Thinking of finally moving to full frame.

[don_pugh]

<p>Following on to Dave Collett's comment, I bought a 5D III around the beginning of the year and could have bundled the 24-105 with it (maybe should have and then sold the lens), but I already had a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 f/4 IS and was more interested in getting a high quality lens for ultrawide and wide angle than a general purpose lens that had a good bit of overlap in focal length with what I already had. I bought the 17-40 f/4 L for close to the same price I'd have paid to add the 24-105 in the bundle, I think about $50 less, and have been very happy with it. I hike and shoot mostly landscapes, and the combination of the 5D III, the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 plus a 1.4X TC, some filters and a tripod/ballhead covers my needs and is a reasonable load to carry on long hikes along with a small backpack with water, snacks, jacket, etc. All 3 lenses produce great images and they are all lightweight and compact relative to comparable alternatives. Everything other than the tripod fits in a shoulder type camera bag and with a tripod the f/4 maximum apertures on the zoom lenses aren't a problem. I wondered initially if the focal range gaps between 41-49mm and 51-69mm would be an issue but don't miss them at all. I don't even use the 50mm lens that much; when I'm shooting landscapes I probably shoot 55% 17-40, 40% 70-200 and 5% 50mm. I shoot a lot of waterfalls, which often big and in relatively tight spaces with limits to where you can go to get the shot, and 24mm often isn't wide enough for my needs (more accurately, my wants since photography is just a hobby). </p>

<p>The OP already has the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Given how good the 70-200 f/2.8 is, the only reason to use the 24-105 from 70-105 would be to avoid changing lenses or because he was using the 24-105 as a walking around lens and not carrying the 70-200. Depending on what kind of things he shoots and whether he needs ultrawide or not, I'd look at either one of the 24-70 lenses, the 17-40, or the 16-35 (if he needs f/2.8 and is willing to carry the extra weight and pay the much higher price versus the 17-40) as possible alternatives to the 24-105.</p>

[don_pugh]

<p>David, I don't know if your response was to my comment, but I didn't say a 50mm could substitute for 24mm. I said that the 17-40 or one of the 24-70's could be alternatives to the 24-105 based on other lenses the OP already has. I have the combination of a 17-40, 50 and 70-200 and don't miss the gaps from 41-49 and 51-69. Others might find those ranges essential. I would miss 17-23 if I had the 24-105 instead of the 17-40, and based on what I've read of all the lenses, I have better IQ from 24-40 with the 17-40 than I would have with the 24-105, better IQ from the 50mm f/1.4 than I would have with the 24-105 and better IQ with the 70-200 f/4 IS from 70-105 than I would have with the 24-105. But if you don't need the ultra wide angle from 17-23mm, are more reluctant to change lenses than I am, and like to go out a lot with only one lens, the 24-105 would be a better choice.</p>

<p>With regard to the 70-200 f/4 IS versus f/2.8 IS, I agree with you, but the OP said he already has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks Don, I was responding to the thread, which includes your response, but it not limited to it.</p>

<p>IMO, no one should obsess about zoom gaps and overlaps. You'll never notice them in real life, unless the gaps are huge.</p>

<p>Some people dismiss the IQ of the 24-105mm without having even tried it with DLO. Don didn't say that, but it's often brought up, so I wanted to point out the importance of DLO, particularly with zooms for those seeking the highest possible IQ. Wide zooms make it even more important, particularly on a FF body.</p>

<p>I could live with Don's lens kit. Mine is, 15mm/2.8 (used both as a fisheye and rectilinear), 24-105mm/f4, 40mm/f2.8 pancake, 70-200mm/f4, 500mm/f4, 1.4x TC and 2.0x TC. All are Canon, with DLO available and used.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Sanjay, I don't think there is <em><strong>any</strong> compelling reason to upgrade</em>. To FF, or otherwise. Your 7D is <em>fully capable</em> of supporting the type of shooting you seem to do, and I don't see <em>any</em> reason to NOT continue shooting with it.</p>

<p><em>If</em> you shoot a lot of portraiture, or weddings, then I could see a good reason to upgrade to FF. <br>

<em>If</em> you shoot a lot of high ISO imagery, and did not like the noise, then I could see a good reason to upgrade to FF.<br>

