# Would I benefit from going full frame?



## sagittariansrock (Nov 6, 2012)

I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C? 
3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII). 

So given these circumstances, is there something I would gain by going FF with a 5DII/6D with a 24-105/17-40 (that offsets my loss of fps) or should I wait until I can afford the 5DIII/24-70II/16-35II? I am sure many of you have gone this route- your advice will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Kingnog (Nov 6, 2012)

I have a 7D, and I chose it over the 5DII. My decision was not based on price, but functionality. To me the autofocus of the 7D was much more important than the other 5DII features (lower high ISO noise....that's about it).

Go straight for the 5DIII or be happy with the 7D. I would not do an even swap with a 5DII. 6D seems like a 5DII so same goes for that.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 6, 2012)

It really depends on what you enjoy shooting. For me, I made the move because I found myself shooting a lot of indoor events, and I prefer to use ambient lighting over flash. I wanted better high ISO performance than what I was getting from my 60D/17-55 and I had some $ saved up so I decided to go for the 5DIII and 24-70. 

The real benefit of FF is at the high ISOs - 1600 and higher. While I almost never pushed the 60D beyond 3200, I have the 5D's auto ISO set up to 6400 and even 12,800 is usable.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 7, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
> 1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
> 2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?
> 3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII).
> ...



I think you've already touched on the fact that the benefit you will get will depend on the use cases you need to fulfil.

Having access to a 7D, 5DII and 5DIII, I tend to gravitate to the 5DIII or 7D for anything that moves, and I'm happy with the 5DII for subjects like landscapes or posed portraits.
In low light, the 5DIII's AF will lock in circumstances where the 7D does not stand a chance.

If you can afford to keep your 7D, the 5DII +24-105 f/4L IS USM kit may be a good option to start with. I still believe you cannot go wrong with the 24-105 f/4L IS USM. I use that lens a lot on the 7D now as well.
If indoor photography without flash is your main consideration for full frame, you could even start with a 5DII and 50mm f/1.4. (Before the days in which we all got lazy with zoom lenses, very many people used to shoot mainly with a 50mm lens.) I realise this approach would see you have two separate cameras, but it may accommodate what you need. You can then slowly start to acquire the glass you want for a full frame body.

If a major use for you is landscapes, then there is often no real differentiator between the 5DII or 5DIII - especially if you plan to shoot at ISO100 and use manual focus.
In terms of low light performance, the 5DIII really starts to pull away from the 5DII above ISO800. - My wife has a theatre job lined up later this month and the 5DIII will be a real winner here, as the 5DII struggles a little at ISO6400, while the 5DIII's ISO12800 is very usable.

The advantage you have at the moment is that Canon has played its hand, as far as full frame announcements go, with the exception of a possible very high resolution very high price body. You thus know what Canon will have on the market for the next 3 to 4 years. You know that the 5DII will be available until roughly the end of the year, so if you want one, you have a limited period of time left to buy.

As far as low light work goes, I tend to usually reach for a flash if I can, to augment whatever ambient light is available, unless flash is not permitted. What the low light performance of the new bodies does give you though is a lot more flexibility to blend ambient light and flash.

If you do opt for the 5DII or 6D, I suspect you may still want to keep the 7D, because of its build quality (it can take longer showers than the 5DII), AF system, 8fps and 1/250s maximum flash sync speed (useful for outdoor flash in bright sunlight when you want to overpower the sun).
What you lose with the 5DII is full integration with some of Canon's latest accessories, like the GP-E2 and some of the capabilities of the new 600EX-RT Speedlite and ST-E3-RT transmitter.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 7, 2012)

gmrza said:


> as the 5DII struggles a little at ISO6400



This is consistent with what I felt during my brief sojourn in FF-land. 5DII is about 1.3-1.5 stops better than the 7D. I guess that is neutralized if I go for a f/4 EF instead of a f/2.8 EF-S.

Thanks for sharing first-hand experiences and impressions. 
It seems that for me it would make sense to wait for the 5DIII unless I can keep both the 7D AND the 5DII/6D (and I can't). I had the same feeling myself, but it is reassuring to hear it from people with actual experience. 
It is true that I can see the full gamut of Canon FFs for the next few years, and I appreciate being able to plan the transition on a long-term basis.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 7, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > as the 5DII struggles a little at ISO6400
> ...



more like 2 or more stops better IMO, 5Dmk2 raw files handle noise reduction alot better than the crops
and the 5Dmk3 leaves both in its dust by a long way


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 7, 2012)

+1 on no flash....If you don't shoot anything fast 5D II + 24-105 is good start. With 24-105 on FF, you really have to slow down your shutter - 1/10 for indoor, which I hate it. 

If you want real razor sharp at f2.8, then the new 24-70 II is the way to go. I would wait and save up the $$$ for 5D III + 24-70 II, then 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Ignore 16-35 II for now. It's good lens but sharpness is not that good.

Bottom line is FF the way to go.


----------



## christianronnel (Nov 7, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
> 1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.



Some people will disagree with me but this is from my experience, you only gain 1-stop of light in terms of usable ISO with the 5DII. Is that enough for your indoor photography without flash? Additionally, and I think this is very important, unlike the 7D the 5DII does not have the focus assist beam. You will need to attach the IR flash trigger or any speedlight with built-it IR focus assist beam. This is important for lowlight even photography. SO factor that into the cost of owning a full frame Canon.



sagittariansrock said:


> 2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?


You own both of the best lenses for crop-sensor Canon bodies. I just recently upgraded to full frame with the 5DIII. I'm having a hard time replacing the EF-S 17-55 and the EF-S 10-22. I haven't yet found zoom lenses that are just as sharp as those two lenses. To date, I have tested *17-40* (hated it), *3 copies of 24-70L mk1* (the 3rd one was okay but still not sharp on the edges like the 17-55 and I sold it last night), and the* 24-105L* (worse than the 24-70 on the long end 50-105mm). I just ordered the 16-35II and I'm saving up for the new 24-70II or the just announced 24-70 F4. I do photography as a hobby and I'm just an enthusiast but I print my pictures (only sold a couple of prints).

My point to this is, unless you're printing your photos (landscape, portraiture, fine arts) I don't think there's much benefit for you to upgrade to full frame. You will be very disappointed with the 5DII coming from the 7D. It also sounds like money would be a factor in your decision. If you're unable or not willing to spend more money on the more expensive Canon's new lens offerings or prime L lenses, I suggest keep the 7D and the two fantastic lenses you already owned. If you do decide that you need full frame (btw, the bokeh is better in full frame), I suggest either save up for the 5DIII or switch to Nikon D600. Since you're going to have to sell and purchase everything, that's like starting from scratch, you might as well switch to Nikon.



sagittariansrock said:


> So given these circumstances, is there something I would gain by going FF with a 5DII/6D with a 24-105/17-40 (that offsets my loss of fps) or should I wait until I can afford the 5DIII/24-70II/16-35II? I am sure many of you have gone this route- your advice will be greatly appreciated.



You gain image quality (lower noise, richer colors and contrast, better bokeh), larger and brighter viewfinder and more complicated AF system. You will also gain larger file sizes. You didn't ask about what you will lose but here it is - you will lose reach from your tele-lenses, lose the IR focus assist beam, lose the ability to trigger off camera flashes, need better lenses therefore you will lose money. Lose more money to replace the gadgets that you have on the 7D but will not have on the 5DII or 5DIII.


----------



## Ew (Nov 7, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
> 1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
> 2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?:
> 3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII).
> ...



Foreword: my comments, are for the most part, lens agnostic.

had the 7D for about 18 minths before jumping in on the 5D2. The only reason was low light / high ISO noise. And this was a huge issue for me.

With the 5D2 I often found myself changing to a manual prefocusing strategy - and shooting more frames. And while that's more work, and more misses in high motion scenes, the keepers were brilliant. 

While I had both bodies, the 10-22 was my only efs - so the transition was fairly easy (still haven't replaced that uwa).

Once I got my brain around the 5D2 tricks, I was using it 80/20 along with the 7D. 

