Full Frame…Help!

Everyone…I am thinking about the jump to Full Frame. Currently I shoot with a 7D and I have a T3i as a backup. Ive been thinking about selling the T3i and a few low end lenses and getting into a used full frame. I don't shoot weddings or major events. I do lots of landscape, birds etc but I would like to concentrate on children and family portraits. I don't have the budget for anything brand new. Used 5D II can be found for under $1000

All Canon Lenses: 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 17-55 2.8, 75-300 5.6. , 60mm Macro 1.8, ULTRAWIDE 10-22 , 400mm Prime L series 5.6
Canon 580EXII Speed lite and 320ex as backup

All feedback and suggestions are welcome and appreciated…

Thanks!!

Hi jerrytech1..........your situation is very akin to what I did some time ago.

Despite many negative comments, the 5D2 and 7D combo has brought me lots of joy. My preferred shooting subjects also resemble yours closely.

I use the following (all Canon) lenses: EF 24-105mm f4 L, 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L, EFS 10-18mm as well as 430EX11 x 2 and Manfrotto tripods.

It is a sensible and versatile combo leaving some money in the kitty for more (always more!) lenses and other kit.

regards

James

Keep in mind that you can get a refurbished EOS 6D for only $1,099.00 + tax/shipping. That'll likely be a better option than a used 5D II for not much more.

Look out to 6D, not only the good old 5DMkII!

As many of you know, a while back I picked up a 1Ds2 (just before the 6D was announced), and loved it. The controls are a bit cumbersome, but it made nice pictures, with much less noise than the 7D until ISO 1600, but at ISO 3200 it just falls apart. A 5D2 will be similar, I expect. Good until you hit the ISO wall, and likely won't have Canon repair support much longer.

I got a 7D2 at launch, and the 1Ds2 ended up being neglected in favor of the higher-ISO capable and much lighter 7D2. Sports shots require fast shutter speed, so I often have higher ISOs. Late in the day, I just couldn't use the 1Ds2 anymore, so it just stayed home. But recently, going through my Flickr photostream, I noticed the 1Ds2 shots. They really stood out, and I got me thinking about upgrading to a newer full-frame. Which limitations would I be willing to accept to afford a newer full-frame camera.

Alright, so full-frame is nice, but are the IQ improvements I saw purely because of the full-frame sensor, or is it partially 1D specific? I know the 1D series does more work in analog before converting to digital, and it handles highlights really nicely. Would I be happy with the 5D3 or 5Ds, or do I crave some secret 1D magic, pushing me to a 1DX or something? I'm assuming the 6D won't keep up with my sports AF requirements.

So yeah, it's definitely worth considering, but if you cheap out too much, you might end up with a camera you can't always use. Try to avoid that. The 6D is newer, and has higher ISO capabilities, and can likely be found for a similar price. On the other hand, it's likely like the Rebel of the full-frame line, and has less controls. Is there a limitation of the 6D or a feature of the 5D2 pushing you to the 5D2 over the 6D?

If I get to the point where I am seriously considering the full-frame upgrade, I'd probably rent each body on successive weekends, and compare the results vs. price differences to try and answer the "Do the magic 1D secret sauce exist?" question. That may not make as much sense in your price-range, where the rentals costs would be a fair chunk of the body price, but that's my thought process about the upgrade...

For landscapes and portraits the 6D would be a great option. Coming from a 7D you probably will not like the 6D & 5DII auto focus but for landscapes and portraits they are fine. You can pick up a 1DsIII for ~$1100. You will love the auto focus system and the IQ is great. I do not hesitate to shoot ISO 1600. If needed I do shoot 3200 but have to do significant noise reduction. Another great option is not quite full frame but closer. The 1DmkIV for ~$1500. Due to its larger sensor the IQ is better than the 7D. It is great for landscapes and portraits but also beats the 7D for sports. I shoot a 1DsIII for landscapes and portraits and a 1DIII for sports. I love them both. My 5D sees no action anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytech1

Everyone…I am thinking about the jump to Full Frame. Currently I shoot with a 7D and I have a T3i as a backup. Ive been thinking about selling the T3i and a few low end lenses and getting into a used full frame. I don't shoot weddings or major events. I do lots of landscape, birds etc but I would like to concentrate on children and family portraits. I don't have the budget for anything brand new. Used 5D II can be found for under $1000

All Canon Lenses: 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 17-55 2.8, 75-300 5.6. , 60mm Macro 1.8, ULTRAWIDE 10-22 , 400mm Prime L series 5.6
Canon 580EXII Speed lite and 320ex as backup

---

As others have said, look to the 6D. Far better IMHO than a 5D2. You are going to have some work to do lens-wise, as your 10-22, 17-55, and macro are all EF-S. Having lived with APS-H + APS-C for 5+ years, then transitioning to FF/APS-H/APS-C (only lasted for a month) then FF/APS-H and now essentially FF with APS-H on the shelf if I really need it, you're going to find that if you try to use your APS-C to shoot wide and FF to shoot long, you end up with disappointment on both ends. You're going to want perhaps a 16-35/4IS (allowing you to sell your 10-22 and possibly your 17-55, since you have 50/1.4 and 85/1.8). You may also want to ditch the 75-300 and 400/5.6 for a 70-200/4IS (or non-IS if that works for you). I think 6D/16-35 and 7D/70-200 would be a fine combo for a while, especially with either of your fast primes handy.

Fair warning: you may find the 7D to be rather weak alongside the 6D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Alright, so full-frame is nice, but are the IQ improvements I saw purely because of the full-frame sensor, or is it partially 1D specific? I know the 1D series does more work in analog before converting to digital, and it handles highlights really nicely. Would I be happy with the 5D3 or 5Ds, or do I crave some secret 1D magic, pushing me to a 1DX or something? I'm assuming the 6D won't keep up with my sports AF requirements.

So yeah, it's definitely worth considering, but if you cheap out too much, you might end up with a camera you can't always use. Try to avoid that. The 6D is newer, and has higher ISO capabilities, and can likely be found for a similar price. On the other hand, it's likely like the Rebel of the full-frame line, and has less controls. Is there a limitation of the 6D or a feature of the 5D2 pushing you to the 5D2 over the 6D?

If I get to the point where I am seriously considering the full-frame upgrade, I'd probably rent each body on successive weekends, and compare the results vs. price differences to try and answer the "Do the magic 1D secret sauce exist?" question. That may not make as much sense in your price-range, where the rentals costs would be a fair chunk of the body price, but that's my thought process about the upgrade...

---

Disclaimer: my experience with 6D is limited to a single four-day rental because one of our 7D bodies was in for repair. I shot two charity walks with it, something we enjoy doing but absolute image quality is simply not a factor (getting the images culled/cropped/delivered fairly fast is). I didn't notice any secret sauce with that camera. I'd rented a 5D prior for a charity event, but wasn't experienced enough to really look for the sauce.

OMG, yes, there's some sort of secret sauce in FF. I feel like almost every EF (as in "every Canon lens that's not an EF-S") lens just makes more sense on FF, and the images are just more WOW across the board. This goes for 5D3, 5DsR, and 1Dx, having owned 40D, 7D, 1D3, and now 5D3, 5DsR, and 1Dx, while also having rented 5D, 5D2, 6D, and 7D2.

Amongst other things, years ago I had a nifty fifty. I used it on my 1D3, and once I finally went back to TDP's review and realized that it was best if I stopped down to f/2.8, I discovered that it was a decent lens, but felt the focal length just wasn't all that amazing (and with a 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS, and later a 24-70/2.8, it didn't serve a purpose, and got sold). Now that I've gone FF, I've picked up the 50/1.2 and wowsers. Sure, I can shoot with that lens for a while and just crank out magic all day long. I had a blast at a baby shower shooting the kiddos playing with bubbles and such.

Some years back, I was using a 7D and bought a 5DII. I found the IQ to be much better, although the AF was not as effective. I continued using the 7D for birds, but switched to the 5DII for everything else. Agree with the above that the 6D should also be considered.

I suspect your biggest future issue will be lenses, as your standard zoom, your ultrawide zoom and your macro lens are all EF-S. Macro is a toss up for FF vs. APS-C, so I'd say that's not a priority. Also, most FF standard zooms start at 24mm, so if you use your ultrawide mainly at 15mm or narrower, you'd be covered for FF. I'd look into a used/white box 24-105 f/4L as a standard zoom to replace the 17-55/2.8 (the FFeq of the EF-S is 27-88mm f/4.5, so the 24-105 is wider, longer, and faster).

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

OMG, yes, there's some sort of secret sauce in FF. ... This goes for 5D3, 5DsR, and 1Dx, having owned 40D, 7D, 1D3, and now 5D3, 5DsR, and 1Dx, while also having rented 5D, 5D2, 6D, and 7D2.

---

Okay, you're the guy to talk to then. ;) So, "the sauce" is purely full-frame, and not 1D specific? If so, maybe a 5D3 is in my future. If I get "the sauce" without the weight or price of a 1D, then that sounds perfect.

(Hopefully this discussion is useful to jerrytech1, and anyone considering full-frame, too.)

Just to be clear...will all of my current lenses work on the 6D or 5DII?

Your EF-S lenses will not work with either the 6D or 5DII - 17-55 2.8, 60mm Macro 1.8 (is this really the EF-S 2.8?), ULTRAWIDE 10-22.

Thanks everyone! Lots of information to process!

Some of those lenses won't work. I'd also recommend the 6D, the quality is fantastic. I switched from a 6D to a 5DmkIII (purely due to docus points) and then to a 5Ds (too much money to burn).

The 6D is great for landscapes and great in low light (shot a few gigs with it and it didn't miss a beat), but it's focus point selection is incredibly primitive both in types of focus points and actual focus points available. The 5dmkIII is far superior in that regard. However, the 6D is still a fantastic camera and the image quality is amazing.

Already a lot of good advice. As someone who jumped from the 7D to 5DIII, I just want to add a few thoughts:

• At least for me the jump felt like more of an incremental improvement in several areas. The IQ from the 5DIII is better, especially low light, highlights, transition between areas of contrast, and bokeh. But in terms of "what can I take" that I couldn't take before, do not underestimate how good the 7D is and the fact that the 7DII and 80D (maybe even T6i) will have better IQ than the 7D. I think you will notice the improvements right away, but the
• Lens selection. I just want to echo what someone else said and more lenses were intended and designed for FF compared to APS-C. This is great, but, if you start buying those lenses, it is not cheap.
• Along these lines, APS-C seems built for utility. I had a wide range covered with my 7D, EFS 15-85, and 100-400 L. Slower glass, sure, but for travel, walking around, and just taking pictures, amazing. Because of the larger image circle, FF does not have an equivalent to the 15-85. To have faster glass covering the same range I find myself with more lenses. Which, in the end cost me more, and has made traveling a bit more cumbersome.

I don't want you to misconstrue my intent, there are advantages to full frame. I would just think about what you want, what you need, and why you want to make the jump. APS-C is very capable and actually has a few advantages, particularly, convenience.

I love my 7D and have no intention of parting with it. My thinking is this: my T3i sits in the bag and never gets any use. If I make the move to the 5DII or 6D, I will still have 2 bodies with a nice assortment of lenses for both. Plus, I will use both cameras for their respective assignments. I will have 2 outstanding choices for every shoot, as opposed to just keeping the T3i as a backup. The FF would be my primary for portraits and the 7D for landscape, wildlife, sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Okay, you're the guy to talk to then. ;) So, "the sauce" is purely full-frame, and not 1D specific? If so, maybe a 5D3 is in my future. If I get "the sauce" without the weight or price of a 1D, then that sounds perfect.

(Hopefully this discussion is useful to jerrytech1, and anyone considering full-frame, too.)

---

To summarize, yes, the 1Dx blew away my 1D3 by a mile. Both were 1-series high-frame-rate variants (no difference once you get to the 1Dx, but it was 1D vs. 1Ds back in the day of the 1D3), and it was only a 0.3x crop delta, not the full 0.6x of APS-C. It could have also been two generations of technological improvements, as the 5D3 didn't immediately jump out at me as magical, and we bought that one first, though admittedly it was a bribe to my wife ("here's a new camera. Hope you don't mind me buying a bunch of lenses now too.") and I didn't shoot much with it (still haven't). The 1Dx impressed me so much (moving from a 1D3/7D pairing to a 1Dx/1D3) that I bought a second 1Dx within 8 weeks, moving my beloved 1D3 from primary to benchwarmer in that amount of time.

