# Help: Cheap FF or high end Crop for next body?



## curby (Dec 12, 2012)

*Background: *

I shoot wildlife, landscapes, travel, indoors, low-light, etc. Not much portraiture or action. I currently have a 450D with a 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 L IS. My main non-artistic weakness is shaky hands, which is why I use, and only seriously consider, lenses with IS.

*Goals in upgrade: *

[list type=decimal]
[*]Better noise in low light/high ISO situations.
[*]Good AF (AF point coverage and performance, speed in focusing, UI for point selection).
[*]Availability of lenses.
[*]Low weight/physical size. (related: I won't be using two bodies)
[*]Environmental sealing.
[/list]

*Crop/FF vs. Goals:*

If I upgraded to a newer crop body, I'd gain better ISO performance, potentially better AF, opportunity for me to reuse my 17-55, maintenance of reach of my 70-200 (to 320mm), and likely lower weight than a FF option. The environmental sealing may or may not exist on the body, and definitely doesn't exist on the 17-55.

If I went with a 6D, I'd get better low light performance and better ISO performance, potentially better AF, and environmental sealing. I'd have to replace my 17-55 with the 24-70/4 L IS, which while smaller, sealed, and capable of near-macro performance represents more expense and one lost stop. I'd be able to continue using my 70-200 but would lose some reach on the FF sensor. And lastly, the 6D would likely be bigger and heavier than crop options. 

How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS? If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO? How about a 7D instead of a 60D? *In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?*

Thanks for any advice and help you can offer.


----------



## curby (Dec 12, 2012)

A reply from another thread with similar goals but more focused on shooting people rather than nature. Any thoughts on these comments?



Area256 said:


> Noise: The 6D is about 1.5 to 2 stops better than the 60D. I find I can shoot at ISO 3200 and get results that look as good as ISO 800 on the 60D. And ISO 400 is just as good as ISO 100 on the 60D - which means I can shoot at ISO 400, and set my shutter speed 2 stops faster - which is great for action shots. Also when I say 2-stops better that's comparing the amount of noise I see in RAW files. However the real world advantage is actually a little better since with more detail you can apply more NR and still keep the minimum required detail for most applications.
> 
> AF: I'm finding the AF on the 6D to be very good, it's at least as fast as the 60D to lock focus, and clearly faster in low light. However my understanding is that the 7D has a great AF system for tracking moving subjects which are off center. So if you are finding you use the tracking AF a lot, and/or are using the points far from the center of the frame, you may want to keep the 7D for that. I find that with tuning, you can make the 6D's tracking fairly good, however you have to keep your subject near the center of the frame.



(I suppose if it's safe to drop a stop in aperture and I want to maintain reach, I could always replace the 70-200/4 with the 70-300/4-5.6. That's a lot of new glass to pay for though.)


----------



## Nazareth (Dec 12, 2012)

both- They are two different use cameras- the crop of course give better range on lenses- telephoto- and the ff woudl be better for landscapes and portraits etc- as well as for cocnerts, inhouse photos etc etc etc- I shoot a 1DX as main camera 98% of the tiem now, but there are always times I need the reach of the 7D crop camera for wildlife shots- but of course you could always buy an extender for hte ff with long lenses to get the shots- but still, if I was goign to use an extender, it woudl be for the crop camera to give even more reach

I can tell you that the noise differencve between the 1DX and 7D is insane- I'm takign shots at 8000 ISO on the 1DX that look better than ISO 1200 (or whatever that iso is o nthe crop 1250 maybe?) Really- I couldn';t beleive how much nicer the 1DX was i nregards to noise- it just blew my mind- Very very pleased with hte 1DX performanc,e and soem say the 6D is not too far behind i nthe noise arena- so yeah, there's goign to be a big difgference in noise between crop and FF


----------



## curby (Dec 12, 2012)

Thanks! Just to be clear, I wouldn't be looking at any model number that starts with a 1 or a 3 (or a 5) due to my budget. I guess I'll have to wait for some more comprehensive reviews of the 6D before making my decision, but I wasn't going to upgrade until spring at the earliest anyway.


----------



## RobPan (Dec 12, 2012)

If you have shaky hands, please take into account that a relatively heavy FF camera is harder to move than a lightweight crop camera. The 6D will be harder to shake, so to say.
BTW the 6D is sold with the excellent 24-100 mm IS as a kit lens. Not a very cheap kit, but worth considering! I have recently bought a 5D3 and I love it for it's high ISO ratings which obviate the use of flash (a fill-in flash could be useful in backlight situations).
IF you would choose the 6D, do not forget also buying - and reading - a good book on the technical aspects, you will need it!