7D for good reach good light fast action, 5D2 for everything else. 

5D3 is really the best of both worlds (less extra reach). I am constantly amazed how often I push to 12800 (even at 1.4), and get pleasing results. 

My only regret with the 5D2 is that I did not take the FF plunge a couple of year earlier.


----------



## sach100 (Nov 7, 2012)

I was in your exact place about a year ago so i think i can understand your situation.

First off, if i understand this correctly then f2.8 on 7d is more like f2.8*1.6 = f4.4ish on FF. Appreciate it if someone could correct me on this.

what did i do? well i din't want to compromise on the frame rate and the AF on 7d. so i waited out and bought the 5d3 last March. 6fps is way better than 3.7fps and the AF on 5d3 is from a different planet 

I own both the 24-105 (came as a kit lens) and 17-40 (bought later). Agreed they are not the best of zooms around but * if you are on a budget* both these lenses allow you to do what you want to do. Obviously, PP can fix some of the issues. I was recently shooting at an university fashion show and i was consistently at iso3200ish with the 24-105 and the files were amazingly clean (which was not the case with my 7d).

My suggestion would be if you can wait then get the 5d3 - it 'll probably set you good for 2-3 years.


----------



## christianronnel (Nov 7, 2012)

sach100 said:


> First off, if i understand this correctly then f2.8 on 7d is more like f2.8*1.6 = f4.4ish on FF. Appreciate it if someone could correct me on this.



I think you are correct. The light gathering is the same for the lens, if they are the same focal lengths. For instance, a 31mm or 30mm lens on crop sensor will gather the same light as a 50mm lens on full frame, at the same aperture. If you are using the exact same lens for crop sensor on a full frame camera, the focal length would be wider and more light will be gathered. The bokeh or out of focus blur would also be affected by the crop factor.


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 7, 2012)

I think anybody pondering the full frame move would benefit greatly from reading this blog post:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/the-full-frame-move


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 7, 2012)

why nobody mentions the viewfinder always suprises me.

composition with a APS-C viewfinder is cumbersome (at least that is my experience).

the larger viewfinder is one of the reasons i love to shoot FF.

the 7D has one of the best crop VF but still seems small after you use a FF.


i never use the pop-up flash.
whenever i decide to take the big DSLR with me i can pack a dedicated flash also.
the 270 EX II is not so much to carry and it´s way better then a popup flash.

that said... i have the 270 EX II but to be honest most of the time i take the bigger 430 EX II with me. well im a flash guy... like joe mcnally i feel naked without a speedlite. 

i would not buy/use a P&S without a pop-up flash but for my DSLR´s i don´t care.


----------



## CTJohn (Nov 7, 2012)

I use the popup flash on my 7D solely to fire 3 speedlites set up on away from the camera. I would greatly miss that capability if I were to go full frame, and don't feel like buying a very expensive speedlite to handle that function on the 5DIII or 6D. I know it's not a professional way of using flash, but I'm not a professional and love the capability.


----------



## joshmurrah (Nov 7, 2012)

> I almost exclusively use the center AF point
> 
> I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents.
> 
> 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad.



These three statements tell me that yes, you want to jump to the 5D2. Skip the 6D unless you want the gadgetry.

I made the exact same choice a few months ago, and have no regrets... my 7D is on eBay right now.

The experience I've had was approximately a 1.5 stop advantage in ISO noise, and a larrrrge difference in DOF in my everyday shooting, due to the focal length multiplier change.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a fast/cheap prime to play with if you swap, like the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, you'll be amazed in the beauty of the DOF for portraiture.


----------



## LukieLauXD (Nov 7, 2012)

Hmm. If you're shaky on considering whether or not to change into full frame, you can get maybe some L-lenses, mainly the 2.8s to counter some of that high ISO noise in the meantime and then when you have enough invested into L-lenses, you'll be able to change FF a lot easeir


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 7, 2012)

Keep 7D and 6D at the same time?


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 7, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
> 1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
> 2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?
> 3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII).
> ...



