# Downgrade to crop



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do_ if you _downgraded_ to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind... 
Cheers


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Hi all,
> I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
> So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
> Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
> ...


_
If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you *will *miss the reach._


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

rpt said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...


_

I mainly shoot wide, so not a problem for me. Good, one less thing to worry! _


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > DanielW said:
> ...


_
Good! Then the only thing to worry about is that you will miss the grainy look at high medium ISO
_


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> So I ask you FF shooters: _what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?_


_

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not. 

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies. That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules. Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes. My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry._


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

rpt said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


_


Thank God LR lets me put it back where it belongs! LOL_


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.


LOL



> I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies. That is very valuable stuff.


That's my main reason for upgrading, indeed. Good to know there's not a huge benefit on DoF (and I'm pretty happy with the blur I can get with my 50, too). What I find a little annoying about crop is that you don't get to use great zoom lenses like the 24-70 or the 24-105 as an all-around, since you lose the WA advantage; I could buy the 17-55 f/2.8, but it's not as wide as I wish and it manages to cost more than the 24-105 L!


----------



## bycostello (Dec 3, 2012)

my camera of choice is now crop, smaller and lighter....


----------



## RC (Dec 3, 2012)

My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3. Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas. But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars. 

I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV. _Adding _a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option. My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit. I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.


----------



## Cory (Dec 3, 2012)

Hmmm. I'm considering upgrading my T1i to a 6D, but my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 give me the perfect focal length for indoor sports. A 70-200 would likely get me 90%+ of the right focal length for outdoor sports. 
Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

bycostello said:


> my camera of choice is now crop, smaller and lighter....


!
That's sure unusual, considering you shoot weddings! 
To be honest, I don't care much about size and weight, although I don't have to carry my gear around for hours like you do.
Don't you miss the low-light advantages of FF?
Would you mind if I asked you what gear you use for weddings? Your camera, lenses...
Very nice pics on your website, btw!


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 3, 2012)

Cory said:


> Hmmm. I'm considering upgrading my T1i to a 6D, but my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 give me the perfect focal length for indoor sports. A 70-200 would likely get me 90%+ of the right focal length for outdoor sports.
> Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?



I think many people use a 7D for sports. Other option would be to get 1,4x teleconverter.


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

RC said:


> My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3. Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas. But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars.
> 
> I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV. _Adding _a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option. My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit. I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.


I'd add, too, although I'm not as lucky as you are and would own only a 60D and a 6D! 
The 60D would be kept to walk around and as backup, since I don't need too much reach (and you can always crop those 20 MP files) and 4 fps seem enough for what I shoot.
Thanks for answering!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do_ if you _downgraded_ to crop?



I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing. To get the FF-equivalent of f/1.2 on APS-C would require an f/0.75 lens...last time I checked, there weren't any in a Canon EF mount.



rpt said:


> If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you _*will *_miss the reach.



Well, we've had this discussion before.  The reach only matters if your output demands it. A FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ - the only thing you're really giving up is megapixels. So, if 7-8 MP is sufficient (which it is for web, slideshows, and prints up to ~12x18" - and I suspect that covers most people's needs), then a cropped FF shot will do just as well as an uncropped APS-C shot. 



Cory said:


> Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?



From a sensor standpoint, not to me (again with the caveat above regarding need for high MP output). Especially if you're not focal length limited. One of the keys for sports is a high shutter speed to stop action, and the much better high ISO performance of a FF sensor means you can push the ISO higher to get a shutter speed that stops the action. With the sensor in the 60D (I have a 7D), I really prefer to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower. With the 5DII, I had no problem shooting at ISO 3200. With the 1D X, I routinely use ISO 6400, and I'm fine with ISO 12800. That's *3 stops* better than I prefer on the 7D (although I can tolerate ISO 3200 on the 7D, so call it 2 stops to be conservative...but still that's the difference between a blurry 1/250 s and a crisp 1/1000 s).

Of course, the sensor is only part of the story for sports/action. The AF system is the other big part. For fast action, I'd take the 7D and live with the noise vs. the 5DII/6D and lower noise. The 7D's tracking capabilities are far superior to the 5DII, and will be similarly superior to the 6D. But I'd take the 5DIII over the 7D in a heartbeat for sports/action - FF for higher ISO and even better AF more than makes up for the loss of 2 fps.

I can tell you that after getting the 1D X, my 7D has just gathered dust. As I stated above, IMO a FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ. I tested that semi-formally with the 5DII vs. 7D (with a static test scene) and proved it to my satisfaction. I've actually decided to test my statement above with the 1D X vs. the 7D, with a 600/4 lens, comparing the 1D X and 1.4xIII vs. the 7D (as approximately equivalent focal lengths), and also at the longest AF-capable focal length (1200mm f/8 on the 1D X, 1344mm equivalent f/5.6 on the 7D). This will be a 'formal' test with an ISO 12233-based chart, and a static 'real world' scene. If the 1D X cropped gives equal or better IQ vs. the 7D, I'll need to decide if I sell the 7D or keep it solely as a backup camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 3, 2012)

I agree that a modern crop body is not a "down grade". Depends on what you photograph and what your budget is. As always, glass is most important. For most people on a budget crop has an advantage for sports in reasonable light - also I've always found the smaller viewfinder is actually better for fast action as I can see all the frame better. At Building Panoramics we use FF. But then buildings don't move that quick ;D


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do_ if you _downgraded_ to crop?
> ...


