Questions to people who moved from APS-C to Full Frame or people who own both bodies

<p>Hi,<br>

I have owned Canon 400D till recently, and now I am planning to either go for Canon 7D or 5D2 or Wait for 6D. Just have 2 Sigma EF lenses that I plan to get rid of eventually. <br>

There is nothing in particular that I shoot, but interested in Macro, Aviation-photography (mostly at Air shows) and may be sometimes Landscape and portrait. <br>

My question:<br>

What is it like to shoot with a full Frame camera; do you see any change is quality?<br>

I don’t remember going above ISO 800, so this big-sensor low-noise of FullFrame, will it really help? Is it really that great?<br>

Since 400D only did 1/4000 max shutter so I never realized how a faster shutter could help, is that a disadvantage for 6D? <br>

WiFi and remote view & shoot is a good feature, but not sure if it’s worth the extra money (for 6D) while I still miss out on sharp focus and live with relatively slow shutter, plus no flash.<br>

On the 400D, I always had it on center point AF so not sure if the advantage of 7D (multi cross point) over 6D greatly helps me.</p>

<p>Thanks and Regards,<br>

Vignesh</p>

<p>There's no simple way to answer your question, but I wrote an article that addresses this general issue:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a></p>

<p>I would not say the quality is (very) different under most shooting conditions, but the experience is a bit different, and the capabilities each format bring to bear are a bit different as well -- by a bit more than a stop. ;-)</p>

<p>Generally speaking full frame for landscape/architecture and crop body for sports/telephoto.</p>

<p>I have a dual format kit (5DII and 50D) and find it to be very versatile. I use my 5DII for critical applications, and my 50D for walking about.</p>

I don't have an answer but I am glad you did ask the question,as I have been having similar thoughts about moving up in

cameras ,I do however have more to do with the 40d ,primarily weddings ,etc ,I have a lot tied up in lenses and I will keep

the 40d no matter what i I would buy in an upgrade ,yet I still am interested in hearing thoughts of those who have the

experience above what I would have.

<p>The only reason for full frame is shallower depth of field. And you can get that exact same depth of field with any 35mm film SLR for 1/100th of the price of a FF DSLR. There are numerous advantages to DSLRs over film though, especially in low light, but if you shoot ASA 100 film you will see no difference whatsoever. I shoot with all of them (FF DSLR, crop-DSLR, and film) and enjoy them all.</p>

 

<p>For the vast majority of people who have purchased DSLRs, there will be no consequential difference in their shooting or the quality of the images they produce if they switch. Frankly, current cropped sensor DSLRs can produce image quality that is at least as good as that from fine film DSLRs. </p>

<p>The things that might be "better"* with full frame can include:</p>

<ul>

<li>You will be able to achieve slightly narrower depth of field with very large aperture lenses.</li>

<li>There is the potential for higher system resolution.</li>

<li>High ISO performance can measure higher.</li>

</ul>

<p>Why the * above? Read on.</p>

<p>Better is not always actually "better." This can be true it two broad ways. First, better is only better if you can sense that better-ness. Lets stipulate the a full-frame camera can produce higher system resolution. If you are working from the tripod and regularly printing at sizes such as 24" x 36" you can see a difference. If you share images electronically to be viewed on a computer screen, handheld device, or perhaps letter size prints... both systems have far more than sufficient resolution, and you will be unable to sense the potential difference. Likewise, if you don't shoot at 6400 ISO, differences in performances (often quite small) at those levels are completely inconsequential to you.</p>

<p>A second sort of difference can actually favor the smaller sensor camera. For a variety of reasons, certain features (such as higher burst rates, etc.) are available at lower cost in cropped-sensor bodies and some may simply not really be available to you in cameras you might consider buying. Also, you can have "advantages" such as the ability of smaller lenses to project an image that fills the sensor area of the cropped sensor body.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Yeah, get a film camera. That'll solve all your problems.</p>