5D II has inferior AF. FF has shallower DOF, a boon at times, a bear at others. Your lenses will become obnoxiously shorter and your corners a LOT worse. The 24-105 has rather immense barrel distortion at 24mm on FF. FF is not a bed of roses... Though perhaps, you might be served by a two camera setup...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 7, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> The 24-105 has rather immense barrel distortion at 24mm on FF. FF is not a bed of roses... Though perhaps, you might be served by a two camera setup...



I am familiar with the distortion at 24mm, but I tend to use my standard zooms a little longer. When I want to go wider, I use the UWAs. Unfortunately, I cannot keep the 7D AND get an FF at the moment.



NormanBates said:


> I think anybody pondering the full frame move would benefit greatly from reading this blog post:
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/the-full-frame-move



Good article, but I am aware of the technical advantages of FF vs APS-C. I was looking for some first-hand experiences from people who have made the move, specifically from 7D- and I am very appreciative that I am getting exactly that.



Gothmoth said:


> why nobody mentions the viewfinder always suprises me.
> 
> i never use the pop-up flash.



+1 on the viewfinder. Liked the big VF on the 5DII a lot.

The pop-up flash is actually useful for fill-flash on casual outings. Plus, I use the flash commander of the 7D a lot for my speedlites, although I should probably invest in RF triggers soon..



LukieLauXD said:


> Hmm. If you're shaky on considering whether or not to change into full frame, you can get maybe some L-lenses, mainly the 2.8s to counter some of that high ISO noise in the meantime and then when you have enough invested into L-lenses, you'll be able to change FF a lot easeir



I do have f/2.8 glasses from 17-200mm (with IS!) but that doesn't help. I feel f/2.8 is not sufficient to stop motion at ISO 1600 indoors at night. However, your advice of getting fast lenses (f/1.4s) to counter the high ISO noise makes a lot of sense. Indeed, I am trying to make a decision between the 24mm and the 35mm, though the 24mm probably makes more sense if I am staying APS-C for a while.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2012)

Actually an interesting thread that seems well-balanced. I always love Roger's Lens Rentals articles as they tend to put things in real world perspective.

I have considered adding a full-frame body as well and may do so at some point, but honestly, Canon's recent actions are pushing me toward sticking with APS-C. Why?

Money. It's that simple. 

Every time I do the math, reality sinks in and I just can't make the cost-benefit analysis work in favor of full frame.

I'm not earning money from photography. While I would like to explore the possibility in post-retirement, that's a few years down the road and for now, I'm concentrating on improving technique and building up my personal portfolio. 

For what it is worth, here is my perspective:

My main interest in full frame is at the wide end. I have been spoiled by the 1.6 magnification for longer lenses and would almost certainly continue to use the 7D for telephoto lenses when I am distance limited. There would be some advantage to being able to use my telephoto lenses with both bodies, but that is a convenience not a necessity.

The cost of entry into full frame will be, at a minimum somewhere around $2,300, and that would be for a refurbished 5DII and 24-105mm lens, the bare minimum needed in my opinion. I already own the 15-85mm EF-S and the Tokina 11-16. So, the wide end is covered with my 7D. The 24-105 would replicate the 15-85 range, but not the 11-16 crop range. So, initially, it would be a compromise that would have to be supplemented by the 7D when ultra-wide is needed. 

Now, $2,300 isn't out of the question, but that is for old technology. If I want the 6D and the new 24-70 L lens the cost of entry rises to about $3,500. 

But, that is for a single lens kit. To take full advantage of the full-frame I would want to invest in other lenses, such as the 24 2.8 IS prime and probably the 135 f2 prime. After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field? 

Because I seldom shoot at over ISO 400, I regularly print images at 12x18 with the 7D with no loss of quality. I've gone as high as 18 x 30 without any problem. 

Like many photographers today, the vast majority of my pictures end up on the internet at 72dpi. The other use I have for prints is in photo books, which never get larger than 9 x 14 maximum. 

So that's where I am at. I can't bring myself to spend well over $2,000 on old technology, I can't justify $3,500 for the minimum of what I would want in new technology and I certainly can't rationalize $4,000 for the 5DIII and kit lens. Plus, I am not anxious to start adding new lenses at $800-$1,200 a pop. 

