Opinions Wanted: Canon Full Frame dSLRs

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

10/26/2013 03:57:22 PM · #1

I currently use a Canon 50D and am wondering whether it is time to upgrade to full frame. Anyone willing to jump in with the pros and cons? Weight is probably a con, and larger sensor a pro. But I am interested in differences in image quality. I shoot mostly landscapes, architecture, and macro. Rarely do portraits or sports.

Also, how would I choose between the 1DX, 5D Mark III, 6D, or 7D?

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

10/26/2013 04:13:02 PM · #2

Ok... Easy question. :D

I used to own the 50D, and I now have a 5D and a 1DmkIII(1.3x not FF)..
First things first - the biggest difference is in how your lenses will 'feel', full frame is much wider.
Next, you're going to notice noise, or rather the lack thereof. (this is huge, can't stress how much it matters, and the 1D is just as good, actually, better)..
Obviously, there's a ton of other minutia, like how it messes with 1:1 work, and the corner performance of many lenses, along with vignetting, etc. But the two above are the 'big deal' when it comes to the upgrade.
Note that your 'long' lenses will now be quite noticeably shorter.

So... How to choose?
First, the 7D is a crop, like yours, so that's out.
The 5D MkIII is great, especially if you want a more rugged camera with CF cards.. The 6D's performance is out of this world in terms of high-iso, and the cost is really low.
The 1Dx? It's the best camera Canon makes. So, if you've got the money to spend... That's a damned fine way to go. I can attest, there's nothing quite like a 1D when it comes to the 'feel' of the whole thing.

With that being said.... The 6D and a couple of replacements for those EF-s lenses in your collection might be a smarter choice for the limited budget. (and if the budget really is somewhat unlimited, screw Canon, go to a medium format camera like the Phase One 645DF+ ....)

Message edited by author 2013-10-26 16:14:16.

kirbic

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

10/26/2013 04:20:11 PM · #3

Looking at your lenses, you wouldn't take a hit on the wide end with the loss of use of your two EF-S lenses, but you don't really have a very wide lens for either FF or APS-C. What FF is going to gain you is the opportunity to get more narrow DoF, and of course larger pixels do help with image quality in other ways. Not to say that today's APS-C cameras are bad at all.
FF lenses must be larger, and are accordingly more expensive, for the same level of performance. APS-C has an advantage on the telephoto end, and FF on the wide end (though very good, very wide lenses do exist for APS-C. Whether FF is an advantage for you personally depends on your needs. I can tell you that for me, one big benefit of FF was the increase in pixel-level detail. It's noticeable.
As for specific camera bodies, the 1DX is just a beast. If you really need that level of performance in frame rate and AF, great... but most of us don't. The 5D MkIII and the 6D are both great cameras, and are very similar in image quality (the 6D has somewhat superior high-ISO performance). The 6D is marketed as a lower-cost FF option, so there are some compromises. DPReview's Conclusions on the 6D gives a good overview of what is different between it and the 5D MkIII. One specific thing to note is that the 6D uses SD cards, not CF, so you would need to replace your cards.

Message edited by author 2013-10-26 17:08:39.

10/26/2013 05:02:30 PM · #4

Great information. Thanks! I will not be using the EF-S lenses whether I buy a new body or not. Replacing CF cards with SD would not be a deal breaker. Now to look at the reviews on the 6D.

10/26/2013 06:48:00 PM · #5

Basically, the main gains you'd get with FF are the potential to get shallower DOF and the ability to shoot in the dark. The two main downsides are cost and weight.

The thing, though, is that other than your macro lens, you're using a bunch of slow, inexpensive lenses. You will probably get more improvement, more cost effectively by upgrading your lenses. The lens contributes to image quality as much as the sensor, and good lenses last a lot longer without losing their value than a body will. If you choose carefully you will be able to use the lenses on a FF camera as well, or sell them for nearly as much as you paid for them when you need something different.

Thinking about the advantages of FF...

Ability to shoot in low light...if you're shooting nighttime sports or concerts, you probably need this. For daytime outdoor shooting, this isn't that important. At lower ISOs, even small sensor cameras don't have much noise now.

Depth of field...you can get about one stop shallower DOF with FF. That's great, but with your lens collection, you can do far better than one stop of DOF by adding an inexpensive prime or two to your lens collection. The 50mm f/1.8 comes to mind here.

Bigger/better pixels...this is real, to a certain extent, although pixels are all pretty darn good these days. I just bought one of these this week, and it has some really excellent pixels, on a sensor that's smaller than what's on your 50D.

Anyway, I have a FF D800, and it takes awesome pictures, but there are definitely tradeoffs. I ended up spending a lot more money than I expected to reconciling my lens collection after I bought the body. I also don't bring it with me as many places as I used to because everything's so damn heavy.

10/26/2013 08:41:40 PM · #6

Weight is definitely a consideration. I have to use a tripod most of the time anyway, but get tired even carrying what I have now. (That's more a problem of me not being in shape than it is my equipment.) I recently shot using the EFS 17-85 and was so disappointed with the results I won't even use it now. I have gotten good results with the EF 28-135. So hard to decide what to buy and how much to spend. :-)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/26/2013 08:56:43 PM · #7

Originally posted by Elaine:

So hard to decide what to buy and how much to spend. :-)

No kidding. So many options out there. If you can narrow things down to a couple of choices, you might consider renting each for a day and see what you think for yourself. Keep in mind that it's like buying a buying a new car. Any new model, FF or APS-C, is going to be more awesome than your 5 year old 50D, so be sure you compare current model to current model.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

10/26/2013 09:54:25 PM · #8

There's always the new full frame Sony A7!

