. Also full frame camera & lenses don't have to be big.

Personally I'm waiting for sony to release their interchangeable lens equivalent of their RX1.
Having spoken to a tipsy olympus employee, apparently they are pooling allot of R&D resources and sharing tech with Sony such as their impressive stabilisation & autofocus.
I can't imagine how cool it would be to shoot a small compact and light full frame camera with fast lens that also focuses fast, especially when combined with very high performing stabilisation. It would likely be a lowlight king, so I'm already weighing up a possible system change when the time is right.
Click to expand...


Show me a lightweight lens that covers FF with a reach over 400mm. :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
That would be the dream eh!?

But it will happen, one day.
Click to expand...

Something tells me the day may not be that far away. I mean who would have thought about a full frame compact(ish) camera with an F2.0 lens?
If you would have said this before the RX1, people in forums would likely have laughed at you, or attacked you for not understanding physical limitations.
 
An Exception said:
Something tells me the day may not be that far away. I mean who would have thought about a full frame compact(ish) camera with an F2.0 lens?
If you would have said this before the RX1, people in forums would likely have laughed at you, or attacked you for not understanding physical limitations.
Click to expand...

Well, you can already with a Leica for a few years now (Sony isn't the first technically) so it's only a matter of time for the tech to filter through.
 
I said over 400mm, e.g. something in the 500mm range with usable aperture. The Nikon 500mm f/4.0 is nearly 4kg and costs the same as a small car. A 300mm F/4.0 is 1.3Kg and is 6X cheaper.
Thus for wildlife and sports FF just is not a suitable tool for people with realistic price and weight restrictions.
 
D.P. said:
I said over 400mm, e.g. something in the 500mm range with usable aperture. The Nikon 500mm f/4.0 is nearly 4kg and costs the same as a small car. A 300mm F/4.0 is 1.3Kg and is 6X cheaper.
Thus for wildlife and sports FF just is not a suitable tool for people with realistic price and weight restrictions.
Click to expand...

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-tc-14e-af-s-teleconverter-ii/p13020?cm_mmc=googlebase-extension-_-camera-lenses-_-converters-_-nikon-tc-14e-af-s-teleconverter-ii_13020&utm_source=googlebase-extension&gclid=ck-g1pezybgcfegwtaodixmazw
 
Some great points guys, thank you very much. I'll comment on some of these tomorrow but in summary my thoughts were driven mainly by the need to buy new glass, and the need to go for crop glass first feeling a little counter intuitive. Secondly image quality, there seems to be a certain crispness factor to some of the FF photos I've seen around that is very very impressive. Night / noise sensitivity is less of a need to me. Lastly is probably just gear lust... :)
 
An Exception said:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-tc-14e-af-s-teleconverter-ii/p13020?cm_mmc=googlebase-extension-_-camera-lenses-_-converters-_-nikon-tc-14e-af-s-teleconverter-ii_13020&utm_source=googlebase-extension&gclid=ck-g1pezybgcfegwtaodixmazw
Click to expand...

And what are you going to put it on that is so light to get a reasonable aperture , e.g. F/4.0 or f/5.6 at a push?
The Nikon 200-400 f/3.0 is still around 3.2Kg. F/8 on the 80-400 just wont be sufficient.

The fact is bigger sensors require more glass to provide sufficient coverage. Longer lenses require more glass to maintain sufficient apertures. The end result is larger sensors lead to very large, very expensive lenses.
A TC doesn't mitigate that, you loose the stop of light gathering and get softer images with worse AF. At best you end up more or less where you would have been using a crop camera, except in a bigger more expensive package.

No free lunch.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
Another full frame thread, another time DP trashes on shallow DoF despite it having nothing to do with his photography...
Click to expand...

Over done HDR or selective colouring has nothing to do with my photography either and I am quite comfortable trashing those as well.:D
There is a time and place for razor thin DoF - not every shot needs or best suited to it, even in portraiture. There is far more to taking flattering portraits than getting 0.01mm DoF highlighting a single eyelash.
Now don't get me wrong, the ability to minimise DoF or maximise light gathering van be invaluable in some circumstances, none of which the OP has mentioned as a critical requirement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom