Full-frame. Is it worth the cost?

NedM

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
390
Reaction score
64
Location
USA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hey everyone.

I shoot with a Canon 600D, an APS-C Sensor, as many of you may know already.
With that being said, most of you know it has a 1.6x crop factor.

Lately, I've been saving up for a full frame (Canon 5D II), but I thought to myself..

Do I really need one?

I shoot mostly portraits and a couple of weddings here and there.
My main workforce lens for portraits is my 70-200mm f.4 non-is.

Here is my problem:
The only reason I can think of as to why I would want to upgrade to a full-frame is because my 70-200mm would be the exact focal length it is suppose to be. As opposed to using my crop sensored camera, making it an effective 105-300mm or something along those lines.

Because of that, it makes it harder for me to shoot portraits in low light conditions. (Mainly shade)
I either have to raise my ISO (which sucks because of noise) or stop down my shutter speed. (Which also sucks because I know I have to shoot faster than my focal length to reduce image/shake blur.)

Well, I thought to myself, and because I shoot mainly portraits.
What if I just invested in another 600D and invest in a faster portrait lens like 50mm or an 85mm?

I don't know.
I'm at a loss here.

I can't think of anymore pros to buy a full frame besides the one I mentioned earlier. (True focal lengths)

Some suggestions and insights would be helpful!
 
5Ds used on Ebay is about $500.00...
5D | eBay
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Sounds like some good glass (70-200 2.8IS) would be a better expenditure of your money. As it stands, it seems your lens is limiting you and not your body.
 
The full frame will handle the low light situations better than the crop sensor, but faster glass will help you as well.
 
I have a Canon Rebel T2i (550D) because it as light to carry around. Typically I use an 18-250 mm lens made for the crop sensor. The other lenses usually in that bag are 10-20 mm and 50 mm f/1.8.

For weddings which may have low light and no flash permitted; times when an almost silent shutter is needed; fast and accurate focus is needed; or, a weather sealed body is necessary, I have a 5D Mk III. It is heavier. The L lenses are heavier. Typically the bag with that in it runs 5 to 7 pounds more than the bag with the Rebel.

Except for a 100-400 L, I seldom use Canon lenses on the Rebel because the L lenses are heavy and the body is light, so balance is off and it tips lens down. Sigma makes a nice 18-250 that can be used with a teleconverter to deliver 500 mm at a cost of a few ounces and manual focus.

Full frame makes background blur easier since you can stand closer to get the same framing at any focal length.

The crop sensor doesn't make your lens grow, 100 mm is still 100 mm, it just crops the edges off your pictures so the angle of view is smaller. The image circle can be smaller so the lens can be lighter and sometimes less expensive.

A 5D Mk III is a couple of stops better for ISO noise than a 550D/600D. If you shoot raw, DxO have a converter that handles noise very well. Adobe Camera Raw also does a pretty good job. There are other packages too. If you have to shoot at 1/60th, f/2.8, ISO 200 with the 600D, you will need the same settings with a 5D Mk III, or a 6D.

Auto focus in a 5D Mk II is not nearly as good as in the Mk III. ISO noise performance is not as good. If you want to upgrade to improve performance a 5D Mk III or 6D would make more sense than a 5D Mk II.

If you have the kit lens for your 600D and a 70-200, you can see the framing for 50 and 85 mm with your 600D. Prime lenses will give wider apertures, so less DOF. You can calculate settings to see the framing those lenses would give with full frame.

If you are shooting mostly portraits, lights might be a better investment. With flash you shoot at 1/125th, 1/160th or 1/200th and get the effect of shooting at somewhere between 1/1000th and 1/10,000th depending on the flash model and power setting. And if you want you can shoot at smaller apertures for more DOF, which helps with groups..
 
To me, it seems like all you need is a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. Those are pretty hard to come by in Canon mount nowadays, so you may need to shop around a bit. The best (and latest) version to date is the one with OS, but the older one isn't bad, either.
Here's a great post by Richard Butler on DPReview: Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents: Digital Photography Review

Personally, I just can't understand the crazy hype over Sony's Alpha 7 cameras and lenses. The 35mm frame sensor gives around a full stop advantage over APS-C (usually a bit less than a full stop) in low light and dynamic range, generally speaking. But if you take that sensor and put an f/4 zoom in front of it, it won't be any better in low light than an APS-C sensor would be with an f/2.8 lens of equivalent focal lengths! So an Alpha 7/R/S + 70-200mm f/4 won't do any better in low light than a Fujifilm X-T1 + upcoming 50-140mm f/2.8 would! (Sure, the 7S does very well in low light, but if you downsample higher-resolution images from a 7 or 7R to the same resolution, there shouldn't be any difference, at least not a major one, in theory. I think LuLa tested that and it turned out to be mostly true in practice.)