But as Ann said, glass is important...and I'm going to say something a bit out-of-the-box here. In digital, I've had compact cameras, APS-C, now full frame, and even bought the latest APS-C. I don't like lugging a lot of camera equipment around...well it's ok, if I'm going somewhere specifically to take pictures, but there are so many more times when great pictures abound, but you don't want to be carrying stuff.

So before you go investing in great but heavy FF glass, why not consider a mirrorless camera instead? The Oly's are great and compact, the Fuji's have great low light performance, and the Sony line now even has APS-C and FF compacts.

A year or so ago I bought the RX100, which isn't really a replacement for an SLR, but it convinced me that convenience and lightweight trumps all, especially when the photos are good enough! So now, I keep looking at, and considering, lighter lines of cameras. The only downside is that they too require an investment in good glass, and the good lenses aren't really any cheaper than full sized lenses. But you're going to feel better carrying it around everywhere!

Edit: Fixed model number of Sony!

Message edited by author 2013-10-27 22:54:57.

Tiberius

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/26/2013 10:36:00 PM · #9

Originally posted by Elaine:

I currently use a Canon 50D and am wondering whether it is time to upgrade to full frame. Anyone willing to jump in with the pros and cons? Weight is probably a con, and larger sensor a pro. But I am interested in differences in image quality. I shoot mostly landscapes, architecture, and macro. Rarely do portraits or sports.

Also, how would I choose between the 1DX, 5D Mark III, 6D, or 7D?

Sounds like 6D.

I love mine. With the 40mm pancake is travelling with me almost everywhere.

Edit: I also have a mirrorless. While also awesome and very light and compact IQ can not compare with the 6D.

Message edited by author 2013-10-26 22:37:20.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/27/2013 12:14:20 AM · #10

Originally posted by Tiberius:

Edit: I also have a mirrorless. While also awesome and very light and compact IQ can not compare with the 6D.

Don't forget that your 6D is 2+ years newer than the E-PL1, and things have been moving forward quickly in the mirrorless segment of the camera market.

While I would never consider my Sony RX100 II a substitute for my D800, the difference has less to do with IQ and more to do with DOF and overall flexibility. Used in the right conditions, the quality of the pixels coming out of the Sony is surprising. Like Neil, I've been investigating lighter options. I have no intention of getting rid of the D800, but I find that I miss a lot of shots because I left the D800 at home.

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

10/27/2013 04:11:29 AM · #11

In my view if weight/size is a consideration then a dSLR is the last place to look.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/27/2013 04:59:03 AM · #12

For landscape and architecture FF is probably the better way to go, more detail, but for macro I think you take a hit with FF because at such close focusing distances depth of field can be insanely narrow, too narrow, and difficult to focus manually. The deeper DOF of a smaller sensor then becomes a benefit.

You can still manipulate DOF on the smaller sensor'd camera (aps-c) to obtain narrow DOF (just as you would with FF) using variables of lens focal length, shooting distance to your subject and subject distance to background, aperture and still be able to accomplish your goals. Narrow DOF in wide angle shots though are a lot easier with FF. A way around that with a smaller sensor'd camera is to employ stitching or the Brenizer Method, if you have the time.

If you're printing large, say larger than poster size, FF will make a difference but you probably wouldn't be able to tell one smaller print from another. Also, consider you may need to upgrade to a more powerful computer to handle the much larger file sizes of FF. A 64 bit machine with a ton of memory. More money to invest.

My pennies worth to help you make an informed decision.

Tiberius

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/27/2013 06:29:48 AM · #13

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Also, consider you may need to upgrade to a more powerful computer to handle the much larger file sizes of FF. A 64 bit machine with a ton of memory. More money to invest.

My pennies worth to help you make an informed decision.

True!

10/27/2013 09:59:39 AM · #14

Originally posted by Tiberius:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, consider you may need to upgrade to a more powerful computer to handle the much larger file sizes of FF. A 64 bit machine with a ton of memory. More money to invest.

My pennies worth to help you make an informed decision.

True!

Thirded. The cheap laptop I had can't handle modern file sizes.

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

10/27/2013 10:13:45 AM · #15

My computer has been upgraded recently, so the only likely expense will be another hard drive, and that's going to have to happen pretty soon anyway. I would consider mirrorless once I have all the dSLR gear I ~~need~~ want.

MAK

Leica CL

09/24/2014 03:47:29 AM · #16

My Fuji XT-1 has easily replaced the need for a DSLR and all my kit fits in a small bag and weighs less than my old D800 with the 28-300.. the IQ is very similar, the difference between FF & APS-C is very little these days but the weight difference is staggering!

P-A-U-L

Canon EOS R6

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

09/24/2014 04:34:02 AM · #17

Originally posted by Elaine:

I recently shot using the EFS 17-85 and was so disappointed with the results I won't even use it now.

One of my favourite photos was taken with the EFS 17-85 lens though I do have a love/hate relationship with it - mostly hate these days as I don't think it recovered from a couple of days in a field in the rain

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/24/2014 12:21:16 PM · #18

maybe instead of a new camera you get yourself a new lens, like the Canon 10-22.

i haven't noticed much improvement in my landscape work since i went to full frame. then again i haven't used a great wide angle with it either. my old 60D with a canon 10-22 performed just as well as my 5D with a 17-40L.

portraits are a whole different story...

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/24/2014 01:40:56 PM · #19

FWIW, this thread is 1 year old...it was reawakened by a spammer.

Leo

Apple iPhone Xr

09/24/2014 03:29:54 PM · #20

And OP Elaine has moved on to FF Canon 6D and EF lenses...

Message edited by author 2014-09-24 15:30:16.

kirbic