<em>If</em> you shoot a lot of pro grade video, I could see a legitimate reason to upgrade.<br>

<em>If</em> you have always wanted to explore a larger format, I could see a good reason to upgrade to FF.<br>

<em>If</em> you shoot a lot of fashion photography, I could see a good reason to upgrade to FF.</p>

<p>Notice the leading word in all of those statements?<br>

<em>If</em> none of those apply, then there is no 'need' (unless I'm missing something, and that's certainly a possibility :) ), and certainly minimal want.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>+1 to what Marcus says.</p>

<p>I'm all for "changing up" equipment in the hopes of reinvigorating interest in the craft, but I fear the lens selection you are looking at will result in a less capable kit than the one you have. You will certainly miss WA until you obtain a 17-40 or something similar.</p>

<p>To me, the most compelling FF advantage is the potential for more narrow depth of field. The best way to enjoy this, imho, is by using lenses like the 24mm 1.4LII or the 50mm 1.2 or any of the 85s. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>On FF, 24mm is plenty wide for most shooting. 17mm is considered ultra-wide and works best with some correction in PP. I have a 15mm for UW, but don't really consider it indespensible. Some people's eye takes to that extreme end of the wide-angle spectrum, but I don't think that's the norm.</p>

<p>That said, a 17-40 or 16-35 zoom can be very handy, just not essential on FF, IMO.</p>

[Dave410]

<p>What do you mean by DLO? Is that the lens corrections in Lightroom or is it something different? Thanks.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>DLO in DPP, lens optimization has other names in other software.</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>David, assuming the OP enjoys the wide side of his 10-22, he is more than likely to find 24mm underwhelming I would think. But maybe he doesn't shoot that wide, I've no way of knowing... </p>

<p>A 16/17 -35/40 would be equally essential (or useless) as the 10-22 in any case... My point, which I may not be doing a good job of making, is the 10-22 and 17-55 lenses on a crop body are roughly analogous to 17-40 & 24-105 on FF.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave410]

 

<blockquote>

<p>DLO in DPP, lens optimization has other names in other software.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks. I use the tailored lens corrections in Lightroom and it helps a lot. Cheers.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I thought that he wanted a full frame. He already has the lenses that he needs for a crop body. I'm in love with the 15mm/f2.8 and being able to shoot it fisheye and rectilinear, so the ultra-wide zooms don't interest me, but I see the attraction for someone not into the 15.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>Why? </p>

<p>"In General" when you pack the same number of pixels into a cropped sensor as you do a full frame sensor you will end up with more noise.</p>

<p>This has been born out over time across multiple cameras, and appears true between the 5DM3 and 7D testing at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/18</p>

<p>Look at the noise levels with RAW mode at ISO 6400. Some might say - "I would never use ISO 6400", however, more and more public places are restricting use of a tripod inside. Churches, Train Stations, Subway Stations, Museums, etc are all examples where I've run into tripod restrictions. Having the ability to shoot high ISO without the noise levels give's me a lot more latitude.</p>

<p>I started out with some of the first Kodak DC 200 series of cameras, moved to the Sony F525, F828, finally moved to the 5DM1, then the 5DMII, 5DMIII. What truly blew me away when I got the 5DM1 was how high an ISO I could shoot with little noise. Each camera since has only improved that aspect.</p>

<p>Bottom line - I would HIGHLY recommend a full frame camera over a cropped sensor camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave410]

<blockquote>

<p> Some might say - "I would never use ISO 6400"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used ISO 6400 a couple of nights ago with my 7D and I wish I could have gone higher. I also wish there was less noise in what I got.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>This idea that APS-C is a silly low-quality compromise and FF is the only real deal (or big league) is just an extremely poor excuse to get a full frame camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

No one said or implied that crop sensors were "silly" or "low-quality". I and others stated that full frame offers higher image quality. If you can find objective evidence to the contrary, please post a link.<br>

<br>

I shot a 7D and a 5DII side by side for a while using the same lenses. The 7D yielded some very nice photos, but there was a noticeable difference in quality. The 5DII won in every case - no contest.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's also rather ignorant advice, and inconsiderate of people's needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It is extremely difficult to determine what another person actually <em>needs</em>. Sometimes it's difficult to determine what we ourselves need. Sometimes we buy something that we didn't think that we needed, and later we find uses for it that we could not have imagined before we had the product in our hands.<br>