Now, for the sake of mention, even though the 5D3 has the same AF sensor as the 1Dx, it doesn't have near the CPU horsepower (1 Digic vs. 3; 2 for imaging and 1 for AF/exposure), and IMHO this makes an appearance in how the AF works. To me, it's just not the same. I wasn't thrilled with it when I shot our dogs at the dog park with a 70-200/4IS (a fantastic performer IMHO), though again a disclaimer is relevant here: I was new to the menu options at the time. However, I found confirmation (and justification...) after reading this review: http://chrisgilesphotography.com/blo...g-photography/ and added a 5DsR to our fleet shortly thereafter. Wow. Just wow. I had been the strongest 1D-series addict known to my corner of the world for years, whether it be the build quality/feel in hand, control customization options (I was addicted to ISO on the big wheel, extremely useful in Av so the two sides of the triangle that I controlled were immediate knobs with no need for a button push prior), AF, IQ, whatever. Now, the 5DsR is my "first-alarm" camera for EVERYTHING unless bad weather, unpredictable sports, or a perceived need for an extra 1/3 stop of sync speed causes me to begrudgingly reach for a 1Dx. My second 1Dx has moved into my wife's bag to be her "long lens/action/high-frame-rate" camera.

So, not to turn you away from a 5D3, but do take a good, long, hard look at a 5Ds of one sort or the other. I'm still consistently blown away at the clarity and detail. Here's just one sample: I ordered a new softbox that's supposed to create a perfectly round catchlight (even though it's not round). I had a friend go along, set up the light, and took one shot (gosh I love TTL). 5DsR, 70-200/2.8IS (yes, the old model). I forget the EXIF but I think it's ISO 100, f/5.6 at 1/200th. I zoomed in on the LCD and said "You're wearing colored contacts!"...go ahead, zoom in on it: http://photos.templin.org/images/hexoval-102.jpg (yes, the lashes are fake too...I knew that already)

When I got a ff I was surprised how wide 24mm was. I did the math before hand and understood what would happen, but I was so used to shooting at 24mm with the 7D. But you soon get used to it and I have since got a 16-35 that I use a lot (time to sell the 24-105). The 400mm is going to be at the other spectrum of the issue, but if you keep your 7D you will not have a problem, but I found I could crop the ff files more than the 7D.

If it was me, I think the ff would be my goto camera for landscapes... not the 7D because the noise is controlled better (especially in low light).

After all other considerations, the big improvement the ff cameras will give you is the high ISO capability and the better control of noise overall (which also equates to more head room in sharpening and lifting shadows in pp). I found this alone solved a lot of the problems I had with the 7D. A lot of low light shots will open up for you. However, the low light improvements will be less so if you go to far back into earlier generations of camera's. This is why everyone is pushing the 6D over the 5D II.

By the way... my 7D never got used anymore. I gave it to my nephew.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Thanks peety3. I'll do some digging. Of course, by the time I'm ready to buy one, there will be new models to compare. ;)

thanks everyone for all the feedback. awesome...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytech1

Everyone…I am thinking about the jump to Full Frame. Currently I shoot with a 7D and I have a T3i as a backup. Ive been thinking about selling the T3i and a few low end lenses and getting into a used full frame. I don't shoot weddings or major events. I do lots of landscape, birds etc but I would like to concentrate on children and family portraits. I don't have the budget for anything brand new. Used 5D II can be found for under $1000

All Canon Lenses: 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 17-55 2.8, 75-300 5.6. , 60mm Macro 1.8, ULTRAWIDE 10-22 , 400mm Prime L series 5.6
Canon 580EXII Speed lite and 320ex as backup

All feedback and suggestions are welcome and appreciated…

Thanks!!

---

The images you are getting now are really good. If the budget is tight I think you're better off staying with what you have...

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

The images you are getting now are really good. If the budget is tight I think you're better off staying with what you have...

Dave

---

Thanks Dave!