# Do you miss APS-C?



## gjones5252 (Dec 5, 2012)

I have a 60d but I have an opportunity to upgrade it at a reasonable price and get a 5d Mark III. My only worry is that I will miss the extra reach I was getting with APS-C and the vari-angle screen(but thats more of a minor concern). I have a 5d Mark II and love the full frame but worried I am going to miss the reach. 
I do weddings, portraits, concerts and videos of all sorts. I dont have any ef-s lenses. 
Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?



Yes.

BTW, depending on your use, it may not be a loss in reach. If you crop a 5DIII image to the FoV of APS-C, you'll have an 8.6 MP image that is at least of equivalent IQ to the 60D image. For most uses, 8.6 MP is sufficient (unless you're printing 12x18" or larger). If you crop less, IQ goes up.

I have a 7D. After getting the 5DII, the 7D was used mostly with the 100-400mm lens, but that was more for the AF performance needed for birds/wildlife. Now that I have the 1D X, the 7D just sits in the Storm case, keeping a few lenses company.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Now that I have the 1D X, the 7D just sits in the Storm case, keeping a few lenses company.



At least the lenses have a buddy now, lol!. To the OP, wedding/portrait/event shooter here. I tried using both my 7d and the mk3 during wedding season. After the first one I did like that the 7d basically became a lens holder. With a 24-70 on the 7d and a 70-200 on the mk3, I had some overlap on the long end of the 24-70. The only time I really had enjoyment from the combo was outdoor ceremonies. For indoors (I try my best to not use flash for ceremonies), I found that the high ISO performance of the mk3 was a real game changer. On the mk3 I could really go as high as i wanted in ISO, where to have a similar IQ on the 7d I had to keep it around 1600 (odd, before I got the mk3 I would go up to 4000 for low light, but after seeing the difference --- 7d ISO 4000 to mk3 ISO 6400 and above I found that it wa a waste to even take the time to snag a shot with the 7d ---just stick with the lens i had on the mk3 or switch lenses. And at a reception, forget about it, 7d just sits in the bag there. 

I thought I'd miss the "range" of the APS-C, but I don't really miss it at all. I have the non-IS 70-200 2.8 and on the 7d to keep the SS at at least 1/100th indoors with no flash I had to pump the ISO up to at least 3200 ---the IQ just didn't stack up. On the mk3, at 200mm, ISO 6400, and severely cropped --- the image was nice and sharp, where the uncropped 3200 on the 7d looked muddy (the noise made me think my lens needed focus adjustment, i often looked at high ISO 7d images and thought it had missed focus, where in fact it was in focus, just reaaaaaaaaaaallly noisey)

I just sold my 7d to help fund the purchase of a second ff (either 6d or a second mk3). So I say, don't look back, go FF! you will be pleased!


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> gjones5252 said:
> 
> 
> > Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?
> ...


+1
After I sold my 7D, I found 7D is very useful when the objects are over than 200mm. I really missed 7D.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 5, 2012)

> Do you miss APS-C?



I did: traded my 40D for a 5DII and then bought a 7D as well to give me back what I missed (in a better way):

The extra reach without the loss of a stop of licht (use of APS-C as a kind of 1.6x TC). It is more cost efficient to get an extra body than uprate the tele-lens(es). 

Also, the AF performance of the 5DII was insufficient for sports and trips to the zoo. 

In addition I like the dual functionality that some of my (full frame) lenses now gained and I sometimes make use of that. 

For ultimate quality though, FF rules (but the 7D isn't bad either).


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 5, 2012)

I upgraded from a T2i to a 5D2 and then the 5D3. I don't think I've ever missed the reach, the advantages of full frame make it easy to forget. I think it may be worth keeping your 60D around though if you personally think you'll miss it, everyone is different. And it effectively doubles the number of lenses you have.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> gjones5252 said:
> 
> 
> > Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?
> ...



+1 with Neuro on crop. I shoot raw with 5D III, cropping is my favorite thing in PP. At this time, I'm not sure if I ever want to go back to crop......