Do you actually _own_ those lenses?


----------



## aj1575 (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).

DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range. Sure, Images from a FF look really nice. I compared the pictures from FF to APS-C on The-Digital-Picture.com, and the the FF looks much better (no surprise), but then I looked at the comparison tool at dpreview and there the verdict was not so clear anymore. Sure FF is always better, but by how much?
If you are a pro, then it is easy to deceide, but as an amateur I'm still asking myself if it is worth to upgrade.


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 3, 2012)

I come from the film era, where 24x36mm was already considered small. When I made the jump from my Nikons F4 / F100 to the D70, later D200, I was mainly bothered by 3 things :

1- The cropped viewfinder made it like I was looking through a keyhole (this only is enough for me to stick with FF cameras).

2 - I use a lot wide angles, the only thing that could replace them was the 12-24mm f4 DX, that was a bit limited to say the less.

3 - Too much depth of field makes it more difficult to separate the subject from background and deal precisely with DoF.

I won't enter the very tech stuff about pixel size, high ISO. Since I am back with the format I was used to, I never looked at a crop camera again, but I am half considering to buy a used 550D (or 1100D) to serve as a luxury point and shoot.


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

aj1575 said:


> I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).
> 
> DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
> Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
> ...


Same boat. If I could only find a 24-105 f/4 equivalent for my 60D, I would sure hold it for now and upgrade to FF when(ever) I start making money from photography. I would stick to my 50 1.4 and get a 35 1.4 (or a 28 1.8?) and an 85 1.8, and have fun!


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 3, 2012)

I jumped from crop to FF is one reason, better IQ in low light shootings. I'm not a big fan of flash photography yet - maybe some days in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Do you actually _own_ those lenses?



I have a 600mm f/4L IS II. The "1200mm" is the 600 II + 2xIII, the "1344mm equivalent" is the 600 II + 1.4xIII on APS-C.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Dec 3, 2012)

Haha it seems many of us think alike.
I would miss (no particular order):

1. The big viewfinder with a better possibility to focus manually (I changed the focus screen or whatever it is called). I can look through my viewfinder for a long time without getting tired.

2. As Neuro said, the option go get really thin DoF. Although I do not use it unless I want that look, there is something that make your portraits pop when you use high quality ultra fast primes on a FF sensor. Not always suitable and sometimes hard to get right.

3. A twist of number 2 above is that on FF, f/4 gives rather thin DoF so the 70-200 /4 is in a way equivilent to the f/2.8 version, minus one stop extra light = pump the ISO if needed or use flash. Same goes for 17-40 instead of 16-35. That saves money and bulk. 

4. Better wide angle. The samyang 14 is really really wide! Perhaps I should have gotten the sigma 12-24 instead but I´m pleased with the samyang. 

Those are the most important differences for me. IQ is great on newer APS-C cameras aswell and depend on more than the camera. Of course the final image is mostly about idea and content anyway.

However, there is no reason to naturally want to get a FF camera. There is absolutely nothing wrong with APS-C and you can get great results. It depends on what you want to do. Right now I am investing in flashes, not cameras and lenses.
And yes, I do take much better photos now compared to when I was using my 30D. Why? Way more practise and more studying of photography on the net, books and videos, and more photographing friends/amateur models. Oh and selling photos is a great motivation to constantly improve my "products", the same goes for competing in my local camera club. Also... I have better lenses and light-equipment now.


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 3, 2012)

Oh yes bigger and brighter viewfinder is definitly a reason why i wanna go FF as soon as possible. Anytime i jump on my analog EOS im like...ehh....this camera costs 15 euro but has a nicer viewfinder than my digital one...

But i think only 5D and higher got "pentaprism" which is brighter than "pentamirror" that 6D uses if im correct.

If i was you i would go fullframe and get 1,4x TC. Sure u lose light but FF camera lets more light in and 6D or higher offer really good high ISO so it doesnt matter. 

The main reason why im annoyed of my APS-C sometimes is that its so hard to get the lenses i want. Sure, there are many lenses but i always gotta calculate the 1,6* factor and suddenly some lenses become not what i really wanted :'( If i want 50mm i get like ..44mm or 56 or something like this e.g.


----------



## aj1575 (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Same boat. If I could only find a 24-105 f/4 equivalent for my 60D,


How about the 15-85? It has no constant aperture, but IQ seems to be great. I have heard very little complaints about that lens (I will buy one, if my next body is APS-C). That one, or the new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4. I'm looking forward to see that lens, the new 35mm f1.4 from Sigma looks like a real winner, having better IQ wide open than Canons 35mm 1.4 *L* at a much lower price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> But i think only 5D and higher got "pentaprism" which is brighter than "pentamirror" that 6D uses if im correct.



Sorry, you're incorrect. The xxxD/xxxxD bodies have a pentamirror, but the 60D and 6D both have a pentaprism. However, the VF generally gets more coverage and higher absolute mag as you go up the lines.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


----------



## sawsedge (Dec 3, 2012)

Something isn't an upgrade if it doesn't improve your situation. Likewise something isn't a downgrade if it works better for you. Lots of folks use both types.


