Talk me out of buying a full frame camera

[duncan_twentytwo]

<p>I Use a 50D with a Canon 17-55mm 2.8. The prints (in my opinion are excellent) so what would I gain by having a full frame camera ?<br>

It's hard to imagine the prints could be much better than what I am getting now so what would be the advantage in going full frame could I expect to get even better prints than I do now and if the answer is yes would it justify the extra amount of money I would have to pay to go full frame ?<br>

I guess this question must have been asked by many people on this forum so I would welcome the views for and against.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[py-photography]

<p>Don't do it! ;)</p>

[Marvin]

<p>Don't do it.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>If you shoot high action sports and require many frames / second then a FF 5D2 or 1Ds3 won't cut it. </p>

<p>If you want better focus then the 5D2 is inadequate compared to a 7D.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the world's your oyster; the FF sensor's your pearl.</p>

[mars c]

<p>Canon full frames have no built in flash.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I love full frame and would never go back but there is some downsides to full frame ( slower fps, bigger heavier lenses, no pop up flash, more expensive etc. ) If your happy with your gear don't change it. To many people think throwing a lot of money at more expensive equipment will make them better and its really not true. </p>

[subhra_das1]

<p>Buy a 500D instead it is much much better</p>

[eric_boutilier_brown1]

<p>Full frame has less depth of field for the same angle of view and aperture, needs more accurate focus, has heavier lenses for the same angle of view. Full frame is heavier, and more $$.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>True, FF has less DOF, but DOF is still insanely narrow with, for instance, a 85/1.8 on a crop body. The one major reason to go FF for me would be the larger viewfinder. The 7D might nullify that argument though.</p>

[duncan_twentytwo]

<p>Buy a 500D instead it is much much better<br>

Why do you say a 500D is better than a 50D.... I'm not interested in shooting movies !</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>If you're happy with your results and don't have 2.5K burning a hole in your pocket why bother. The 5Dii is only going to be "better" than the 50D if you print very large (and stand really close) or if you need low light performance. Save your money and take some photo trips... and if you have to buy something treat yourself to a lens. </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Duncan,</p>

 

<p>Once you start printing on something that uses paper by the roll and ink by the pint, then it

might be time to consider moving to a larger format. But at typical enlargement sizes, APS-C is

plenty big enough.</p>

 

<p>Although the only significant reasons to switch to a larger format are for image quality, it does

happen to be the case that the larger format cameras might have other features that are important.

A better viewfinder is almost a given, but the larger format cameras are usually the top-of-the-line

models that get crammed with all the other goodies.</p>

 

<p>So while there might not be a good reason for you to switch to a larger format, there may be a

good reason for you to switch to another camera that “just happens” to use a larger

format.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[ed_v.]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Depending on what you're shooting, in my opinion the crop format may have it's advantages. Also, there is no FF equivalent lens to the 17-55 IS. That would be a 27-88 f/2.8 IS and from what I read lots of people are banging Canon's doors down for something similar to no avail...

[w_t1]

<p>Yes who in their right mind would want to use a 17mm lens as actual 17mm? I just wish I could go back and make all my Kodachromes from 1980-2007 APS-C. What a waste to have that extra bit of image along the edges.</p>

[ed_v.]

Well, he asked us to talk him out of it ;-)

[chinmaya]

<p>People after get excited about perfection or best of best. Everyone wants to have better than what neighbours have.<br>

If there was no dpreview.com or no pixel peeing, things would have been sorted out differently.<br>

People often talk about 1600/3200 ISO, and compare 2 cameras by pixel-peeing. Well unless you have to impress your client to make money I personally don't care for pixel level noise. Infact after reading so much about 50Ds noise I did an inventory of my images, I have only taken about 5% of images at ISO 1600 (on my XTi) and I have only printed 1 ISO 400, mostly I have printed are ISO-100 which I use tripod. And rest of the images, I use them to impress people on web and 90% of the time I post 1600x1024 resolution. So to me 50D is a great camera / upgrade.<br>

Then you might ask what is the point of the best or better camera out there?<br>

Well buy it if you can offord it, if not most of the cameras are good for a common man.</p>

<p>Definitely when buying I don't trust one liner response (e.g buy 7D, its better), Well yes I know 7D better, lot of websites have posted technical data to prove it and said it better, but does not answer my fundamental question 'if it suits my need?'.</p>