<p>Since you're shooting with a crop-sensor now, then I think that you should stay with a crop sensor. Get something like a 7D and the best lenses that you can afford. For air shows, your crop-sensor will give the best performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I have owned Canon 400D till recently, and now I am planning to either go for Canon 7D or 5D2 or Wait for 6D. My question:</strong><br /><strong>What is it like to shoot with a full Frame camera; do you see any change is quality?</strong><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should see a quality difference in any of those three cameras you mention – if you print big and / or use the higher ISOs.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I don’t remember going above ISO 800, so this big-sensor low-noise of Full Frame, will it really help? Is it really that great?</strong><br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but see answer one, above. I can get useful and 'good' 11 x 14 prints, from ISO1600 on a 400D.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Since 400D only did 1/4000 max shutter so I never realized how a faster shutter could help, is that a disadvantage for 6D?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have rarely used 1/8000s: but when I have used it – it is more than twice as good as 1/4000s – and more than twice as necessary: it is a rare circumstance in General Photography that 1/8000s is ‘necessary’.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><strong>WiFi and remote view & shoot is a good feature, but not sure if it’s worth the extra money (for 6D).</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might be a ‘good feature’ sure – but is it a <em><strong>worthwhile</strong></em> feature to YOU and YOUR USES? That’s the question.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>. . . while I still miss out on sharp focus and live with relatively slow shutter, plus no flash</strong>.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what this means – I don’t see how you miss out on ‘sharp focus’ with either the 400D or the 6D.<br />Sure the 400D has a less advanced AF system – or more AF limitations: but most can be worked around to get ‘sharp focus': it’s understood though that you want a better AF system, generally - all the three cameras will provide that for you, contrasted to your 400D.)</p>

<p>And if you mean that 1/4000s is a ‘relatively slow shutter’ – then that seems a silly point of view: <em>unless you have a defined and prescribed need for 1/8000s</em> (as mentioned above). So IF you do have that use - then, obviously yes, not having 1/8000s will be a limitation for you.</p>

<p>On the matter of ‘plus no flash’ of you mean the ‘pop up flash’ – then neither does the 5DMkII have a Pop up Flash – and the PuF has limited uses anyway – how often and HOW do you use the PuF?</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>On the 400D, I always had it on center point AF so not sure if the advantage of 7D (multi cross point) over 6D greatly helps me.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that make sense to me: if you want to use the outer AF points, the 7D will have advantages over the 400D – but <strong><em>if you use mainly the centre point, anyway</em></strong> - <strong><em>As a generalization</em></strong> the AF will be (mostly) similar across the 5DMkII and the 7D (and I expect the 6D) – so any of those three will benefit you in this regard.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I don’t believe the only reason for considering a ‘FF’ camera is to get the possible shallower DoF – that is a silly statement – there could be many other nuanced reasons (as already mentioned) and also including the advantage of wide and fast lenses – but again nuances and not necessarily used in General Photography and not necessarily outweighed by the reach advantage a of single camera (7D) kit – for ‘air-shows’.<br />Sillier still is the notion to introduce a film camera into the kit simply to acquire the opportunity for very shallow DoF.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>As a general comment I have always had a DUAL FORMAT DSLR Kit and I planned it that way: My opinion is that leveraging the different FoV of the two formats allows for a very handy and efficient Lens Cache. BUT obviously the (my) lenses are then specifically chosen, to suit the Dual Format Kit. Also, I tend to always have two cameras in my bag, even ‘socially’. So in this regard I could suggest the 5DMkII (or 6D) to you, as the better option – but that would necessitate you re-gigging your lenses, which you state you are going to do anyway. But also I note that I would NOT choose an xxxD and a 5D (or 6D) as a Dula Format Kit - as the xxxD Series are vastly different in Egonomics, Layout and Functionalities to the 5D Series (and the 7D Series, for that matter) - so on the matter of the existing 400D I would have that as a 'back up' camera and NOT necessarily as part of the working Dual Format Kit</p>

<p>On the other hand – <strong><em>for what you describe you want to do, and assuming you will only have ONE working camera (and the 400D just sits as the ‘back up’): then the 7D seems to me a more logical choice for the type of work you want to do, especially ‘air shows’ – (yet also including Portraiture). But this also dependent, less so, but still somewhat; on what new lenses you acquire.</em></strong></p>

<p>So the bottom line is: my advice is to consider the whole kit and how it works together and begin planning that KIT to address the outputs you desire.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I don't expect that a FF unit will be particularly helpful in your use. In much of your shooting (by your description), a FF unit will actually be detrimental. In air show shots, rarely does the plane fill the frame, a crop sensor is rarely a limiting factor, and often very benefitial. Macro is generally the same, with the added DOF, a functional plus.<br>

Portraiture is easily doable w/ the 7D, or even a 60D, with the only real impediment being the increased DOF. Landscapes, with appropriate lenses, are also doable. Any tangible improvement in IQ, noise, and DR is going to only be visible at the very edges of your (human) perception for what you are using it for, however, for what you shoot, the advantages of a APS-C sensor are specific, and will impact your capabilities dramatically.</p>