----------



## Steve Todd (Dec 3, 2012)

My first DSLR was the 5D back in 2005. I chose it because I had over 35-years of shooting Film SLRs and felt it was the logical step into the world of digital photography/imaging. I purchased the 5D Mk II when it came out and then a 1D Mk IV in Feb 2010. After using both the 5D2 and the 1D4 for a few months together (shooting the same subjects with both bodies), the 5D bodies stayed home and I shot exclusively with the 1D4. I never regretted or missed the FF bodies. In fact, I purchased another 1D4 body in Nov 2010, to allow me to carry one with big zoom and the other with a 20-35 wide one. I also bought a 7D, which I liked for the long lenses. However, I never really found myself using it much over the 1D4s. I sold it (7D) and one of my 1D4 bodies to purchase a 1DX. I really like the 1DX, however, I am really glad I kept one of the 1D4 bodies. I now carry the 1DX for general work (24-105) and the 1D4 for all other stuff, mostly with either a 70-300L or 100-400 attached. To me, having both the FF and the 1.3 crop bodies, fills all of my current needs. However, if I had to choose only one body for all my needs, it would be the 1D4!


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 3, 2012)

My main reasons:

1. Viewfinder (big, pentaprism)
2. Primes (selection thereof)
3. Selection of wide angle

Here's a comparison of viewfinder sizes (normalized):
1Dx, 1Ds3 - 0.76x
5D3 - 0.71
1Ds2, 1Ds, 5D2 - 0.70
6D - 0.69
5D - 0.68
7D, Nikon D300, D300s - 0.63 (biggest crop VF yet)
60D - 0.57
Rebels - 0.48 to 0.52 (pentamirror)

Once you look through a FF viewfinder everything else just looks like staring through a dark hallway. Here's a comparison I used for someone looking into upgrading a little while back:

Looking through a 5D Mark III would be like looking at an 8x10 print at arms length in good, indoor light. A 7D would be like looking at a 7x9 print at arms length in the same light. A 60D would be 6.5x8 in the same light. A Rebel would be light a 6x7.5 with a lights dimmed to 80% (since it is a pentamirror).


----------



## cayenne (Dec 3, 2012)

RC said:


> My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3. Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas. But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars.
> 
> I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV. _Adding _a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option. My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit. I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.



I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?

I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?

C


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Hi all,
> I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
> So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do_ if you _downgraded_ to crop?
> Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
> Cheers



Your corners will become terrible. You will now have to buy much more expensive lenses (ef-s 10-22 vs 16-35... although, I recomend for crop the stellar Tokina 11-16 2.8...)... You will have to stop down pointlessly to get stuff in focus, especially at long end, which will require you to use higher ISO's and even TC's, thereby completely destroying any perceived image quality gains for many shots... It will be interesting to see what happens when Canon releases the 7D MK II...


----------



## vargyropoulos (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm in the middle of making a decision for my next DSLR/Lens combo for wildlife... I was at my local camera store yesterday and I shot one of the pillars with the 400mmf/5.6L lens with the 5D3 and 7d. both shots taken at ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/500sec shutter. same lens, I was standing at roughly the same spot and these are 100% crops of the images. I'll let you make your own conclusions/decisions


----------



## skitron (Dec 3, 2012)

I just sold my 5D2 and 50D and bought a 6D for it's low light. And as soon as the crop bodies catch up on the ISO dept I plan to purchase another crop. 

For wildlife and macro, I'd much rather have a crop if the high ISO is there, since extra reach and wider DOF are both highly desirable for me in these situations. So when the high ISO is there, I'll be buying another crop and be back to two bodies. 

Different tools for different jobs is my thought, even though either will work in place of the other in a pinch.

For my situation, I'd rather spend for a crop body than shell out for a 180L. Crop + 100L gets me close enough and gives me a lot more flexibility - especially in terms of two cam video capabilities.


----------



## tortilla (Dec 3, 2012)

aj1575 said:


> IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range.


Sure when lighting is right, technology doesn't matter. But outside of the studio it rarely _is _right 

Having said this, I think neither noise nor IQ really differs between crop and FF, you basically just gain about 2 stops. Even DOF would be more shallow when shot with an APS-C and the 50mm 1.2 than in most FF-shots. In the end it's rather about which lenses one uses, than about sensor size.

As for the smaller viewfinder: This is really a plus for the FF's. But it doesn't have to be that small, the 7d viewfinder is only 10% smaller than FF viewfinders.


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you _*will *_miss the reach.
> ...


Yes we have 

That was when my PixelRithmetic escaped me. But I have a handle on it now.

Where I am coming from (and jrista shot my dream down some months back - brought me back to reality...) is "I have a dream. That some day soon I (not my kids or grand kids; but me, myself and I [all three of us]) will have an APS-C sensor in my camera that will have atleast 24 megapixels. And these pixels will be super photon absorbers. And their configuration shall best the best FF sensors of today. I have a dream!"


----------



## K-amps (Dec 3, 2012)

aj1575 said:


> I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).
> 
> DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
> Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
> ...



I owned a 350d... a gem of a Camera, I have a lot of footage from it. I own a 5d3 now. The difference in IQ is amazing, the 5d3 files are just so much cleaner... (6D might be even more so with it's larger pixel pitch).


