Are full frames affordable yet?

<p>If I ever go digital I must be able to use my collection of EF lenses the way they were meant to be used; no crop factor. I haven't kept up with DSLRs at all so I have no idea what the market is like, used or new. I believe the first Canon FF came out in 2005. Not sure if it is wise to go back that far. </p>

<p>I think the newest Canon (6D) is around 1500.00, so I guess that is affordable.<br>

Regards, B...</p>

<p>Depends on what you claim is affordable.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Sensor+Size_Full-Frame&ci=6222&Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&N=4288586280+4131729766">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Sensor+Size_Full-Frame&ci=6222&Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&N=4288586280+4131729766</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Depending one whom you ask, the answer will be a resounding yes. Or an equally forceful no. Some might be in the indecisive camp and answer maybe. In either case, it depends on your definition of "affordable" which you didn't care to share with us.</p>

<p>You state you have no idea what the market is like - so check new prices on B&H, adorama, or amazon and used prices on keh.com and ebay. In short order, you will have a pretty good overview of what the market looks like....</p>

<p>I think Dieter hit the nail on the head. "Affordable" varies person by person, as well as whether or not they are open to considering the purchase of used as well as new equipment.</p>

<p>Brian, I cringe when people start using words like 'must'. If you want to get into the exciting world of digital imaging I think you should jump in as soon as possible without putting up arbitrary barriers. Digital imaging is different than film and then again it isn't because it is still about seeing. It's just that you have much more control of the process. How are your computer skills? You can buy for instance a Canon T3i with an 18-55mm kit lens for $439 at Adorama for example, a very competent EF-S camera that will have you taking fantastic digital images, instead of sitting around saying 'what if', and learning digital work flow and post processing raw files.<br>

http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3IKR.html<br>

Jump in the pool and get wet the sooner the better. The more you learn the better decisions you will make going forward. Good luck! </p>

<p>How about a secondhand Canon 5D (original)? $1500 is not affordable for a lot of people. It is more than most people paid for a good 35mm camera pre digital.</p>

When you go digital you become the lab. Unless you like ultra wide angle lenses an anti-APS-C format bias is a bit silly

frankly, and if you like longer focal length lenses you'll be in for a pleasant surprise. Your brain will very quickly adapt to understanding that a 50mm lens on an APS-C format camera covers the same angle of view as an 80mm on a 24x36mm format camera.

<blockquote>

<p>I must be able to use my collection of EF lenses the way they were meant to be used; no crop factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know where the notion arose that it is somehow not desirable to use EF lenses on a crop. There is virtually nothing to it. Yes, you are lugging around a little more glass than you need, but EF lenses work fine on crop-sensor cameras. In fact, there are some lenses designed for FF cameras that work better on crops. E.g., the Tamron 28-75 is a very sharp lens and a very good deal in that range, but its a tad less sharp in the corners. Put it on a crop, and those unsharp areas don't hit the sensor.<br /> <br />I'm nearing the time to replace my camera and have mulled over the FF /crop choice for an unhealthy amount of time. There are reasons to choose FF (e.g., less high-ISO noise, shallower DOF at a given aperture, a better range for wide angle), as well as reasons not to (less reach for a given FL, heavier and more expensive glass, more expensive body, fewer pixels on the subject in macro work). Ef/EF-S doesn't make the the list, IMHO.</p>

<p>My line for DSLR affordability was $1,000 - entirely arbitrarily drawn. The 300D was the first DSLR to fall below that line, new and with kit lens nonetheless. In my eyes it is still a landmark camera for that reason. Of course by the time I had all my ducks in a row with regard with selling off film gear and being ready to pull the trigger on a purchase, the 350D had already come out, and I went with that model.</p>

<p>As for new FF cameras, they have not crossed that affordability line yet, but I did take notice when used 5D crossed it a good long while ago. The price actually went back up again shortly after, when that horrible tsunami in Japan slowed production on newer models. That said, by now used 5D are regularly available under $500, which I consider very affordable.</p>

<p>As a side note, I find it a little preposterous to tell other people that their requirements for considering buying into a camera system are 'wrong'. I wanted a camera under $1,000 and I wanted to be able to use a 17mm FF equivalent lens with it. When Canon brought out the 300D and 10-22, I got excited. Before then, I was simply not interested. If somebody has a bag full of EF lenses, I think it's not unreasonable to want to use them at the intended angle of view - especially if they are wide angles.</p>

There is a vast difference in base quality between a 5D Mark I and a 5D Mark II, even at low ISO. Just keep that in mind.

