Looking to Upgrade from a Rebel

<p>Hello, I am looking to upgrade from a rebel camera to a full frame camera. I've done some reading and I am most attracted to the ability to get nice wide shots. higher quality dof blur is also attractive. I have the 24-105 and am going to get the 16-35mm. If I have a rebel camera, then I would really not be getting much of the benefits from a 16-35mm lens right? because it crops it. <br>

I can get a used 5d for like $650, or a new 5d mark ii for $1,900. Is there THAT much of an advantage to get a newer model? I dont care so much about frames / second and some other bells & whistles. As long as its pretty good quality, full frame, and would utilize the lens to its ability, I will be happy.<br>

ANY thoughts, suggestions, etc. would be a warm welcome. Thanks so much<br>

Glenn</p>

<p>Have you looked at the 6D? It is about the same price as 5D mk ii, newer, with more bells and whistles you may like later on if not right away. I would think the 5D is a bit old. The 5D Mkii or 6D are good choices. If you really want to spring for it and search for the right price, you could consider the 5D Mkiii.</p>

<p>Certainly, for the money, a 5D is the best deal on a FF camera (IMO). While the 5D2 is a significant upgrade, it's primary advantage is in it's resolution, responsiveness, and the ISO range (5D tops out at iso3200). For general purpose shooting, you likely wouldn't be able to tell which picture was shot with each model. <br>

Also, you should keep in mind that FF (EF) lenses are typically more expensive than equivalant crop sensor (EF-S) lenses, and to maximize the potential of a FF unit, you may find yourself wanting better glass sooner rather than later. Sounds like you are on a reasonable path lens wise, but the 16-35/2.8 is a waste of money and weight on a crop sensor unit, as lenses like the 17-50/55 2.8s are far far cheaper, and just as good (on the crop). The down side is that they usually don't work on a FF unit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 5DII has higher resolution and better high ISO performance than the 5D, which means you'll be able to print larger and use it more effectively in lower light. Also, it's LCD screen is far superior.</p>

<p>Many photographers who have a 5DII, including myself, are passing on the 5DIII and have no interest in the newly announced 6D. In fact, there some who are even opting to buy the 5DII over the 5DIII, since the newer camera offers only marginally higher resolution (albeit has a superior AF system and slightly better high ISO performance).</p>

<p>We'll get more excited when Canon announces a full frame body with comparable resolution to the Nikon D800. :-)</p>

<p>I always feel most people who want FF have that desire because of some vague feeling that it's "better", without being able to pinpoint exactly why that might be. Who would want "crop" if you can have "full"?!</p>

<p>FF is more expensive and also bigger and heavier - which would seem like a big deal at a time when small mirrorless system cameras are all the rage! Unless you are planning on making huge enlargements, you might never see an IQ difference between a FF and a good APS-C camera, but to take full advantage of APS-C, you need to use the associated lenses. As you said, a 16-35 is not really wide on a Rebel, but a 10-22 is! Similarly a 24-105 is an inconvenient range of focal length on a Rebel, but that's why Canon is offering a 15-85. At shallow DOF, FF will always have the edge, but if you use a long lens and step back a bit, there is no reason you can't have shallow DOF with a Rebel.</p>

<p>If you really want FF, there is no reason not to go for it especially considering how affordable the original 5D now is, but it's worth taking one step back and considering the pros and cons of FF and APS-C - and there are both pros and cons for each!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Read the camera reviews for the 6D when the camera is available. As a former owner of three 5D's and one 1Ds2, my advice is to think about spending the extra money on the 6D for the newer technology and versatility over the 5D and 5D 2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We'll get more excited when Canon announces a full frame body with comparable resolution to the Nikon D800. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1, that, and, improved DR comparable to the D800. </p>

<p>In a nutshell though, the 5D is probably ~ 1/2 the camera the 5D2 is (In terms of modernities like the display, and speed, etc.), and 2/3 of the 5D2 in terms of flexibility, and perception of IQ. At 1/3 the price (especially on a budget), that makes it a heckuva deal. Just make sure you get one in good condition (since they are ALL used).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I always feel most people who want FF have that desire because of some vague feeling that it's "better", without being able to pinpoint exactly why that might be. Who would want "crop" if you can have "full"?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but the OP has stated some very valid objectives, at the very least that he wants shallower DoF capabilities. Given this, there can actually be some economy to a FF outfit. A FF body, plus a collection of f/4 lenses can render very slightly shallower DoF characteristics than a crop outfit with a more expensive collection of f/2.8 lenses (if shallow DoF shots are your thing). What's more, depending on how many lenses you want to carry, and of what type, a FF outfit can even be smaller and lighter. For instance, if you lust after L lenses, the f/4 FF outfit will almost certainly be lighter and smaller.</p>

<p>Of course going further, if one spends the extra money for a FF body to go with his/her f/2.8 optics, DoF will be much shallower in the FF outfit. On the other end of the spectrum, the broad depth of field capabilities are the same. FF photography can tolerate about 1+ stop smaller an aperture before diffraction becomes an issue, so FF and crop rigs have about the same DoF characteristics at their diffraction limits. And while it's true the FF rig will be at a smaller aperture, it also collects more light and can tolerate about a stop higher ISO, all other things being equal. Thus the FF rig simply gives the photographer a bit more usable aperture range, extending to slightly shallower possible DoF.</p>

<p>Of course if shallow DoF isn't your "thing," and you don't have to own/use L glass, the crop cameras might be a better match -- less expensive, smaller, lighter.</p>

<p>I see no reason why he should justify upgrading from a Rebel. If he's going to upgrade, why not go ahead and move to FF, particularly since he already owns the excellent 24-105mm.</p>

<p>Glenn, wider than 24mm on a FF camera is considered ultra-wide. If you've been relatively happy with your 24-105mm on a crop sensor, then you'll be overjoyed on one of Canons FFs. </p>

<p>I've owned the 5D MkII and now use the 5D MkIII. For pure IQ, the MkII is very, very close to the MkIII. Only above ISO 1600 does the MkIII start showing its advantage. The MkI doesn't compare to either above ISO 1600. With either the MkII or MkIII, you can go out and shoot night scenes with your f/4 lens. With just a bit of NR, they're both wonderful at ISO 6400.</p>

<p>Hold off on buying a lens until you've worked with full-frame a while. I suggest that your next lens is probably a 70-200mm or the new little pancake 40mm/2.8 (a wonderful street lens).</p>

<p>I haven't held the 6D, so I'm torn as to whether it'd be worth a few hundred more. I suspect that IQ is going to be very close and the build quality will be superior with the 5D MkII. Still, I don't know for sure.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the excellent responses. I think I may go with the 5d. I am not a professional, do not really blow up images to the extreme, and believe that an extra 1000 plus dollars is unnecessary for me. I DO love the idea of being able to take night shots without the headaches I have with this rebel. I think the mk ii would be really good with that. But I think that's an upgrade for another day. Thanks again.</p>