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

cayenne said:


> I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?
> 
> I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?
> 
> C


As always there are two answers:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The APS-C brethren are trying (very hard) to make their camera look (actually the output of the camera - but then you knew that - right?) better than FF brethren.
[*]Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP. However, if you had an APS-C sensor with 16MP, you would have more pixels per unit area and therefore more "reach"...
[/list]


----------



## mortadella (Dec 3, 2012)

The benefit of moving from APS-C to FF, or FF to APS-C should be a decision based on two factors. 

First, what do I intend to shoot and in what conditions?

Secondly, how much money do I have to spend?

There are better tools for the different conditions. I find the high ISO capability of the FF to come in handy lots of times, and for many reasons. Ultrawide angle lens options are much better I believe on FF. Unfortunately, the affordable sub $3000 FF options leave a lot to be desired from an AF perspective.

APS-C, on the other hand, give you a bit more reach with full resolution than the FF and you can get a much better AF system in the 7D than you can with a more expensive FF option.

So if the sky isn't the limit in your budget, think about what attributes are most important to you. A 2-4 stop improvement in high ISO noise vs better AF, a 1.6x factor on your zooms vs shallower DoF with similar framing etc.

It's easy for some to say if you shoot wildlife and sports outdoors in good light than you are better of with the APS-C, and for landscapes, people, and lower light conditions get a FF. The problem with that is most enthusiasts/hobbyists do a bit of everything so its always going to be a tough trade off to give up something when you want everything. That's why so many questions are always posed regarding the upgrade or new lens issue, this stuff isn't cheap and you really want to get the most out of your purchase. That's bound to happen when you are limited by budget...it sucks that we can't all have 2 1DXs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

Jay Khaos said:


> But last time the conversation was comparing a 10D with only 8 megapixels or w/e it has, which made sense. But cropping the inner APS-c FOV of a 6D wont giver you as big of a difference between the 60D right? As far as comparing a current APSC to a current full frame, that argument doesn't apply.





cayenne said:


> I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?



Answer to both of these is the same. From an IQ standpoint, there's not going to be a meaningful difference with contemporary sensors (for example, when I compared the 5DII cropped to the 7D, with no processing the 7D image was a little bit sharper and a little bit noisier...and some NR would reduce the noise and the sharpness as well). What you're giving up is megapixels...the cropped 5DII image is 8 MP, vs. 18 MP with the 7D. So the real question is, what image size do you _need_, and that depends on what you'll do with the images. If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins. If you'll print 8x12" for a coffee table book, there's no real difference...in which case, I'd pick the FF for the much better IQ when you don't need to crop, or can use a longer lens. 

Keep in mind, also, that the above applies only when 'focal lentgh limited'. If you can use a longer lens, the FF wins, hands down. Back to the 7D vs. 5DII cropped comparison, I also compared the 7D + 85/1.2L II vs. the 5DII + 135/2L (basically the same framing and DoF at a given distance). The FF won, no contest...



rpt said:


> Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP.



You and Rithmetic.  You need to get better acquainted with each other. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6*2* = 10 *6.25* MP. Thus, a 6D's 20 MP image cropped to APS-C framing would yield a 7.8 MP image.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 3, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > So I ask you FF shooters: _what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?_
> ...


_

Three pages later and nothing has been added. This thread could have stopped with Scotty's response and covered about everything that needs to be covered._


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

unfocused said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > DanielW said:
> ...


_

Thank you all for kindly taking you time to answer. It's been most helpful, for I've decided I will upgrade and keep my 60D. Time to save money now... _


----------



## K-amps (Dec 3, 2012)

cayenne said:


> I don't get what the "reach" is that I keep hearing from crop users...?
> 
> I mean if a crop and a FF shoot a 200mm shot, the crop would 'look' to have further reach, but that could be duplicated, could it not by 'cropping' the FF in post...and wouldn't you have a cleaner pic from doing that from the FF?
> 
> C



What they mean by reach, only applies if the pixels of the crop are more tightly packed or densor compared to the ff. If not there is no "reach" advantage. e.g. the 350d has not real reach advantange over the 5d2/3... since the 5d2/3 cropped would be about 8mp equivalent (of the 350d) anyway.

Another way of looking at this is, since the pixel pitch of your monitor is fixed, any pixels of the Camera sensor will need to be "magnified to be displayed on your monitor natively. Assuming you are comparing a 18mp crop to a 18mp FF, the system (Camera + monitor) will automatically magnify the image of the crop more since it's pixels were more tightly packed for the same area, and since they are magnified more, they have the same apparent effect of one using a longer focal length lens. I am not good at math either... but to quantify this, if the pixel pitch of your monitor is X, and the pitch of FF sensor is X also then the FF is displayed on your monitor at 1x magnification )= 1x reach), but since the Crop sensor more tightly packs pixels, it's pitch could be 75% of that of the FF, so to bring that to the pitch of the monitor, a factor of 1.33x (1.33 x 0.75 = 1) needs to be applied. This factor is what gives the crop sensor more "reach" or magnification... 

Basically the densor the sensor, the more reach it has, it has nothing to do with it being crop or not.

Or... The "reach" is not defined by the 1.6x (thats the crop factor of how much of an EF len's image is thrown away) but by the relative density of the crop vs. FF sensor pixels are.