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 5, 2012)

I finally just sold my 7D after getting the 5D MK III. The 7D was really good with my 100L for Macros, but I did not use it that way enough to justify it.


----------



## Policar (Dec 5, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> I have a 60d but I have an opportunity to upgrade it at a reasonable price and get a 5d Mark III. My only worry is that I will miss the extra reach I was getting with APS-C and the vari-angle screen(but thats more of a minor concern). I have a 5d Mark II and love the full frame but worried I am going to miss the reach.
> I do weddings, portraits, concerts and videos of all sorts. I dont have any ef-s lenses.
> Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?



You're asking for video specifically or for stills? Just wondering because of where you posted this.

Anyhow, you can always buy a longer, slower lens, but for concerts you'll lose something. The 5D has about a 1.6 stop edge in ISO for stills and a two or three stop edge for video and less skew. I thought the super shallow focus would bug me, but it doesn't. The Mark III is a good camera, underrated partially due to its versatility.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 6, 2012)

I had an XSi for 1 1/2 years, worked well, but then when I upgraded to the 5d2 I promptly forgot all about the XSi. I never really went for any kind of telephoto either, so any 'reach' I lost I never really noticed. If I had been a serious 7D user, and then went to the 5d2, I might due to the 7D being a quite capable camera, while with the XSi I started outpacing it in certain situations (low light).


----------



## Richard8971 (Dec 6, 2012)

No, I get to use it every time I grab my 7D. 

FF's have thier place and have drawbacks, like crop sensors have thier place and drawbacks.

I use FF for certain shootings and I use my crop for certain shootings. I love both my 7D (for speed) and I love my 5D2 (for image quality and low light use).

I shoot a lot of wildlife so the 7D is mainly what I use. It's a very fast camera with great image quality that I won't trade for anything. At even the "low" price of 3 grand, the 5D3 is still outside what I am willing to pay for another camera at this point. I am not even sure I would "upgrade" to the 7D2 if and when it comes out. (depending on price/options) I have been very happy with the two cameras and they provide everything I need for what I do.

D


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 10, 2012)

So basically My 60d broke. They gave me 1299 to buy a new kit version. Any recommendations? The ISO of my 5d is good but not making it so I can avoid flash at night events. For video I also need higher clean ISo as I don't always have enough light. I have a wedding in beginning of January and can probably barrow a camera to be a my back up. So I guess waiting isn't an issue I am just impatient. 
Should I wait for more concrete details on 7d ii? Get 5d iii in mid January? Seems like the only two really good options. 
I do just about every type of photography, portraits landscapes travel wedding event and video for those too.


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 14, 2012)

So I did get rid of my 60d. I won't miss the ISo but I will miss that screen. 
So now I have about 3000 to spend. Obvious is the 5d 3 but I cannot decide if I should wait. Ill just have to wait and see what is announced here soon.


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 14, 2012)

I think you will h ave a very long wait for new bodies. If you have $3000 you are willing to spend on a body, you can't go wrong with the 5DIII. If you don't want to spend that much and you don't need the insanely awesome AF features, the 5DII is a bargain right now, especially used.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 14, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> I have a 60d but I have an opportunity to upgrade it at a reasonable price and get a 5d Mark III. My only worry is that I will miss the extra reach I was getting with APS-C and the vari-angle screen(but thats more of a minor concern). I have a 5d Mark II and love the full frame but worried I am going to miss the reach.
> I do weddings, portraits, concerts and videos of all sorts. I dont have any ef-s lenses.
> Is the image quality worth the difference and loss in reach?


A few months ago I had 7D & 60D ... but I sold the 7D to fund 5D MK III for the following reasons:
1. I wanted to keep the crop factor for my Sigma 150-500mm OS lens for bird & wildlife photography
2. I wanted vari-angle screen for macro photography, and taking top angle videos of safety briefing sessions of rig personnel.
The image quality difference between 5D MK III and 60D is huge ... obviously in favor of full frame.
But when it comes to cropping (to the same field of view as crop sensor), the image from 22MP, 5D MK III becomes around 9MP ... whereas the 60D image is 18MP ... so when I need range and difficult angles to shoot, I use 60D.
I will continue to keep the 60D until it is replaced with 70D (or if the 7DII comes with a vari-angle)


----------



## Autocall (Dec 14, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> Do you miss APS-C?



Nope...