So, this is where Canon has put me: I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements. Even if it is released at the same price as the 6D, I think it will be a better camera and I won't have to buy wider lenses. Even if I decide to add the 17-55 2.8 lens (refurbished) it will still be significantly less costly than the 6D and 24-70 f4 and a full stop faster. I firmly believe that there will be a 7DII, for reasons that have been well-documented on this forum. But, even if it doesn't materialize, I won't have lost anything and I can decide what to do when that becomes known.

I am happy with my current kit and frankly have more than I can reasonably carry in a bag anyway. Adding lenses is always fun and tempting, but honestly, I don't _need_ anything right now. 

My point: Every case is different. But, I would be a prime candidate for the jump to full-frame. But Canon has raised the cost of entry so significantly that when I compare the cost, versus the benefits I cannot justify it. I believe I will remain an APS-C shooter for quite some time.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Actually an interesting thread that seems well-balanced. I always love Roger's Lens Rentals articles as they tend to put things in real world perspective.
> 
> I have considered adding a full-frame body as well and may do so at some point, but honestly, Canon's recent actions are pushing me toward sticking with APS-C. Why?
> 
> ...



just a few thoughts

the tokina 11-16 will physically mount on full frame and still operate at 16mm without vignetting (13mm on APS-H) so the 5Dmk2 and 24-105 + keeping the tokina and using it as a 16mm prime effectively would be a pretty good option to sort you out without the need to spend big on the megabucks wide lenses
this would give a pretty nice entry point with solid coverage and good IQ

I also got the voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar SLII new are $600 or so i got mine second hand for $400 and its a fantastic little wide lens especially when packing light 
the voigtlander has less distortion than all the other UWA options around except probably the ziess 21mm but thats super expensive and much much bigger

My typical pack light setup is

5Dmk3 (but say you go with a 6D $2000)
the voigtlander 20mm ($600)
the canon 40mm pancake ($200)
both are 52mm filters so i carry a B+W 10 stop ND and a CPL both in 52mm with these lenses and 52mm filters of quality are not expensive ($100 for both)
then i also have the 85mm f1.4 sigma for portraits low light etc ($800)

totals about $3700 you could probably get it to under $3000 if you went 5Dmk2 and got some good deals on used lenses.

i guess it depends how badly you need a zoom and your tollerance for using primes but these 3 primes provide exceptional image quality and give excellent coverage in a relatively small easy to carry kit

all fits in a small bag
I'm guessing when the canon 35 f2 IS comes out it might replace the 40mm in this kit but probably wont have the nice interchangability of filters that i have between the voigtlander and the 40mm


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 8, 2012)

I have a 60D and I'm probably (85% chance) going to upgrade to a 5d mkii. I've been preparing for this move for over a year just in case. I've purposely avoided Ef-s lenses as I thought this might happen. 

I know what you mean about the noise that becomes intolerable after an ISO of 2000... Lightroom can only do so much. I picked up a 430ex II and for indoors I've been quite pleased. I bounce light from above or the side, and that makes using the f/4 substantially more tolerable. 

There are a few times where I'm outdoors and I can't bounce light from an optimal angle... so I wind up bouncing it off the ground... But I was shooting at f/2.8 in near dark... so I was pleased to get any shots considering the circumstances. 

The 17-40 is ok... but you have to stop it down so it isn't quite as soft. I had and will have again (I sold my old one so I could get a package which will hopefully be cheaper on a per piece basis) the 24-105mm and I was pleased with it. It doesn't out perform my primes, but it does and excellent job of giving me more great flexibility in either good light or with a flash. 

I get about 5.3 shots per second from the 60D... and I'm not pleased with the 3.9 downgrade. But I don't think I will miss the 1 shot per second. I'll just have to time it right. I think I will still use the 60D in bright sun, but the 5d mkii when I'm in doors shooting basketball or other sports like that. I also use the center AF point... more often than not. 

Personally, I don't like waiting because that next step will take freaking forever. So I improve incrementally. I started with an XS plus kit lens and a 75-300mm. That was a bad setup... but then I picked up a 50mm f/1.8, then upgraded the telephoto to a 55-250. 