I used to think the crop will always provide 1.6x more reach.. thats not true... it is only 1.6x equivalent from a perspective of framing similarly.

Reach on the other hand is pixel density related. So a 7D will have more reach than a 350d etc...


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 3, 2012)

You and Rithmetic.  You need to get better acquainted with each other. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6*2* = 10 *6.25* MP. Thus, a 6D's 20 MP image cropped to APS-C framing would yield a 7.8 MP image.
[/quote]
Which is why you don't get as much increase in resolution when increasing from 13 to 21 megapixels as you might think, and if you crop a 5D c to APS-C your left with 5 MP, so those who have "up graded" to higher MP in order to get better crops.....................


----------



## K-amps (Dec 3, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> With regards using a crop camera specifically for reach, not viewfinder magnification or framing, it really doesn't make much sense. Pixel density is not the biggest part of the equation as all pixels are not equal, if they were then P&S's should give us amazing images!
> 
> Here are two crops from two images both taken with the same lens from the same place, one is from a 1Ds MkIII and one from a 7D, the 7D puts over twice the pixels on the subject, but when you simply upres the 1Ds MkIII to the same pixel density and look at both at 100% then there is very little difference, and this was in ideal test conditions, use AF in real life shooting and those tiny differences are negated.



Very interesting experiment.... confirmed what Neuro said earlier.

7D is slightly sharper (but not 2x sharper as number of pixel thrown suggests)
7D (given the same camera distance BUT different framing) has shallower DoF (paper towel in background has more blur as does the front portion of the husk...

Thanks for posting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

K-amps said:


> 7D (given the same camera distance BUT different framing) has shallower DoF (paper towel in background has more blur as does the front portion of the husk...



This is absolutely true, but often overlooked or not understood. The shallower DoF with FF only applies if the framing his the same, and that's because of the greater subject distance needed for the same framing with a crop sensor at a given focal length.

People often suggest that a crop sensor is better for macro shooting, because of the greater number of pixels on target, but also "because of the deeper DoF with a crop sensor." But the latter does not apply at 1:1 macro shooting, since the distance will be the same regardless of sensor size. Personally, I prefer FF for macro shooting because at 1:1 I can frame a larger subject (e.g. a FF can frame a quarter at 1:1 but APS-C cannot frame even a dime at 1:1).


----------



## cayenne (Dec 3, 2012)

Interesting thread this is....

I'm quite the novice, and I was wondering why anyone would want a crop camera over a FF, thinking it was necessarily a lessor camera, since it was cheaper.

Interesting to hear there are merits for each format....

I might pick up one some day, maybe used as a 2nd camera and play around with it.....see what it has to offer...maybe a used 7D if I found one used for cheap....


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 3, 2012)

Cory said:


> Hmmm. I'm considering upgrading my T1i to a 6D, but my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 give me the perfect focal length for indoor sports. A 70-200 would likely get me 90%+ of the right focal length for outdoor sports.
> Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?



Crop the FF image, read Neuro's post on page one. I think the FF's better high ISO would be beneficial to your indoor sports shots.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins



So an un-cropped 5d3 file printed to 24*36" has no real world win over a 7d? Or, have I lost something in the ambiguity?


----------



## rpt (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Well, back to Rithmetic. If a FF camera has 16 MP then it's APS-C equivalent with the same size of pixels would be 16/1.6 = 10 MP.
> ...


You are right. Sorry folks. I apologise. My bad.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 3, 2012)

vargyropoulos said:


> I'm in the middle of making a decision for my next DSLR/Lens combo for wildlife... I was at my local camera store yesterday and I shot one of the pillars with the 400mmf/5.6L lens with the 5D3 and 7d. both shots taken at ISO 3200, f/5.6, 1/500sec shutter. same lens, I was standing at roughly the same spot and these are 100% crops of the images. I'll let you make your own conclusions/decisions



The 5DIII is a camera which is a generation ahead... therefore, the comparison has a significant variable. Also, the 16 being bigger in the 7D shot is a serious deal...


----------



## marinien (Dec 3, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you'll print 24x36" and hang on your wall, the 7D wins
> ...



Daniel, that is quoting out of context. Neuro was comparing a cropped 5DII image to a 7D's.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 3, 2012)

marinien said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Noted, it was a 5d2 and not 5d3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> However in this situation, we are reproducing the same sized image from the same area of sensor, ergo the dof is the same.



That would be true with film, but it's not true with digital. Besides focal length, subject distance, and aperture, DoF is also affected by CoC. So, the crop sensor actually gives a (slightly) shallower DoF when the first three factors are all constant.



marinien said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Correct - I am talking about the situation where you're 'focal length limited' and using a crop sensor for the greater (apparent) reach, whereas if you had a FF sensor you'd have to crop the image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor, to get the desired framing. Doesn't matter if it's 5DII or 5DIII - in both cases, the cropped FF image will be similar in IQ to the APS-C image, but have fewer MPs. 

If you can get closer or use a longer lens (or you decide to show more of the background), the FF camera will 'win' and that's exactly what I stated in my post.


----------



## tapanit (Dec 3, 2012)

aj1575 said:


> Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C?


Not only money, but also bulk and weight. If I want to shoot birds at a location I have to walk three days in difficult terrain to reach (with camping gear, food &c on my back), the weight difference between a crop body with 400mm lens vs. FF body and 600mm lens (and heavier tripod) is non-trivial.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you can get closer or use a longer lens (or you decide to show more of the background), the FF camera will 'win' and that's exactly what I stated in my post.