----------



## elflord (Dec 12, 2012)

curby said:


> How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS? If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO? How about a 7D instead of a 60D? *In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?*
> 
> Thanks for any advice and help you can offer.



With the full frame camera, f/4 is dof-equivalent to f/2.5 on a crop. As far as ISO performance is concerned, all things equal you'd expect it to go up with the square of the crop factor, e.g. FF should be able to use 2.5x the ISO setting of the crop for comparable results assuming similar technology. I think you'll find this holds up pretty well, for example my Rebel body would struggle at ISO 800 and my 5DII is pretty comfortable at ISO1600. 

And when you're on full frame, you only "lose a stop" on that lens (unless you put teleconverters on but then that's a choice)

BTW, unless you are shooting at base ISO a lot, you are throwing away most of the advantages of full frame if you only ever use it with a slow zoom lens.

How shaky are your hands ? (how fast do you need the shutter speed to be at 50mm to get a sharp picture if you aren't using IS ?)


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 13, 2012)

elflord said:


> curby said:
> 
> 
> > How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS? If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO? How about a 7D instead of a 60D? *In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?*
> ...



Another possible application is macro shooting. You're into wildlife thus I'd presume that you'll also want to photograph insects. I'm also thinking of this because I'm also into landscape plus macro. Does a shallow DOF compensates ISO performance for APS-C? I shoot using 500D. In good light, ISO 800 is pretty usable, comparable enough to a 5D2 on 1600. I've searched through flickr and compared my shots with those using FF. Most of my shots are on F/8- F/11 while those using FF are between F/11-F/16 and sometimes F/22. I'm using a 100mm macro USM non-L. I'm on the same boat and a little bit confused/undecided... a 6D or a 7D2... :-\


----------



## Policar (Dec 13, 2012)

I personally find the difference most significant for portraiture, low light, and autofocus. 

For UWA the difference isn't great unless you use tilt shift lenses, which make more sense on FF.

The 50mm f1.8 on a 5D is such a great combo. And autofocus with long lenses is stellar with the Mark III. Tonality, micocontrast, etc. are improved. A 1.5 stop advantage over the 7D sounds right.

Macro is worse.


----------



## elflord (Dec 13, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Another possible application is macro shooting. You're into wildlife thus I'd presume that you'll also want to photograph insects. I'm also thinking of this because I'm also into landscape plus macro. Does a shallow DOF compensates ISO performance for APS-C? I shoot using 500D. In good light, ISO 800 is pretty usable, comparable enough to a 5D2 on 1600. I've searched through flickr and compared my shots with those using FF. Most of my shots are on F/8- F/11 while those using FF are between F/11-F/16 and sometimes F/22. I'm using a 100mm macro USM non-L. I'm on the same boat and a little bit confused/undecided... a 6D or a 7D2... :-\



Macro is one application where you are often distance limited, which negates some of the full frame advantages. For example, the minimum focus distance is the same for a given lens whether you're full frame or crop, so the mfd for a given _effective_ focal length is generally smaller for a crop (to put it another way, at magnification of 1x, an object 36mm wide fills a ff sensor, but an object 22.5mm wide fills an APS-C) 

You usually have to stop down a long way to get enough dof with macro, so the extra dof in APS is a plus. 

So just for macro, for me the cost of FF (substantial) wouldn't justify the benefits (none that I know of as far as macro is concerned)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2012)

elflord said:


> For example, the minimum focus distance is the same for a given lens whether you're full frame or crop, so the mfd for a given _effective_ focal length is generally smaller for a crop (to put it another way, at magnification of 1x, an object 36mm wide fills a ff sensor, but an object 22.5mm wide fills an APS-C)
> 
> You usually have to stop down a long way to get enough dof with macro, so the extra dof in APS is a plus.



That's having your cake and eating it, too. The 'deeper DoF of APS-C' applies when you're talking about identical framing, meaning a greater subject distance with APS-C. When you're comparing APS-C to FF at 1:1, the APS-C frames a smaller subject and gives a _shallower_ DoF - that's two advantages to FF, right there. On the flip side, APS-C gives you relatively more pixels on that smaller FoV, meaning more 'digital' magnification - so that's an APS-C advantage.


----------



## brad goda (Dec 13, 2012)

first
buy solid tripod with a decent fluid head or gimbal for wildlife and solid 3D or ball for the rest.
cant beat a solid shot ... IS or better body will not help a soft shakey image. dont want to carry
tripod...get used to it or use monopod.

but for what you are asking for? 
used 60D
6D
used 1Ds MKIII


----------



## bycostello (Dec 13, 2012)

high iso camera worth upgrading for... ff or crop, makes no difference (i await for that statement to be 'shot down'!!)


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 13, 2012)

I've just seen these shots recently. These shots are taken mostly with Nikon D200 and D7000. Not mine, but it's worth sharing. These photos are some of the best I can find in the web for macro and landscape.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/pipoujid/popular-interesting/


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 13, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> I've just seen these shots recently. These shots are taken mostly with Nikon D200 and D7000. Not mine, but it's worth sharing. These photos are some of the best I can find in the web for macro and landscape.
> 
> http://www.flickriver.com/photos/pipoujid/popular-interesting/



Nikon Crop sensors flat out kill the canon ones and have done for quite some time well at least the 1.6 crops
the APS-H on canons is better again than the nikon crops and as for full frame on canon or nikon both have strengths and weakneses and its down to end user preference of which is better for a particular need


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

Hi,

I have a 60D and a 7D. 

High ISO performance is noticeable worse that a 5DII, and the 6D is supposed to be a bit better than the 5DII. By noticeably worse, I don't mean that if you set up your comparison tests and pixel peep you can detect a difference.... I mean noticeably worse viewing the full uncropped image on a monitor.

The 7D is better sealed than the 60D, and has AFMA. The 60D has the articulating screen, (I like it but some have an absolute hatred of them.... i wonder if they have tried it...) and a crop video mode that astrophotographers really like. Unless you need those features I would lean towards a 7D because of the AFMA as my crop sensor option. I leave recomendation of a ff option to those with better experience than I...... but it seems like a choice between a 6D, a 7D, or waiting a few months to see if a new 7D is going to be released


----------



## curby (Dec 13, 2012)

Thanks for the replies! Some thoughts on those points:

*Support:* Already have tripod and monopod, but don't use them much. I agree that they're great if you have the time and carrying capacity to devote to them, but as I mentioned I'm sensitive to weight and bulk issues. Moreover, as I mentioned I sometimes do stuff on travel, which further limits the space and time I have to devote to carrying and setting up equipment. I've been learning to brace myself (or even better, the camera) on a steady surface to steady shots when necessary, and I also break out the Gorillapod from time to time. Thanks for the tip though, it's a good one for those who can carry dedicated support equipment!

*Macro:* I'm indeed intrigued by it, and I'm definitely interested in adding it to the capabilities of my lenses, which is one of the reasons why I'm interested in the 24-70/4 L IS. While FF may be less ideal for Macro due to DoF issues, it's well-compensated by FF's advantages in low light.

*Nikon Crop Sensors:* Isn't one of the reasons that Nikon has a 1.5 crop factor? FF > 1.3 > 1.5 > 1.6. I would be surprised if Canon actually regularly outshone Nikon with its smaller sensors. 

*7D II:* I'm definitely going to wait. If the 6D has a pricing history like the 5DIII, it should come down pretty well in price by next summer or so. By that time the 24-70/4 might also drop a bit (given the pricing history of other recent lenses), making the upgrade to FF more palatable. Since this is just one hobby among many, I really can't devote too much to it. I also need to upgrade my 2008 Macbook, for example. :-\ Thanks for reminding me of the anticipated 7DII though!

*How Shaky:* I haven't really bothered to quantify it, but my shots were regularly soft when I used my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 (non-OS version). They instantly got a lot better when I got the 17-55/2.8 IS. Sure the glass might be sharper, but I know that's not the whole story. =) I appreciate the fact that a heavier body (perhaps with a lighter lens) will feel better balanced and more stable, especially when combined with the better ergos of the grip.

*Other Lenses:* I definitely agree that the world doesn't begin and end with f/4 zooms, and in fact I'm looking to get some fast primes now that they're being released with IS. I've been waiting for reviews on the 35/2 IS, but if I go FF I'll likely turn my eye towards the rumored 50/1.x IS. That said, slower zooms are cheaper than faster ones and still make versatile walk-around lenses, so I'd like to retain options in that arena. 