----------



## pwp (Dec 14, 2012)

Right now I work with FF 5D3 & APS-H 1D4 and can say with certainty that I'll pick up the 7D2 when it ships. I like all the formats for the unique qualities that each one brings to the table. If I need MF for a project I'll rent it, and some projects are happily shot on the G15.

If I had a bigger garage & suitable disposable income I'd have a kitted out Toyota Landcruiser, a fuel efficient Japanese station wagon and a Vespa motor scooter. And then drive the right one for the job at hand. That's a slightly extravagant fleet, but returning APS-C to my current format mix is an easy, inexpensive expansion.

-PW


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it boils down to whether you prefer to have more equipment to choose from (and manage) or less equipment. I like having both formats but it does create more agonizing choices before a shoot about which lenses on which body, how will I shoot this or that, etc when you have two different bodies.

Here is my opinion... I own the 60D and I use it because it has a faster fps for sporty stuff. It has the same sensor as the 7D but the 7D has even faster frame rate. For the price however, the 60D works fine for my needs since sports isn't my primary thing. I use my FF 5D and now my 5D3 (and soon my 6D) for just about everything else. Even compared to the older 5D the 60D IQ doesn't compare. And when I shoot anything else "important" going forward requiring me to carry two cameras, those two cameras will now be FF without a doubt and that will require a bit less thought.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

I only miss the reach from APS-c but nothing else.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 14, 2012)

i own and use both a 5D3 and 7D. This pairing replaced a 5D and 40D. The 7D is used principally with my 100-400 and 300 f/2.8 (with and without TCs) for sports photography. Very often, the 100-400 will be on the 7D and a 70-200 on the 5D3. With the focusing improvement, the 5D3 is a passable sports camera, something the 5D never was. 

However, I have also used a (1) 17-35 on the 5D/5D3 and 24-70 on the 40D/7D, (2) 24-70 on the 40D/7D and 100-400 on the 5D3 and (3) 17-50 on the 40D/7D and 70-200 on the 5D/5D3. 

Having said that, if I were regularly shooting events and/or weddings, I would certainly buy another 5D3 and relegate the 7D to backup status. 

Regarding the mythical 7D2, I want improvements in DR and high ISO image quality over the 7D, not more pixels. That's what I said about the 5D3 over the 5D2 and that's what Canon delivered.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 14, 2012)

As someone that went from a 7D to a 5D3 and still own both I can so easily answer that.
Do I miss my focal ranges being just plain wrong? No.
FF feels like home.

I never look back. I keep the 7D as a back up at weddings but that's all, it's hardly ever used.


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 14, 2012)

Awesome! Thanks guys that's what I needed to hear. 
I have enough and am going to go with the 5d iii. 
I like what was said about how gaining an apsc is very easy especially if its just for the reach. I will miss the vari angle but if I get the 5d now then as time goes on the 60d will only get cheaper and the 7d ii will be announced even though it will be pricey. I will need a apsc though because you can't crop video but for pictures it will be awesome. And with the 5d ii and iii I think they will be good match for each other. I hope the 5d ii still gets used. Haha


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 17, 2012)

Ok so last question. I got the money and they are going to mark down the mark III if i want it. only question is i watched the new episode of Digital Rev Tv and they compare the 5d to the 6d. The 6d looked like it had way better image quality under high iso. I would assume they werent stupid enough to make the test non-comparable(jpeg to raw, high iso noise on vs off) 
That kinda scared me. I am bored of the 5d II auto focus and by far ready for a better auto focus but at the cost of a higher iso image quality! thats pretty frustrating! anywhere else i can find a good similar comparison between high iso of these?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2012)

Check the 6D review on TDP. 