I upgraded the XS to a 60D, and a then the lenses to the 24-105 and the 50mm f/1.4, and throw in a 100mm F/2.8L Macro IS, and a 70-200mm f/4 and f/2.8L (but I sold both of the latter). 

I think if you can keep both bodies... that will be the best bet. I have to make a decision on whether I want to keep the 60D or possibly sell it and buy a 135mm f/2L.

I think if you can wait a year and a half... and exchange your ef-s lenses for a EF complement. Then when you have the cash, upgrade one of the three... 

If I have a choice to get the best option, I'd probably get the 16-35 first since the price has normalized. Then after a year, I could see getting the 5D mkiii for around $2300, and the FINALLY getting the 24-70 mk ii.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 8, 2012)

Except for sports or bif, the 5D MK II is a great camera. I stopped using my 7D except for product photography and macros in favor of the 5D MK II.
If you do low light photography, its a big step. I am pretty unhappy with the 7D even at ISO 1600 its weak, while I get better images with the MK II at 3200 and even 6400. I'm hoping to get 1/2 or better additional stops with my new 5D MK III, but I have yet to really give it a heavy duty test.


----------



## sach100 (Nov 8, 2012)

christianronnel said:


> sach100 said:
> 
> 
> > First off, if i understand this correctly then f2.8 on 7d is more like f2.8*1.6 = f4.4ish on FF. Appreciate it if someone could correct me on this.
> ...



+1 Thanks.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements.



I am also very happy with the 7D and think it is the best APS-C camera available; but two things bug me and I am sure has bugged thousands of users into going full frame (including some of the posters here): There is light to be had and my sensor cannot capture it, and I can get shallower depth of field at the same FoV if I want (and I DO want). 
I still have an Elan 7 and sometimes I would just take that and my cheapo 50mm and go out and shoot. And the results are very satisfying in spite of the bother of processing and scanning. 
That is why my next upgrade is more likely to be a FF (read 5DIII, also read no way within 1 year) instead of the 7DII, which I am sure will be as excellent as its predecessor. 



unfocused said:


> After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field?



Exactly, and that means faster lenses before an FF upgrade. AND they will help avoid high ISO noise.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 8, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> I know what you mean about the noise that becomes intolerable after an ISO of 2000... Lightroom can only do so much.



Let me throw in a full resolution macro of mine here to show what Photoshop can do to ISO 2000. Shot with 5D Mark III and EF 100mm Macro non-L. A 60D or 7D will not do that, so as far as it concerns noise at high iso, go fetch that FF!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 8, 2012)

i am not sure why people complaining about not being able to push iso over 2000 with 7d. as for me, it is still usable up to 6400. i do not have my 7d here, but i do bring my 30d with me when traveling to work (keep learning after working hours) and this following picture was taken with max iso of 30d (straight out of camera, just re-size with ACDSee as you can tell from exif). i choose to use my 7d and 5d iii for events; therefore, i always leave them home.

what i am trying to say here is to choose your angle of shooting and shift your exposure to the right... do not shoot low key with high iso on any crop body... you can see noise even with FF when shooting low key with 400 iso...

note: i do not have macro lens, but this is should same kinda shot... "bright background"

just a thought...


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 8, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I am happy with my 7D. I consider it to still be the absolutely best APS-C camera on the market today even three years after introduction. So, I will wait and see what Canon does next spring. I expect to see a 7DII and I expect it will have some marginal improvements.
> ...



+1 on Unfocused's original post.

With regards to the DOF 'advantage' on full frame, there is always the flip side of greater depth of field at larger apertures for the crop sensor which could be useful for e.g landscape work. Of course this can be countered by
the arguments that crop sensors become diffraction limited sooner so especially for landscape a larger aperture may be needed anyway to prevent loss of resolution. And that usually tripods are used for landscape work so that a longer exposure/smaller aperture is no issue for a full frame landscape shooter. Just trying to say that it's not always worse on a crop camera.