*Conclusion:* It seems like FF is indeed the best option for the type of shooting I like to do, as I thought it might be. It's just a matter of seeing how much money the upgrade would really cost next year, and what the available options are at that time. If the 6D ends up getting a lot cheaper or the 7D II exhibits significantly less noise than the 7D, that will help inform my decision one way or another. I'll also be waiting on reviews of the 24-70/4 IS. 

And despite me calling that the conclusion, feel free to post if you have other thoughts or recommendations. 

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

I'd wait for the 7DII, and continue to use your current equipment. The 7D is a great cam for your uses but its already a long-toothed tiger.

Patience is a virtue, Impatience is an expensive commodity and If you wait a bit longer, You can get the 7DII or the 7D for less $$$. Look at the MK3 prices, They're ridiculous now!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

curby said:


> Thanks for the replies! Some thoughts on those points:
> 
> *Support:* Already have tripod and monopod, but don't use them much. I agree that they're great if you have the time and carrying capacity to devote to them, but as I mentioned I'm sensitive to weight and bulk issues. Moreover, as I mentioned I sometimes do stuff on travel, which further limits the space and time I have to devote to carrying and setting up equipment. I've been learning to brace myself (or even better, the camera) on a steady surface to steady shots when necessary, and I also break out the Gorillapod from time to time. Thanks for the tip though, it's a good one for those who can carry dedicated support equipment!



Carbon Fibre tripods! They have one great advantage... they are very light. They have one great disadvantage... they are too light to be stable with a long lens or on a windy day. My shooting style is to put the pack on the ground, set up the tripod above it, and use a short piece of cord to tension the tripod to the pack. This drasticly improves stability.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 13, 2012)

1. I'd get fast primes or at least the newer primes with IS. That should cover you for now (with crop) and later (with FF)- in terms of increased light acquisition and shallower DoF, respectively.
2. Get the 6D when the price is right.

Goals in upgrade: 
-Better noise in low light/high ISO situations- *solved by 1*
-Good AF (AF point coverage and performance, speed in focusing, UI for point selection)- *yes, with 2*
-Availability of lenses- *contradicts with your pt. 5 since EF-S lenses won't be sealed anyway, you have only EF lenses to pick from, and a FF is no worse than APS-C in that regard*
-Low weight/physical size. (related: I won't be using two bodies)- *can't be smaller and/or lighter than the 450D and still be an upgrade, unless we are looking into FF mirrorless *
-Environmental sealing- *go for fast primes in 1, followed by 7DII or 5DIII. And you'd have to sell that 17-55, of course. No idea about weather sealing on the 6D.*


My 2 c



RobPan said:


> If you have shaky hands, please take into account that a relatively heavy FF camera is harder to move than a lightweight crop camera. The 6D will be harder to shake, so to say.



The shaking of hands (for someone _without_ a neurological condition) is proportional to the amount of weight borne. So greater the weight, more the shaking. FYI. This is one of the reasons a monopod is more effective than expected. It supports most of the weight, and even though you are holding on to the camera your hands shake less since they don't have to bear all that weight.


----------



## elflord (Dec 14, 2012)

curby said:


> *How Shaky:* I haven't really bothered to quantify it, but my shots were regularly soft when I used my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 (non-OS version). They instantly got a lot better when I got the 17-55/2.8 IS. Sure the glass might be sharper, but I know that's not the whole story. =)



This is really worth looking into a bit more, because you're really boxing yourself in and limiting your options by only using IS lenses. Unless you quantify it, there's no way of knowing that you need a shutter speed substantially faster than the typical photographer (by that I mean that even if you need twice as fast a shutter speed as the "average" photographer, this won't be a game changer as far as choosing lenses goes)

It may well be the case that you often have little need for IS, e.g. the extra stops you get from a fast prime might result in a good enough shutter speed to make up for the shake. 

It's not that surprising that you found yourself "needing" IS using a variable aperture zoom lens on a crop. But maybe if your lens was 3 stops faster (or if you had a flash to add some light), you wouldn't have "needed" IS.


----------



## Botts (Dec 14, 2012)

curby said:


> How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS? If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO? How about a 7D instead of a 60D? *In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?*
> 
> Thanks for any advice and help you can offer.



I upgraded to the 6D, and I miss my 17-55/2.8 IS.