<p>I have both a FF and APS-C dslr. I prefer the APS-C for macro work and most general shooting just becuase of its smaller size and pop-up flash. The pop-up flash is more useful for macro work than external flashes, with the exeception of dedicated macro flashes which I don't own.<br>

I like FF for lanscape work as I find the larger viewfinder better for composition.<br>

In terms of IQ FF is better but as other have said the differences only become apparent at large print sizes, and high ISOs. Using quality lenses will make a bigger difference to your photos than format size and technique is far more important still.</p>

<p>For general work, either APS-C or 35mm sensor will produce excellent results with the proper technique and tools.<br /> I personally shoot both and have for years. I pretty much use the two bodies with lenses according to the general suggestions made above - such as telephoto on the APS-C (for more reach), Tilt-shift lens for architecture on either, but especially on the "full-frame".<br /> In the same generation, the image quality (IQ) is really pretty comparable, and I doubt very much that people could visually pick out which were shot on which from examination of prints in a true "double-blind" experiment (i.e., neither <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans">they nor the questioner</a> know which is which).</p>

<p>Even in film days I typically carried two cameras*, so this is nothing new except that it's nice to have the choice of which image format you use.</p>

<p>__________<br>

*if you carry MORE than 2, people will avoid eye-contact with you, however. ;)</p>

<p>I can be a simpleton at times. Here's one of those moments. My 7D 1.6 cropper magically transforms my 300 mm to a 480mm, etc. I need that at times. My full frame 5DM3 magically spans the scope of mm's printed on the lens with very good accuracy. I need that ALL of the time. Quality is at my fingertips for both cameras from click to post. Having cameras that perform these measures is much like having a series of varying mm lenses that do the same. It's just that simple. </p>

<p>For aviation photography you will want the extra reach of the crop body and the superior auto focus of the 7D. With the 100-400mm f4-5.6L on a crop body I still wish for more reach sometimes when shooting aircraft.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is it like to shoot with a full Frame camera; <strong>do you see any change is quality?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>AN EMPHATIC "YES!"</strong></p>

<p>I should qualify that: For most of my photography, I prefer full-frame--but I keep a cropped sensor camera, too, for certain types of shooting, including a bit of astrophotography.</p>

<p>Please keep in mind, however, that I have been shooting full-frame since 2004, with the release of the big Kodak full-frame DSLRs. Then I went with Canon EOS from 2006 to 2012 (5D, IDs II, 5D II). I like Canon very much, but I wanted the extra resolution that Nikon was offering, and so, not being able to afford both, I have been shooting Nikon full-frame starting this fall. The differences between brands has been insignificant (except for resolution with the new Nikon FX bodies), but full frame is what I am used to--and, yes, I often miss it very much when I shoot with a crop sensor body.</p>

<p>I would even go so far as to say that, for a good bit of what I like to do, full-frame is quite extraordinary.</p>

<p>I will not try to explain it further, just add my vote to the full-frame side. I know that a lot of people prefer cropped sensor cameras, and I see the spectacular results they get. I just like the overall experience of full-frame in too many ways to count--and they have already been noted above.</p>

<p>As has been said, it does depend on the type of shooting you do.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think it comes down to shallower DOF. They do have bigger brighter viewfinders, but I didn't have problems with my crop factor's viewfinder. </p>

<p>To me shallower DOF is important as I shoot portraits, candids, kids, and food shots for my wifes business mostly. I found 2 issues with my crop factor. The first, was my 70-200 F2.8 had too much reach on it I like shots set to 200mm but my crop I just didn't have the room to do it very often. The 2nd, the tighter DOF is good for my wifes food shots I want to blur out the background as quickly as possible it can get busy fast and FF does that better. <br>

<br />I think FF important for anyone who photographs people and/or products (weddings, glamour, candids, portraits, products, kids, events) otherwise a crop factor fine, I prefer crop factors for sports and wildlife for the extra reach (particularly soccer and football). Although I say FF has shallower DOF I know the sensor size has nothing to do with it rather the action of having to change lenses to get a similar view or move closer is really the reason.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason for full frame is shallower depth of field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not correct, and it does not help the OP to post misleading information. DoF considerations are one of a number of possible reasons for using FF. Others include better medium to high ISO performance, and being able to take full advantage of TS lenses. The difference in viewfinder quality also used to be an issue, but the 7D finder is pretty close to that on the 5DII, and much better than any other 1.6-factor Canon DSLR. Of course, there are also reasons for using a crop-factor body, which is why ...</p>