Yes, in other words, have the subject image larger on the sensor.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 3, 2012)

Whether FF is an "upgrade" or not in the practical sense, depends on whether the user benefits from it. It's totally subjective, depending upon the needs and skills of the individual.
However, theoretically FF is always an "upgrade" since you are utilizing all of the light that can pass through a lens that fits the EF mount. This is the biggest deal for me. Also, technically if money is not a factor, you can achieve all crop benefits from a FF setup but not vice versa. 
On the other hand, Canon provides a lot of alternatives to "make do" with a crop sensor while benefiting from additional features of the better APS-C bodies. There are excellent EF-S lenses and if you have fast primes, you can often get reasonably shallow DoF at equivalent FoVs unless you are looking for f/1.2 like Neuro said.
OP, have you tried the 15-85 before discarding the option as a walkaround zoom? Yes, it does not have the L ring or constant aperture but it is a splendid crop alternative to the 24-105. And the 17-55 deserves to be similarly priced as the 24-105. You will find the lens diagrams very similar, and the EF-S is a splendid lens. Although Canon should have included a hood, the cheapskates!


----------



## vargyropoulos (Dec 3, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> The 5DIII is a camera which is a generation ahead... therefore, the comparison has a significant variable. Also, the 16 being bigger in the 7D shot is a serious deal...



I agree that there is a generation gap between cameras but I somehow suspect that the gap is much bigger between crop & FF than it is between two FF bodies that are only 1 generation apart. 

I'll agree with other posters that in good light... it makes little difference. I actually took some photos of a bright giant yellow Nikon logo at the store at ISO 6400 with the 7d and the image wasn't as bad. 

My current dilemma... is the $1800 (more or less) difference between the cameras justified for a non-professional?


----------



## K-amps (Dec 3, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting experiment.... confirmed what Neuro said earlier.
> ...



I can visually see the difference in the sample image... very clearly. Both the front and rear of the husk is more OOF with the 7D where as the sweet spot is sharper, than the 1Ds... so the focus is spot on. The only thing that I know could explain this is a shallower DoF on the 7D. However, with the same "Framing" the FF would have a shallower DoF, since you need to move closer to the subject.... this not only negate sthe advantage the crop has, but gives it to the FF and now the FF has shallower DoF (only because you moved closer to the subject to keep the same framing).... but this is not what happened in the experiment, the poster kept the cameras at the same distance, then magnified to 100% ......... at least that's how I make sense of it.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Hi all,
> I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
> So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do_ if you _downgraded_ to crop?
> Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
> Cheers




Well, I wouldn't get too hung up about it. Many folks are getting great results with either or both current DSLR sensor sizes. But here is why I never even had a "crop" size sensor and went straight from film to a 5DII and never even considered any of the choices before the 5D as one of the first (relatively) affordable digital choices (for Canon):

a) Viewfinder size - it's bad enough as it is given the restrictions imposed by modern AF systems. Anything I'd seen before just felt awful.

b) Depth of field. All other things being equal this quickly becomes an issue on anything smaller than 35mm equivalent sensors. I should really be shooting medium format. Maybe one day.

c) Focal length choices. If you want fast primes anything with a 1.5 or 1.6x factor comes in too long - and if you adjust accordingly lenses tend to be slower (e.g. 35mm 1.4 as the 50mm 1.2 equivalent while yo still don't get the same shallow DOF).

Everything else, such as "reach" or counting number of pixels vs. pixel density or high ISO performance I pretty much don't care about. It's all good enough either way.


----------



## skitron (Dec 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I prefer FF for macro shooting because at 1:1 I can frame a larger subject (e.g. a FF can frame a quarter at 1:1 but APS-C cannot frame even a dime at 1:1).



...which means you have to get further away to frame a quarter with a crop, which also means you'll have greater DOF. Sure, we can debate the semantics of it and likely agree to them. But the net practical effect is if you are like me and own a single macro lens in the 100L, you will get two very different shooting experiences with a FF and a crop using that single lens on the same subject. No?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 3, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Hi all,
> I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
> So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would _no longer be able to do_ if you _downgraded_ to crop?
> Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind...
> Cheers



I usually don't reply to only the OP, I generally read through then possibly reply, but this this one I will take a stab at it before reading the other replies!

IMO - Upgrade should generally come when you've hit the limit of whats possible with what you've got. With crop vs FF though, it gets a little trickier. First off though, no amount of new camera will magically make you better! As I am sure many have also said here, you get better by shooting, reading,m refining, trying new things, etc, etc. Also, the benefits of FF are somewhat subjective (IE, if you shoot wildlife, with long lenses - your longest lens will appear to have shrunk on FF. But, if you are shooting in a small studio, you may have hit that wall where none of the focal ranges of your lenses make sense anymore (IE your buying a 35mm because you want a 50, buying a 50 cause you want 85, buying an 85 cause you want 135, and passing on the 135 because its too long on a crop). Low light work is another factor, if you find yourself shooting in lots of tight low light environments, you may find the light sensitivity of a FF sensor much to your liking. 