<p>Certainly 5D m2 has advantages, I really like the bokeh difference in macro photography and there are plenty others advantages. I would love to own one, when I can justify cost of it.<br>

I will buy 5D m2 tomorrow, if I start to make money of my photography today, or if my employer raises my salary. If not, to my level of expertise (amateur) and the amount of time I spend on Photography, I am very very (super happy) happy with 50D and XTi output.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I shoot both and it's no different than shooting two different film formats back in the old days. Each has its use. I do love the 35mm format since my old PC-Nikkor (perspective control) lens will work on it as it was intended, but otherwise I probably would have gone to a newer xxD body.</p>

<p>One problem, ironically, was that I have a 10-20mm ultrawide for the APS-C so I actually lost the ultrawide when I got a 5D. By new standards the 24mm short end was too long for what I had got used to. While I'm saving for a TS-E 17mm, I got a Sigma 15-30mm and have been very pleasantly surprised by its quality and function on my 5D.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>What full frame are you contemplating? I assume the 5D original, or mark II, but just for the record.</p>

<p>Main reason to get the 5D in my opinion: to get regular lens focal lengths behaving per their design intent, more wide angle choices. Big bright viewfinder is nice too.</p>

<p>Main reason not to: I dunno, price, lack of flash, diminished telephoto "reach".</p>

[mars c]

<p>If you're printing big, Let me inform you that my 24-105L looks like a prime lens on my 11mp fullframe 1ds mk1. The images from this setup is much sharper than my cropped 8mp 350d/xt , and the same 24-105L setup, Viewed on pixel level.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>No one considers opportunity costs? Take whatever it would cost you to replace your 50D (what I shoot to) with a 5dMkII, which is the full-frame camera I assume you are thinking about (which I would love, if someone would just give me one). Say, $2500 for the body, minus 600 for selling your 50D used, so 1900 bucks. Then line up the other goodies you can buy with that money. My most expensive lens, a 100 L macro, cost about $1000. That leaves $900...</p>

<p>So instead of thinking of it in terms of dollars, ask yourself whether the difference is worth giving up $1900 in other goodies. for some people, yes. For me, no.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Since you asked to be talked out of it, here goes:<br>

<br /> The primary advantage (though not necessarily the only one) of full frame over cropped sensor bodies is the potential for increased detail if you shoot very carefully and make very large prints. Since you are already very happy with the quality you are getting from the 50D, that reason would seem to be off the table - you won't likely see any significant improvement over your already fine prints.</p>

<p>You'd also give up some frame rate, since the FF bodies and especially the 5D2 operate at less than 4 fps.</p>

<p>There is not real equivalent from Canon for full frame bodies to the wonderful EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens that you currently use. (It would have to be something like a 27mm-88mm f/2.8 IS lens.) So if you find this lens to be perfect for you on the current body you would be unable to duplicate this performance on full frame.</p>

<p>I shoot full frame, but I strongly believe that most people shooting cropped sensor bodies will not see full value from the upgrade.</p>

[tien_pham]

<p>Forget about every features that a FF and a 50D have. Visualize about your wife's face, or your girlfriend's, when she heard you're gonna spend some $$ to buy ANOTHER camera!</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Well, if you have to ask what you would gain by using FF, then you do not need FF.</p>

[gregcoad]

Since everyone loves a "bottom-liner", I am going to "bottom-line" this one.

 

 

If your 50D is getting the job done and you are happy with the results there is simply no reason to change it.

 

 

We can all debate the many advantages and disadvantages of any camera model in any shooting situation but the only thing that really matters is what is working or not working for you. Unless of course you are more concerned with keeping up with the next guy, staying on the "bleeding edge" of technology and impressing people with what is hanging from your neck.

 

 

I recently sold my XTi and purchased a used 1Ds (mk I) and it was the best purchase I've made yet in terms of photo gear. But I only did it because my XTi was no longer working for me. I had outgrown it and it was starting to limit me in many ways. Because I was feeling limited by my XTi, the 1Ds with its big bright viewfinder, its full frame sensor, blessed with 11 million nice, large pixels, its never-fail autofocus system and its built-like-a-tank construction have been truly liberating to me.

 

 

But if your 50D isn't holding you back why would you spend any amount of money to change to something else? There would be many other ways to spend that money I woud think.