<p>... I have had a dual-format oufit for a number of years, currently 5DII+7D but with a 5DIII on its way to me to replace the 5DII. Apart from sensor size and the medium to high ISO performance that goes wiith it, I find the 7D a significantly better camera than the 5DII, as you would expect from its more recent release. So I don't just use the 7D for wildlife and similar purposes, but the 5DII has certainly been my main camera, and this will be more so with the 5DIII. However, one thing that you need to remember is that for comparable capabilities in terms of a set of lenses, FF implies somewhat greater weight and bulk.</p>

<p>What about ISO performance? In terms of noise I find that I am pretty happy with the 7D at 800 for wildlife (even 800 was an issue for its predecessor, my 50D), but at 1600 there is a need to trade off a bit of sharpness by applying some NR, whereas with the 5DII I have taken plenty of shots at 3200 without feeling the need to apply any NR at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=253916">Patrick S</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 04, 2012; 09:14 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason for full frame is shallower depth of field. And you can get that exact same depth of field with any 35mm film SLR for 1/100th of the price of a FF DSLR. There are numerous advantages to DSLRs over film though, especially in low light, but if you shoot ASA 100 film you will see no difference whatsoever. I shoot with all of them (FF DSLR, crop-DSLR, and film) and enjoy them all.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=565842">Robin Sibson</a> , Dec 05, 2012; 12:48 p.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>The only reason for full frame is shallower depth of field.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not correct ....</p>

 

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depending on whether or not you're a 'big picture' guy Robin, that may have been the only correct piece of information that Patrick offered.</p>

<p>This has been beaten to death, so I'll sum it up in two sentences. If you use the same lens on the same aperture with the same distance to the subject, sensor size plays no bearing on depth of field. But since a smaller sensor might require you to stand further away to get the photo you want, that means a smaller sensor might indirectly increase your depth of field. Depending on how you want to interpret that, Patrick may have been correct there. Please just leave it at that, as there's do reason to rehash this argument.</p>

<p>Beyond that though, he is entirely wrong. He starts by suggesting that the right thing to do is to switch to film (regardless of the fact that the OP was asking about digital bodies), and then concludes with the statement that there may be no advantages to switching to film after all.</p>

<p>Personally, I see no reason to shoot 35mm film at all, unless you simply like the look of it. Not because it's bad, but because there are so many high-quality 120 cameras that can be had cheaply now. But frankly, that's neither here nor there.</p>

<p>What matters is that, while 35mm or 120 film <em>can</em> provide much more resolution and detail than digital cameras, doing so requires special exposure and processing. While I don't know the specs for every model out there, I do know that most FF DSLRs, when shot normally, will give better tonal range and sharpness then roll film that has been shot and developed at normal box speeds, and less noise/grain to boot. Most APS-C cameras will not, although it's not really a fair comparison since your 'average' APS-C camera is consumer-oriented, and your 'average' FF camera is pro-oriented.</p>

<p>Is a FF camera worth the jump? That depends on you, really. I'm picky as hell, and there are an awful lot of times where I see no difference at all.I would say that if you have a shoot for a wide tonal range, or at high ISOs, the larger sensor will make a difference. This is very true if you print larger than 11x14, and hardly noticeable at all on smaller prints.</p>

<p>I mostly shoot portraits. From my own experience, there is a difference between them that I see very clearly, but which the sitter never notices, even when looking at prints. The difference, actually, happens almost exclusively when shooting women. A lot of makeup has these little sparkly, glittery pieces in it, and they show up really close to blank white, but not quite. When I shoot with a APS-C camera, I lose just enough tonal range that they go blank, and I get this weird little 'digital halo' on those spots. It annoys me, but it doesn't technically make the image bad.</p>

<p>With a full frame camera - or, for that matter, film that I've exposed and processed using my own methods instead of what the box says - I don't get that effect. Also, there's a tiny bit more detail on the other side: it's slightly easier to distinguish between dark hair and black shirts.</p>

<p>I think that this makes a pretty big difference, and I'm of the believe that even if the viewer is unable to point out a difference like that, they're still able to see that one image has a better 'vibe' to it than the other. But that's all subjective, and your mileage may vary.</p>

 

<p>On the very small point of this original comment -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The only reason for full frame is shallower depth of field."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the response - <strong><em>"that may have been the only correct piece of information that Patrick offered."</em></strong></p>

<p>The former, IS an erroneous statement.<br>

It is erroneous both as a standalone sentence and also it is erroneous in the context it was written and as it was posted as an answer to the OP.<br>

It is erroneous BECAUSE there ARE MANY OTHER <strong><em>reasons</em></strong> one might consider and buy a ‘Full Frame' camera.<br>