I made the transition from crop to FF in early July of this year. For the work I do, it made sense and I have very much enjoyed the transition. On my 7d, my go to lens was my 24-70. my 70-200 sat in the bag more often than not. And I used the 10-22 quite a bit too. Transition to full frame though ---my 70-200 is now my favorite lens, with my 85mm 1.8 being the second fav and I just snagged a 16-35vII and i am very much liking that lens too!. 

To a certain extent, going FF is like grabbing a new lens. I don't know what your lens setup is, but, for me I found that covering the wide end was much more difficult on crop. I liked the 10-22, but found it to be much less flattering than I'd like for people shots. 

Not sure if any of that helps.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 3, 2012)

I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
My only other zooms are EF*s* 15-85, and 70-300L.
The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.

So if we take the Samyang 35mm as having *good* IQ (which it does, all those wider ones just don't), and we take the Sigma 8-16mm as having *good* iQ (which it does), then by going to FF i'd be missing out on wide angles, super wide angles, über wide angles.
In fact, 8-16mm is the FF-equivalent of 12.8-25.6mm. The sigma 8-16mm mounted on my 7D I would be guessing gives as good if not better IQ than the Sigma 12-24mm v1, probably the same as v2, mounted on a 5D3 (at iso100 on a tripod for landscapes).
So by *upgrading* to FF, i'd be losing everything between 12.6-35mm at decent IQ, *or* I'd have to buy a Sigma 12-24 v2, or a nikon 14-24 and adapter, or a Canon 14mm *and* 16-35 and still miss out a few mm on the wide end. And that's not even considering the extra cost of those FF lenses, my 8-16 only cost me $500.


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
> My only other zooms are EF*s* 15-85, and 70-300L.
> The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.
> 
> ...


I see... That's kinda why I'm stuck. My WA is not very good nor fast (the only option I have is my 18-135 kit lens, my other lens being the 50 1.4), and I miss a better WA lens for indoor shots. The thing is, a good WA for crop means sticking to crop (EF-s 10-22, most likely), because it's gonna be an EF-s lens that's not that cheap. High ISO IQ is also something I consider important, although I can't say I'm totally dissatisfied with my 60d in that aspect.
Bottom line is, I want more lenses, but the 1.6 multiplier is pissing me off! ;D


----------



## DanielW (Dec 3, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...


Most helpful ever!
My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
Thank you very much for replying!


----------



## pwp (Dec 3, 2012)

There is a valid case for any format...APS-C, APS-H & FF. It depends on your needs. Your needs may require a $35k MF kit, so that's what you get. If your work goes no further than the web, screen viewing or medium sized prints, then APS-C will suit your needs perfectly. Maybe even a decent P&S.

Dr. Neuro mentioned earlier, _"I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing..."_ By the same token, there are occasions when the greater DoF can be very useful. I currently work with FF & APS-H (x1.3 crop) and will likely pick up a 7DII when they ship. They're all useful for particular projects or shots.

I often feel concerned when I read posts from someone aching to go to FF with the misconception that FF is this extraordinary Holy Grail from Planet Camera. Often the upgrade can be a disappointing waste of money. OP, go FF by all means, just do it with your eyes open. And keep your APS-C.

Lookout! Here comes my evangelical moment. Good workers never blame their tools. Gear Geeks and Pixel Peepers aside, the true Holy Grail of Planet Camera lies within the photographer. Great images are made by photographers, not cameras. 

-PW


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Sorry for the confusion, but I was talking about shooting both sensor formats at 1:1 lens magnification, no cropping involved.


----------



## tortilla (Dec 4, 2012)

pwp said:


> Lookout! Here comes my evangelical moment. Good workers never blame their tools. Gear Geeks and Pixel Peepers aside, the true Holy Grail of Planet Camera lies within the photographer. Great images are made by photographers, not cameras.


I believe I've heard that before  It's true of course, but isn't photographing more fun if you don't have to care about ISO or carrying a tripod all the time...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 4, 2012)

The only thing I can say is that a 5D2, or a 5D3, or a 6D will perform much better for indoor sports than APS-C. I'm not saying you can't shoot indoors with it, but the IQ will be different. The way to go is FF and then if you need reach, get lenses. That is obviously very costly, so not recommended here. I have never been able to shoot 1/1000s for indoor basketball and volleyball until I got my cameras that I have though. The APS-C and even 1D4 at ISO 5000 or 6400 were terrible. At lower ISO however, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 4, 2012)

pwp said:


> There is a valid case for any format...APS-C, APS-H & FF. It depends on your needs. Your needs may require a $35k MF kit, so that's what you get. If your work goes no further than the web, screen viewing or medium sized prints, then APS-C will suit your needs perfectly. Maybe even a decent P&S.
> 
> Dr. Neuro mentioned earlier, _"I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing..."_ By the same token, there are occasions when the greater DoF can be very useful. I currently work with FF & APS-H (x1.3 crop) and will likely pick up a 7DII when they ship. They're all useful for particular projects or shots.
> 
> ...



+1

I have used both FF and APS-C sized Canon DSLRs. Certainly there is noticable difference in depth of field b/w FF and APS-C - but the difference in depth of field (DOF) between P&S to APS-C is MUCH larger! And when people say "FF gives a 3D feeling" or "the quality of light from FF is so much better" - it's probably as a result that the photos they've chosen (or seen) from people using FF were more carefully composed, timed, etc.