The real advantage a bigger sensor has is unveiled when using equivalent focal lengths and the same aperture, which means the lens used on the bigger sensor has to have a larger physical aperture diameter.

So if you can get a hold of a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for no more than what you'd pay for a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, definitely go for the lens.
 
To me, it seems like all you need is a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. Those are pretty hard to come by in Canon mount nowadays, so you may need to shop around a bit. The best (and latest) version to date is the one with OS, but the older one isn't bad, either.
Here's a great post by Richard Butler on DPReview: Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents: Digital Photography Review

Personally, I just can't understand the crazy hype over Sony's Alpha 7 cameras and lenses. The 35mm frame sensor gives around a full stop advantage over APS-C (usually a bit less than a full stop) in low light and dynamic range, generally speaking. But if you take that sensor and put an f/4 zoom in front of it, it won't be any better in low light than an APS-C sensor would be with an f/2.8 lens of equivalent focal lengths! So an Alpha 7/R/S + 70-200mm f/4 won't do any better in low light than a Fujifilm X-T1 + upcoming 50-140mm f/2.8 would! (Sure, the 7S does very well in low light, but if you downsample higher-resolution images from a 7 or 7R to the same resolution, there shouldn't be any difference, at least not a major one, in theory. I think LuLa tested that and it turned out to be mostly true in practice.)

The real advantage a bigger sensor has is unveiled when using equivalent focal lengths and the same aperture, which means the lens used on the bigger sensor has to have a larger physical aperture diameter.

So if you can get a hold of a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 for no more than what you'd pay for a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, definitely go for the lens.
 
But yes, it's worth the cost. I don't regret the upgrade one bit... But it wasn't cheap.
 
I use the same FF lenses on a crop and FF camera.
This question comes up all the time such as thread from last month --> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum

I don't know why someone would compare a crop camera with a f/2.8 vs a FF with f/4 lenses. That's just not a 1 to 1 comparison. Even in low light situations you still may need f/4 or f/5.6 to get the proper DOF. Just because you can use f/2.8 or f/1.2 doesn't mean the shot will be any good if the DOF is so thin that everything but an eyelash is in focus. It's all about getting the shot technically correct and the FF gives an advantage in LowLight for that.

My FF is about 2 stops I believe faster than my crop in low light. If you are in low light alot and need the faster shutter speed, etc then FF is the way to go.

If you are doing mostly studio work I'd go the route of getting flash/strobes as no matter what, those will be needed to give the flexibility of lighting in everything, crop or FF camera.
 
I think it is worthy. I use both crop and full frame bodies, both are amazing, but the extra flexibility of the full frame is a winner.

See this video for a voice arguing it is worthy:


However, according to other voices, it is not worthy the upgrade, specially if you have the right lenses with it, as already described here. See this video below for listening to a voice in this field:
 
Like others I used crop, full frame (36x24 mm, FF, or 135 (small) format), medium, and large format cameras in my photography business.
Each has it's uses.
A FF image sensor is the same size as a frame of 135 format (35mm) film.

The camera makers make a little more profit selling full frame cameras compared to selling crop sensor cameras. So the camera makers want to sell more full frame cameras and direct their marketing hype to that goal. They also tap into the "more is better" mentality with their marketing.

You make it clear you do not understand what crop factor is when you say "I can't think of anymore pros to buy a full frame besides the one I mentioned earlier. (True focal lengths)".
A 70-200 mm lens on a crop sensor camera is a 70-200 mm lens and retains most of it's attributes regardless the image sensor size it projects an image onto.
Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

The major advantage of a full frame image sensor is it has bigger pixels. Bigger pixels have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Having a lower SNR allows using a higher ISO setting.
Because of the bigger pixels a full frame image sensor has more resolution than a crop sensor having the same number of pixels, and photos made with a FF sensor have more detail.
Understanding Digital Camera Sensors
 
When you realllllllly come down to it, the majority of lenses have been designed and built for full-frame. The vast majority of Canon's lens line is for their full-frame cameras, and FF gives you the most choices. The main thing FF gives over 1.6x is the 24/35/50/85/100 lengths being able to actually be USED for what they are designed to be, in actual, real-world offices, living rooms, churches, back yards, patios, decks, playgrounds, school auditoriums, and so on.