 

 

I'm sorry if I offended you. I come from a background of using large format cameras and lenses. I never thought twice

about using the same 90mm lens on a 6x17cm format camera, or on a 4x5camera with 4x5, 6x12cm, 6x9cm or 6x7cm film.

<blockquote>

<p>the way they were meant to be used</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never heard of any lens designers for the 35mm format back in film-only days insisting that their lenses should not be used on 'single' or 'half' frame cameras.</p>

<p>Moreover, most modern lenses that work on both formats have already been redesigned for "digital" and work equally well on APS-C- and 35mm-size, if with different coverage. <br /> My P6 mount Olympic Sonnar 180mm works just fine on 35mm, and at least one version of it was made convertible for both formats (35mm and 6cm) right out of the factory.</p>

<p>Since I was asked what my line for affordability is, I have to say $500. May be I don't want it bad enough but this is the figure that would seriously start tempting me. From what I have gathered so far, today $500 buys you the bottom of the barrel FF. With all the electronics and what not, I am not so sure it is a wise buy but I am willing to be persuaded by the Canon gurus here.</p>

$500.00

 

Back in the mid '90s I photographed a Compaq (remember them?) annual conference where Bill Gates was the keynote

speaker. He made a lot of interesting points, one of which was that appliance manufacturers had over the years

done a lot of market research and time after time what they found was the point at which people who weren't experts in a field considered an appliance

affordable was $500.00. At $500.99 they'd be leery, $499.99 and the average consumer felt like they were getting a

bargain. He said this had been tested repeatedly over the years, and no matter what the state of technology was, $500.00

was the sweet spot for most people unless they could be convinced otherwise.

 

You are new to digital. I have no idea what your photographic interests are, but I think I have a pretty good idea of where

your digital processing skills currently are. If the Canon EOS 5D Mark I is in good shape and has been well taken care of,

that's a fine price. It will get your toes wet and leave room in your budget for a raw processing program like Lightroom

(although you should first check out Canon's DPP program as it's free and is quite good, just not very efficient) and a

tutorial or three.

 

One more thing: Have fun. Too many people seem to take photographic equipment, processes, and paraphernalia way

too seriously. Just go out and have fun exploring.

<p>I guess it all depends how you look at it, but a few years ago everybody was drooling over the 5D! When it came out in 2005, MSRP was $3299 if I recall correctly. Sure, there are better cameras out there now, but to call it 'bottom of the barrel' seems a little harsh to me. But then I am still shooting a 20D, and am pretty happy with the results. I guess that would be way below the barrel - down there, kind of in the muck!</p>

<p>Kidding aside, both of these cameras are still as good as they were when they came out. Only some people's expectations have expanded. For somebody coming from film now, I reckon a 5D would be a very nice start, and a pleasant surprise in many ways, such as low light capabilities. Remember ISO400 slide film? And there wasn't anything faster for sides! If you compare that to ISO1600 in a 5D, I reckon one could not help but be pleased!</p>

<p>Last but not least regarding cost, I painfully remember what I used to pay for film and processing! I put in orders with B&H for more than $500 for slide film and E6 processing mailers. That 5D should pay for itself in no time!</p>

I shoot professionally. Throughout the '80s and '90s my film, processing and Polaroid bills consistently ran ~$18,000K per

year. I love the look of film and while I knew how to process E-6 and C -41 as well as B&W film, make unsharp and

contrast reducing color masks, I was glad I had professional labs who did that for me. With digital I am not only back to

being my own lab tech (one with seemingly infinite control over processing and the appearance of every single pixel in an

image) but in many ways a also the equivalent of the film manufacturer too. That is both a plus and a minus: a plus for the artisan-craftsman in me, and a negative for the business owner I am.

 

Two booksyou might enjoy: " The Digital Negative" and " The Digital Print" , both by Jeff Schewe. They are modeled on

the Ansel Adams books ""The Negatve" and "The Print."