Sometimes I prefer the larger DOF that a APS-C can give for the same aperture (eg for macro - and sometimes for landscape). Other times I want a razor thin DOF, and then I use a fast (ie *less* than f/2 prime on a APS-C, which often does the trick. I've done the 'blind test' even with pro photogs many times, and without knowing the camera / lens, 90% of the time are hard pressed to tell if it's FF or APS-C - many people delude themselves on (potential) purchases, in marketing it's called "cognitive dissonance".

It sounds like the OP might be well served by the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, as this is both fast, and gives sharp results (also reputedly good wide open). I have a good copy of the Sigma 10-20mm, which is sharp corner to corner. Often I've been less than impressed seeing photos of the full frame equivalent (16mm) eg the 16-35mm, which have noticeable corner softness, even stopped down.

Not that I pixel peep, but there IS something to be said about using the 'sweet spot' of lenses (or specifically lenses designed for APS-C sized sensors, which seem to be very good on the ultra wide angle!) There is definitely a place for FF, but as PW wrote above, FF isn't the holy grail - it's in the photographer (knowledge, artistry and technical competence!)

Paul


----------



## DanielW (Dec 4, 2012)

Thank you, PW and Paul! I'm aware that gear won't make me a better photographer (but it sure would be nice, wouldn't it?), so I'm studying a lot and shooting as often as I can. 
The answers I've got on this thread have really helped me figure that what I'm lacking in fact is a fast WA. The Tokina is sure worth considering, although maybe a little too much on the wide side for what I'll use it (mainly people). The 17-55 f/2.8 is probably the way to go if I stick with crop sensors (27 mm wide should be good enough), but I think it's a tad too expensive a lens when I think I could pay considerably less for a 24-105 f/4L. 
Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...
Well, anyway...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...



Ummmm, sure. Tell that to my wallet. The one with a whole lot *less* green in it, after buying a 600/4L IS II to get similar framing on my 1D X as the 100-400mm on my 7D.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 4, 2012)

DanielW said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
> ...



I hear ya man, loud and clear. Let me say this thought, bodies vs glass.. glass holds its value much better! I'm not trying to hold you back from going FF...but...a good lens will hold its value. Before i went FF, I waso n a 7d and i pondered getting a 16-35 vs 10-22. I found a used 10-22. And it was a good decision. i spent $600 on it, and used it a lot. It did annoy me at times (for working with people, the variable aperture got to me, at 22mm the distortion wasn't too bad but it let less light in so i had to work it wider than i wanted). Even with that said, it served me well, and when i moved to FF i sold that lens for very close to what i paid for it. 

It does sound like you may be ready for FF though. Don't take what I just said as a no to going FF. Just research your lens options - how do they hold up used? if it makes sense to get a wider crop lens now, go for it! if not, go FF!


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 4, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Most helpful ever!
> My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
> The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
> Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
> Thank you very much for replying!



As an alternative to the 10-22 Canon, maybe you should give a try to the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, lots of people claim it's the best wide zoom for crop sensors.


----------



## elflord (Dec 4, 2012)

DanielW said:


> That's my main reason for upgrading, indeed. Good to know there's not a huge benefit on DoF (and I'm pretty happy with the blur I can get with my 50, too). What I find a little annoying about crop is that you don't get to use great zoom lenses like the 24-70 or the 24-105 as an all-around, since you lose the WA advantage; I could buy the 17-55 f/2.8, but it's not as wide as I wish and it manages to cost more than the 24-105 L!



Whether or not it's a "benefit" is in the eye of the beholder, but the difference in dof is substantial. An f/2.8 zoom on full frame gives you similar dof to an f/1.8 prime on APS-C. Likewise an f/4 zoom is comparable to f/2.5 on a crop, and your f/1.4 primes are in another league. 

You will find yourself needing to stop down to get enough depth of field (even with a "slow" f/4 zoom) 

On the flip side, minimum focus distance at a given "effective" focal length increases. That is, MFD for an 85mm lens is quite a bit longer than MFD for a 50mm lens which is again longer than MFD for 35mm. You sometimes notice this with very tight shots, and you do lose some of the advantages of full frame when you are distance limited (at either end!)


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 4, 2012)

OK, that does it, I'm selling all my gear and carrying around a Panasonic FZ200 from now on since there is no 25-600mm f/2.8 lens for DSLRs. Not even the Siglauncher can hold a candle to that FL/aperture combination. /sarcasm

To be fair, though, in perfect light that would be a pretty good package for birding. Although the tripod and gimbal would weigh considerably more than the camera. IQ would not even be in the ballpark of a 1Dx / 600 II rig, but the size, weight, and cost ($600 vs. $20K+) difference is night and day. Likely any crop DSLR and 400mm f/5.6 would result in image quality much greater with fewer pixels and would not be an order of magnitude more expensive.

EDIT: Actually, I'd like to see this shootout:

FZ200 @ 600mm f/2.8 ISO 100
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (640mm equ with 400mm f/5.6L USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 200mm f/4 ISO 200 (cropped to 1.7MP with 70-200mm f/4L USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM)
vs.
10D/300D/Digital Rebel @ 300mm f/5.6 ISO 400 (cropped to 3.8MP with 75-300mm f/4-5.6)


----------