[quote author=TDP]
...I do think that the 6D is producing less noise than even the 5D III. You won't see much difference at lower ISO settings, but somewhere around ISO 800 to 1600, I can start to see a slight difference. The difference between these two cameras, even at very high ISO settings, is not significant enough to be a differentiator in my opinion.
[/quote]


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Dec 17, 2012)

And how many of you have noticed that we are in the video forum rather than the 'open your mouth and let your belly rumble' forum.

And it turned into another APS-C vs FF debate. Like all the others before. And nary a nod to video.

My take from a video context...

I actually prefer APS-C for video.

I don't tend to use extreme ISO's.

The APS-C cameras to my eye exhibit less rolling shutter (certainly than the 5D2, not had hands on with 5D3 or 1DX yet)

The depth of field is far more managable on APS-C. I'm sure there are those who have no problem shooting moving pictures of moving subjects from a moving stand point and can keep the focus contiguous at f1.4 on a full frame. I'm just not one of them. I find APS-C a lot more forgivving.

I'm also going to use a phrase that people hate here....

I'm not a rich hobbyist, for whom my camera is a badge of status or a trinket or plaything. I buy what I can afford (and like most working in video / photography, the money isn't 'out-there') or justify. I can get a more versatile lens set for less money on APS-C.

The tokina 11-16 f2.8 is vastly cheaper than the 16-35 f2.8 I'd need on full frame to get equivalence.

And here's the good bit. When I get my c100 I'll already have the lenses that work for me.

I find it curious that canons own cinema line is roughly APS-C with the exception of the 1D-C (Which nobody buying a camera for video would buy ahead of a c500) yet all the usual suspects pipe up with why FF is better for stills.

IT'S A VIDEO FORUM, DOH!


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 18, 2012)

went ahead and ordered the 5d mark iii. I got it for 2600 from a dealer where i can get a warranty, and with my 1300 credit i ended up at about 1300 for it. For only 500 more than the 6d i think it was worth it. And worth the wait. so excited.


----------



## sleepnever (Dec 18, 2012)

Not one bit. Upgraded from a T2i to a 5D3. Thought I would miss the flip-screen too and I don't. It all depends on what you're using it for.


----------



## Renegade Runner (Dec 18, 2012)

At the moment no. Now that winter is here there is very little wildlife in the form of birds to photograph. I know in the spring and summer when all the birds return I will miss and want the reach.


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 18, 2012)

Seems like everyone says about the same thing but I'll add yet another comment. My 50D was a big step up from my old Rebel. It focused better, had higher FPS, could do automated bracketing, and felt good in my hand. I really liked this camera in many ways. The "reach" was another advantage (like wildlife using a 300mm with a 1.4 on this camera gave an equivalent to 672mm). But, the noise drove me nutty and I spent a lot of time in PP trying to tame it.

I am still learning how to get the most out of the 5Diii. The focus, high iso performance and IQ of the 5diii are such a step up that I am glad I sold my old friend to help finance the FF camera. I am not going back to crop.

JP


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 18, 2012)

Miss it? No, I'm still using it, and FF too - depends on the job at hand.

The only cameras I could really get sentimental over are the Leica M's. 

Everything else is just a tool.


----------



## koolman (Dec 18, 2012)

I have a rebel APS-C body 550d. I added a grip. It is light, inexpensive, easy to use, and fits my needs as a hobby photographer as well.

For me and my hobby, the experience of getting the shot is the priority. I use primes, and get to use the sweet spot of the lens. I have a 35L, 50 1.4, and samyang 85 1.4 MF. The MF is a challenge to use, but fun and rewarding. For WA I use the samyang 14mm 2.8 MF (excellent lens).

I have spent much time comparing FF images with crop images online. True, for professional work, especially high end photography, you would need a FF, however you would also need, lighting, studio, props, and all the other equipment a pro works with to take advantage of the FF abilities. For what I do, the heavy/expensive FF, would not make my hobby more pleasant. I am also not sure my general street shots / home portraits would be substantially better.

So for me, the question "is it worth it" - is totally subjective, depending on my needs, and financial abilities. For me the answer right now is no.


----------



## ecka (Dec 18, 2012)

> Do you miss APS-C?



No, but I miss high pixel density FF, like 4.3µm (46mp).


----------