<p>I am purely an amateur, but I have shot SLRs since I was about 13, and that's longer ago than I'd like to admit. Ellis is somewhat of a celebrity around here, and somebody whose advice I have come to trust in my years on Photo.net. I certainly cannot compete with his experience, but I can ad that even for an amateur the near total control gained by digital photography is a two edged sword. </p>

<p>On the one hand it's great to be able to fine tune a gazillion processing parameters, and with a comparatively steep but short learning curve you should be able to get better results than any minilab ever gave you for your prints from negatives. On the other hand the question remains how much time you want to invest into developing that skill set, and how much money you want to spend on processing software and hardware. As for software, Photoshop is no doubt the industry standard for professionals, and I was in the lucky situation to have free access to it up CS2. Then I decided to change to the completely free open-source software GIMP, and I have not regretted that decision yet. </p>

<p>I am not familiar with the books Ellis recommended - might have to check them out - but a book that has helped me a lot is 'Professional Photoshop: The Classic Guide to Color Correction' by Dan Margulis. Despite the term Photoshop in the title, it is generic enough for the concepts to be applicable regardless of processing software used.</p>

<p>They are a heck of a lot cheaper than perhaps a decade ago or so when the only FF bodies with in the $8000+ range, not adjusting for inflation.</p>

<p>Since Canon's original EF lens lineup was designed for their EOS film bodies, and all of those took 35mm film (with the exception of the APS 'EOS IX'), it is not going too far to say that a 35mm sensor is 'how they were intended to be used'. Whether that is an important criterion in photography is another matter.</p>

<p>To get back to the subject: you can now pick up an original 1Ds or 5D cheaply. They lack Live View and other refinements of newer digital bodies, but if you think of them as 35mm film SLRs which just happen to have a digital sensor instead of film then they work well.</p>

<p>My digital awakening came in 2007, when I bought a Canon G7 P&S. It was a nice little camera, but what really pulled me in was the ability to make a few tweaks to contrast, the RGB curve, crop and level (only occasionally) and get results far superior to the labs I'd used in the past. Never touched film again.</p>

<p>I may have read too quickly through all the posts, but I think it worth mentioning that the cost of going digital is not limited to the camera body one chooses. That is the beginning. Affordable FF or not, someone entering the digital sphere should be realistic about what else they will have to purchase:</p>

<ul>

<li>Memory cards</li>

<li>Processing/viewing/catalogue software (e.g., Lightroom)</li>

<li>Tripod camera plate</li>

<li>Computer hard drive memory adequate for file storage</li>

<li>Increased RAM for processing files</li>

<li>A computer monitor appropriate for editing/reviewing images</li>

</ul>

<p>Typically, at the very least, moving to digital will involve several hundred dollars in addition to the purchase of a DSLR. Depending on the equipment selected the costs could climb to $1000-2000 more.</p>

<p>There must be a few 5D's around that were used for 2 or 3 years and then (like mine) were relegated to the role of back-up to a 5Dii which essentially means hasn't been been used since . Mine ( not for sale just yet) probably has no more than 15 000 actuations and yet is worth only a few £00.</p>

<p>However there is cheapest and then there's best. I have to say that the addition of Live View and self-cleaning sensor have alone been worth the cost of uptrading to the 5Dii and if this camera were remotely affordable I'd suggest the stretch for that.</p>

<p>Kyle Wests list is a list of possibles, but its equally likely that a film photographer has much of this already, if they scan- or just like using decent computers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Notwithstanding the fact that "affordable" is far too subjective, we would still do well to remember the costs in times past. Once upon a time there were even 35mm film SLRs that were very expensive. I picked up a serviceable cheap one before digital, but then it was the continual cost of film that added up. Nowadays you have to buy the camera you actually need and eat up a certain amount of depreciation depending on how new it is. If you need a $6000 D4 then you need a $6000 D4. A lot of people could do with a $600 original 5D.</p>

<p>IMOPO, just for viewfinders the move to FF offers real advantages. No doubt it may also offer real disadvantages, depending on the particulars. But that's kind of a separate subject.</p>

<p>Anyway, I just checked KEH, and they have an EOS 5D body with battery and charger in their "bargain" condition (which is usually what others would call "excellent") for $525. Close enough to your $500, I'd say.</p>

<p>As for the other expenditures suggested above: I don't think so. Two good, big memory cards, $25 each (just checked, Sandisk Extreme 8 GB CF cards for $25.95 with free shipping at B&H), equals $50. The camera manufacturer's own raw conversion software is usually quite adequate for a digital beginner, and maybe forever. Same goes for the open-source (free) GIMP photo editing program, for post-raw conversion work. Any reasonably-modern computer should have a hard drive and RAM totally adequate for processing and storing 5D images. And you can probably learn to work pretty well with your existing monitor.</p>

<p>So the answer is a clear yes (even if you might actually be better-served by spending $500 on a cropped-sensor body, or spending more on a better full-frame camera--which again are separate questions).</p>