You'll get a 1-stop advantage using the FF body from an ISO perspective, but it may take some learning to realize that you don't can't shoot at 1/8 anymore. 

If you go with a f/4 IS lens, you can still shoot at the slow shutter speeds, with a stop higher ISO. That said, I'm looking at the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC fairly closely and it might be a good fit. I'd trade some sharpness to drop a stop in ISO over the f/4 IS.

*Also:* noticed you're like me with the tripod habit of not carrying it. That's one of the reasons I like IS/VC/OS. I'd seriously consider IS despite it narrowing the lens options.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 14, 2012)

The best is to have a FF and a APS-C camera body.

If you often need a focal lenght of 500 mm and higher then buy a APS-C camera. The lenses for FF are to expensive.

If you only need super wide lenses up to the medium telephoto lenses then get a FF camera.

If you have a FF camera add a APS-C camera body to your gear instead using TC´s.


----------



## elflord (Dec 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > For example, the minimum focus distance is the same for a given lens whether you're full frame or crop, so the mfd for a given _effective_ focal length is generally smaller for a crop (to put it another way, at magnification of 1x, an object 36mm wide fills a ff sensor, but an object 22.5mm wide fills an APS-C)
> ...



I don't see how these are really advantages to full frame. Let's go through the scenarios. 

(1) you are not distance limited (that is, you can compose the shot you want on full frame without cropping). On APS-C you can stand further back and get the same shot which means more DOF. 

(2) you are distance limited on both full frame and crop. That is, you need to crop in both formats to get the desired composition. This is the scenario you are suggesting that you get more DOF in full frame. But actually, in both cases you need to crop to an area that corresponds to a smaller region of the sensor than APS-C. As far as DOF formulas go, the right circle of confusion to use is that corresponding to the subset of the sensor whose pixels are used for the final image. So DOF is the same for both formats in this case, and APS-C puts more pixels on the subject. 

(3) in the intermediate case, where APS-C is not distance limited but FF is (and therefore has to crop), it is almost the same as case (1), except that some subset of the FF sensor is used -- so it's analogous to APS-H versus APS-C. In this case, you still get greater dof with the crop, but you also put a moderately reduced number of pixels on the subject. 

So I don't see where the scenario is under which FF really wins (or really has more dof_ for the same composition_)


----------



## curby (Dec 20, 2012)

Botts said:


> I upgraded to the 6D, and I miss my 17-55/2.8 IS.



Well, _crap_: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/

I'm not sure I can wait until 2014 to upgrade. 



Botts said:


> *Also:* noticed you're like me with the tripod habit of not carrying it. That's one of the reasons I like IS/VC/OS. I'd seriously consider IS despite it narrowing the lens options.



Yup. If I were a pro and were paid to have "serious" equipment around, and I regularly went out with the primary goal of shooting photographs (rather than other goals such as seeing the sights or having fun with family), and I didn't have foot issues, I'd be more inclined to carry more gear. And just to be clear, it's not just the weight but the size, as well as time and floor space needed to set up/break down support equipment, that really adds up. Monopods help with some of those issues, but IMO not enough. 

Thanks again for the ideas, everyone. 2013 will be an interesting year for my gear bag, I can tell.


----------



## tortilla (Dec 20, 2012)

curby said:


> How does the noise compare on something like a 60D with 17-55/2.8 IS, vs. a 6D with 24-70/4 IS? If the 6D has to go up in ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture, will the resulting noise generally be more or less than the crop body at a lower ISO? How about a 7D instead of a 60D? *In short, how does the low light benefit of going FF compare to the loss of a stop in aperture?*



I'm pretty much in the same situation like you and I compared test images from dpreview.com between 7D and 5D MK II. It all depends on if you shoot in raw or JPG. At low ISO the 5D MK II is in raw about one stop better than the 7D. With JPG it's about 2 stops better, the 5D MK III even 3 stops (I suppose comparing 60D and 6D will have similar results).

So in terms of noise, when you shoot raw and you'll loose one stop because of a slower FF-lens - then it doesn't matter if you shoot FF or crop. You'll gain one stop through the sensor and loose one through the lens.

But FF has still the advantage of being sharper (depending on factors like lens-quality, aperture etc). Then there are the differenes in DoF and focal length between Crop and FF, which can be a plus or a disadvantage depending on the situation. Generall disadvantages of FF are weight and cost (that said, the 6d body is by the way even lighter then the 7d body).


----------