Like Unfocused said, for me, money is the issue. It's a hobby, and one I can't find enough time for at the moment anyway. For me to go full frame and keep the features of the 7D I have, it has to be a 5D mark III- 2.5x the cost of the 7D in the UK at the present time. Plus I would need to buy a new ultra wide zoom- my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop. The 16-35 is twice the price of the 17-40 and not without issues either. Put simply, I cannot justify the cost as much as I would like to go full frame.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 8, 2012)

insanitybeard said:


> my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop.



My experience too. Is that what others have found, or did I have a bad copy or didn't spend enough time with the setup?


----------



## dlleno (Nov 8, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop.
> ...



I'm thinking thats why God inspired Canon to invent the 16-35 II   

on a related note: with the recent introduction of the 24-70 F/4 L IS, at $350 more than the 24-105 f/4 L IS, I wonder if the latter is due for an update and price increase


----------



## bycostello (Nov 9, 2012)

why do you think u need FF?


----------



## insanitybeard (Nov 9, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > my 17-40 on full frame is inferior to the EF-S 10-22 on crop.
> ...



The main problem with the 17-40 on full frame is at the wide end with wide apertures (f4 up to f8), the extreme corner resolution is poor until well stopped down (Check out the Photozone test). Using it on a crop camera masks this issue. The 10-22 has much less barrel distortion as well. Having said that, on a crop camera, the 17-40 delivers very good results because it's main weaknesses on full frame are disregarded.


----------



## elflord (Nov 9, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> 2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?



That's a good question. You gain about a stop, so if you're going to put f/4 glass on it, you're not going to gain very much as far as low light shooting is concerned. 

If you're shooting indoors a lot, you'll be better served by faster glass (e.g. the 50mm f/1.4) and a dedicated flash unit that you can bounce (e.g. 430EX or 580 EX) than a full frame with no flash and f/4 glass. This option will also not cost you nearly as much.

If you do go full frame, look into the original 24-70 or the Tamron or Sigma 24-70 for your standard zoom.


----------



## elflord (Nov 9, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Now, $2,300 isn't out of the question, but that is for old technology. If I want the 6D and the new 24-70 L lens the cost of entry rises to about $3,500.
> 
> But, that is for a single lens kit. To take full advantage of the full-frame I would want to invest in other lenses, such as the 24 2.8 IS prime and probably the 135 f2 prime. After all, what is the point of the full frame if you can't take advantage of its perceived shallower depth of field?



Entry level would be more like the 6D and the Tamron (or if you're open to older glass but not body, the original 24-70) 

Then the 50mm f/1.4 as your "shallow dof prime" 

But even without the prime, having something that behaves like an APS-C 15-45mm f/1.8 lens is pretty handy. 

So there are plenty of benefits to FF, but you're right that there are plenty of costs too. In the above example you'd have a fairly limited selection of glass (standard prime + standard zoom)


----------



## sdsr (Nov 9, 2012)

Earlier this year I moved to a Canon 5DII (I also bought a Rebel t3i as back-up) from a Pentax K-5 (which supposedly has a better sensor than the 7D) after renting 5DII + 24-105 and doing some direct comparisons. If you can do the same, I would recommend it, as we all have different needs/uses and standards; the differences that matter to me may not matter to you.

Among other differences that matter to me, the FF is much better at capturing busy detail (e.g. leaves on trees), cropping is better, shallow depth of focus is more easily obtained, and most important of all, images in low light (typically outdoors; I like cities at night) look far superior. On the other hand, there are situations where the differences are minimal to non-existent (simple subjects in bright light that are fairly close, for instance). The failures of the 5DII's autofocus are lost on me as I hardly ever want to shoot something that moves fast.

As others have pointed out, f/4 on FF is at least as good as f/2.8 on crop in low light, so you can imagine just how much benefit you can get with faster lenses on FF - I'm often amazed at how low the ISO can get in relatively low light with even f/2.8 (let alone f/1.4). Throw in effective IS and the situation only improves (there are situations where a slow lens with IS yields better results than faster lens without IS).