It has nothing to do with how one might interpret the sentence; as it is a simple sentence, stating there is one reason and one reason only (for the OP to consider a FF camera).<br>

Robin's (and also my previous) reply to the comment: <em>'The only reason for full frame is shallower depth of field'</em> have NOTHING to do with discussing ‘Equivalence Theory’ but both have everything to do with picking up an hugely erroneous statement and one which could badly influence the OP's choice.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>William, I let little bit of subjectivity go because I was already ragging on him, and didn't want to be a total jerk ;)</p>

<p>Aside: - haha. I understand now.<br>

Thanks for the explanation and I now giggle – giggle a lot: because you caught another fish, (me) using Robin's comments as your hook to hang it on.<br>

The art of diversion: what are you in real life - a Politician?<br>

I’ll watch out for you, next time.<br>

Merry Christmas.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Thanks Sarah, your article is very nice and technical. I had a question on APS-C with 50mm and FullFrame with 80mm lens and at same aperture, and you had that covered :-)<br>

I used to refer to some free DoF calculator on android, and it looks like they have this wrong (Shows higher DoF for 5D compared to 7D).<br>

..but after reading Zack’s comment, I am tempted to test it. Not that it’s critical to my decision on purchase of the camera, but to clear it to myself and may be in future I can tell others (who have different bodies than mine) :-) </p>

<p>Hi Patrick, I do have a film SLR (Elan 7 ) and I guess the battery still has some juice in it (last used 5yrs back). Sadly with 400D over 5yr period I have lost the ability to think, “guesstimate” a little and shoot, now it’s more like just shoot and if the image is not exposed correctly, then change the setting and shoot again and shoot some more just in case.</p>

<p>Thanks Dan, I agree with you “better is only better if you can sense that better-ness”. I am not a pro nor am I anywhere near their capability. So, was not sure if I go and try out the two bodies (7D and 5D2) at some local retailer here, I’ll notice the detail or “better-ness”. I may have printed a very small fraction of my photos, but that too in small size to notice such details.</p>

<p>Hi William, Thanks for your answers. I have printed just a fraction and that too smaller than 11”x 14” print. <br>

About my comment on “sharp focus”. It’s based on my assumption that 6D may not be as good at 7D at acquiring focusing (fast and accurately), but both these bodies should be better than 400D.<br>

“ 1/4000s is a ‘relatively slow shutter’ ”: Oh no! 1/4000s for my standard is a high or very high shutter speed.<br>

“PuF has limited uses anyway”: Yes, I agree. About my usage.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for all the help and suggestion, I guess, I am now more leaning towards 7D (previously I was thinking of 6D).<br>

Regards,<br>

Vignesh </p>

<p>Thanks for the clarifications on the little points I didn't understand.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I had a question on APS-C with 50mm and Full Frame with 80mm lens and at same aperture, and you had that covered :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you get another person and you have a 50mm and an 85mm; or (technically a bit 'better') if you have an 85mm and a 135mm; and the two cameras - <a href="../photo/13136700&size=lg">you can do this.</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Actually, your ap probably has it right, just remember that the calculator uses the subject distance you give (which is <em>not</em> the same for a 5D and a 7D, given equiv. framing, and same FL). Once you back up a bit to get the same framing (on the crop as you were getting FF), the distance to subject has changed (increased), and DOF is increased as well.</p>

<p>For example: if you have a 5D w/ a 50/1.4, and a 7D w/ a 50/1.4 lens, and try to take a picture of a subject standing in a doorway, but want the frame of the door to be at the edge of the frame. Say the doorway is 2m wide and 3m tall. Using the 5D (WO) you'll have to stand ~4.16m back, and that gives you a DOF of ~.58m. However, should you use the 7D (WO), you'll have to step back to ~6.7m away from the subject (to get the doorframe in the frame). Which gives you a total DOF of ~0.96m. Thus you can see that... to get the same framing, your DOF w/ the 7D is increased dramatically!... more importantly... Math is fun! If you wanted the same DOF from the 5D, you would have to bump your fstop to ~f2.2</p>

<p>. . . continuing with what MI wrote:<br>

that's why I like using the 85 and the 135 lenses in that shoot-out, as a practical example for this topic, to show in workshops as the start point for discussion and investigation.<br>

Because using an 85 and a 135 with Canon makes for the 'same' framing and also the 'same' shooting distance.<br>

i.e. more importantly the ‘same’ <strong>Framing</strong> and the ‘same’ <strong>Perspective</strong>.</p>

<p>WW</p>