<br>

I suggest that we offer objective, factual information and let the OP decide for himself what he "<em>needs</em>." Making an argument based upon someone else's needs, especially a person that none of us have actually met, is arrogant and irresponsible. I'll stop short of using the terms "ignorant" and "inconsiderate".</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>Here is something to consider. <br /><br />From the 7D to the 5DM3 you are only gaining 4.3Mpixels. It is more than likely at ISO 6400 to look like the photograph above. Maybe with a 50mm f1.4 or f1.2 and a lower ISO you could get a much clearer photograph without so much grain. A tripod would also help out a lot. If you want to say the 22.3 5DM3 senor is better than say my 60D 18.0 so be it, but I really don't think it would be that much of a difference less how large you want to make the photograph. I'm able to pull off 24x36 size photographs with the 60D no problem even in the dark. <br /><br />If you were smart you would wait for the new 7D M2 that is likely to come out some time this year with the way Canon has dropped the price on the body of the 7D. If sensors are the only thing you are comparing you might as well pick up a Nikon D800 with the 36.3 Mpixel sensor it is less than the 5DM3.<br /><br />I wouldn't be to hasty to dump the 7D right yet. Just my opinion.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>From the 7D to the 5DM3 you are only gaining 4.3Mpixels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

No, you're gaining a lot more than 4,000 pixels.<br>

<br>

You're gaining a sensor that is more that twice the area of the 7D's sensor. You're gaining larger, more efficient pixels. And perhaps most importantly, you are not magnifying the lens imperfections by nearly as much. Each of these factors adds to the full frame camera's image quality.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>I agree with Dan, but the edge performance of the lens does become more critical.</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>I don't know Dan, I don't really think it matters that much. I've rented the 5DM3 and played around with it. I'll keep my 60D for another year and see what the next 5DMx brings to the table. Just not enough improvements for me to spend an extra 3 grand for a body. It's not what you got, it what you can do with what you got that matters.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you're just going to "play around with it", then, by all means, don't buy a 5D MkIII. If you need and know how to use one of the best AF systems in DSLR-land, if you shoot above ISO 800 and you have, or plan to purchase the appropriate lenses, then spend the money and buy it. It's a bargain for those that can use its capacities. The wait for the next 5D-series is probably three years and the improvements are likely to be incremental.</p>

[dan_south]

That's a good point, David. The crop sensor uses the sharpest area of a full frame lens - the center. So, even though it is magnifying lens

flaws, it is working with the best part of the elements.

 

As full frame sensors have become more detailed, the lack of edge sharpness has become a problem for many lenses. I have sold a

number of old lenses in recent years because their edges were very soft.

 

For this reason I caution those who want to move to full frame that they'll probably need to budget for new lenses in order to get the most

out of these powerful sensors. Just because a lens covers a full frame sensor, it might not be sharp enough edge to edge to stand up to

critical viewing. Even the expensive and relatively new 16-35 f/2.8L II struggles somewhat at the corners of a 5DII or III, and it is a much

better lens than some of the older ones that I had to liquidate.

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks for expanding on the lens issue Dan.</p>

<p>This reminds to mention the importance of using Digital Lens Optimization, particularly when using zoom lenses on full-frame bodies. DLO corrects for geometric distortion, CA, vignetting, softness, etc. at every focal length and every aperture for every body/lens combination. It's available for free as part of Digital Photo Professional for Canon users, but the user must download the modules for their lenses and bodies and activate the correction. LR has something equivalent, as does DxO Optics Pro, and probably some other Raw converters that I'm not familiar.</p>

<p>Of course, I use DLO and I'm particularly impressed with my 24-105mm, which I was about to ditch before I started using DLO, now it's a favorite lens.</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>Just 1 or 2 points, if the OP replaces the 17-55 F2,8 IS with the 24-105 he my be disappointed as its not as sharp, more flair prone and distorts more.. i have had both.. the images from L glass just don't have the same bite/crispness to them <br>

Also if the OP wants to play with FF have a look at the 5D classic, i have not looked for some time but some was only making £350 on the bay in the UK and can try it on the 70-200 ...cannon has yet to make a cropped body to mach the 5Dc for IQ</p>