As for the poor corner performance of the 17-40, all I can say is that I almost never take a photo where something in a corner should be in focus (the reverse, in fact), so I don't care. It's certainly true that the huge barrel distortion of the 24-105 at 24 will look worse on FF, but if you have software that fixes that sort of thing (I use DxO, which does so automatically) it doesn't matter. As for complaints about these two lenses cf the two EF-S lenses you have, perhaps I've been lucky with my two or unlucky with the 17-55 I rented (I've not tried the 10-20), but I much prefer the results I get on my 5DII with the 24-105 than I did with the 17-55 on my Rebel, which was at its best on close objects. (I also think that people around here exaggerate the differences among good lenses, but that's another matter....)

So, I would suggest you rent or borrow a 5DII/24-105 combination (or 70-200 f/4IS, for that matter) and compare it with your 7D + EF-S lenses (and compare the rented/borrowed lens(es) on both). You may reach completely different conclusions from mine....


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 9, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
> 1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
> 2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?
> 3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII).



* The stop difference between your 17-55 and its FF replacement(s) is most of the difference in high ISO between the 7D and 5D2. The 5D3 is better still, but you've ruled that out for now on price. Nobody knows what the 6D will be like, though I imagine it will be comparable to the 5D3.

* You say noise above 1600 is bad. Use Canon's DPP for high ISO shots along with a 3rd party NR plugin. With that combination I find ISO 3200 noise is difficult to detect in an 8x10 print.

* Finally, for the price and hassle of moving, why not just add a fast prime?

If you could afford the 5D3 I would say go for it. But my guess is you will miss the speed and AF of the 7D vs. the 6D. Add a fast prime and optimize your high ISO workflow.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 9, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> i am not sure why people complaining about not being able to push iso over 2000 with 7d. as for me, it is still usable up to 6400. i do not have my 7d here, but i do bring my 30d with me when traveling to work (keep learning after working hours) and this following picture was taken with max iso of 30d (straight out of camera, just re-size with ACDSee as you can tell from exif). i choose to use my 7d and 5d iii for events; therefore, i always leave them home.
> 
> what i am trying to say here is to choose your angle of shooting and shift your exposure to the right... do not shoot low key with high iso on any crop body... you can see noise even with FF when shooting low key with 400 iso...
> 
> ...



I got usable files up to 3200, 6400 was for High-speed B&W's in my use of the 7D. 12,800 was just mush.

Infact, all my graduations shots on my website were from my 7D @ 1600 - 3200 ISO. Perfectly fine.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 9, 2012)

> I got usable files up to 3200, 6400 was for High-speed B&W's in my use of the 7D. 12,800 was just mush.
> Infact, all my graduations shots on my website were from my 7D @ 1600 - 3200 ISO. Perfectly fine.



i used my 7d to take a candid shot on bridesmaids with 12,800 one time only (just an experiment, right in the church). after that, i have said to my self, i will only use it when there is no other choice 

this is one of my 6400 iso that i helped my friend to shoot for his client's wedding. snapped this when seeing this gent. sitting by himself and wanted to try something different to see how it looked like. no noise reduction applied on this image...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 10, 2012)

Firstly, >1600 ISO images from 7D aren't bad, and I am sure in the hands of competent photographers are perfectly usable- however, that I feel is the one weakness of that excellent camera.
Secondly, when you think of all the extra light there is to be had if you go FF (I know FF users can also think the same of going MF!) and all the shallow DoF that you can use creatively, that is one big incentive.
I haven't ruled out 5DIII, in fact that is what I am going to save up for now- thanks to the general advice I got in this thread and elsewhere. I do think I'd miss the fps of the 7D if I go with 5DII/6D.
But this is very good advice:


elflord said:


> If you're shooting indoors a lot, you'll be better served by faster glass





dtaylor said:


> * Finally, for the price and hassle of moving, why not just add a fast prime?


I think I'd benefit from f/1.4 glass as well- it will counter my high ISO problem as well as provide the shallow DoF when I do go FF. But I think a 24mm or 35mm will suit me better indoors. 50mm on a crop is too long. I used to have the 1.4, but ended up selling it and just kept the 50 1.8.


----------