Case in point. 85mm Canon f/1.8 EF lens: one of the BEST lens values in the world. You want to shoot a full-length, man and wife wedding portrait. You want 8.47 feet of vertical, real-world space to show the man, and his new bride, with some room above their heads and some space below their feet. Okay, so with the 1.6x Canon camera, you need to stand 34.5 feet away. With the 5D Mark II, you can take the SAME shot from 20.0 feet away.

Pressing a 50mm lens into use as a "short tele" on an APS-C is NOT the same thing as being able to use the short end of a 70-200 zoom, or having access to the "native" field of view of the 85mm lens as your short telephoto.

Having the 24-70mm f/4 or f/2.8 Canon lenses as wide/normal/short telephoto lengths all in ONE, single lens is actually the central foundation of Canon's lens lineup...which goes thusly:16-35mm, then 24-70, then 70-200...the entire system has actually been layed out for you by Canon.
 
Last edited:
5Ds used on Ebay is about $500.00...
5D | eBay

The 5D is a cheap full frame DSLR, but only has 12 megapixels. Is it worth it?


When you realllllllly come down to it, the majority of lenses have been designed and built for full-frame. The vast majority of Canon's lens line is for their full-frame cameras, and FF gives you the most choices. The main thing FF gives over 1.6x is the 24/35/50/85/100 lengths being able to actually be USED for what they are designed to be, in actual, real-world offices, living rooms, churches, back yards, patios, decks, playgrounds, school auditoriums, and so on.

Case in point. 85mm Canon f/1.8 EF lens: one of the BEST lens values in the world. You want to shoot a full-length, man and wife wedding portrait. You want 8.47 feet of vertical, real-world space to show the man, and his new bride, with some room above their heads and some space below their feet. Okay, so with the 1.6x Canon camera, you need to stand 34.5 feet away. With the 5D Mark II, you can take the SAME shot from 20.0 feet away.

Pressing a 50mm lens into use as a "short tele" on an APS-C is NOT the same thing as being able to use the short end of a 70-200 zoom, or having access to the "native" field of view of the 85mm lens as your short telephoto.

Having the 24-70mm f/4 or f/2.8 Canon lenses as wide/normal/short telephoto lengths all in ONE, single lens is actually the central foundation of Canon's lens lineup...which goes thusly:16-35mm, then 24-70, then 70-200...the entire system has actually been layed out for you by Canon.

Everything you said is true and makes sense. I now understand more about crop sensor cameras and the difference when it comes to a full frame.

I only have enough in my budget to buy just one Canon 5D II.
In my arsenal of lenses, I only have the 70-200mm f/4 non-is.

I know, this is not enough to nearly even cover a wedding.
Which is why I was thinking of just buying perhaps another 600D and some good glass like an 50mm, 85, or a 24-105.

A lot of you have said that a FF has it's advantages: Bigger pixels, and the ability to stop down your ISO in low light conditions without having to worry about noise.

I only shoot with available and natural lighting. In the course of my photography career, I have seldom ever increased my ISO beyond 400 on my 600D. Unless my focusing was off, at 400 ISO, my images came our pretty clean after processing them.

I suppose, all I need is faster glass. But like someone said previously, having a lens that can go down to 1.8 or 2.8 is great but having a thin DoF isn't necessary all the time. especially if I am shooting a group photo at 1.8, I could be just focusing on someone's noise or hat and the rest of the image could be out-of-focus.

I now understand that there is more to photography than just having fast glass. It's using the proper lenses and apertures and shutter speed to get the right shot you need.

I guess I have some thinking to do before I purchase anything.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Another thought I was dwelling on was that I am not looking to go pro anytime soon.
I'm just an amateur photographer looking to make some extra money on the side.
Sure, I love what I do, and I want to be the best at it but I don't see myself taking on photography as a living in my immediate future. Maybe someday, and when that day comes, I would definitely go FF.
 
My Nikon d7000 crop is perfectly fine at ISO 800 and even 1600.
But my Nikon d600 FF is perfectly fine at much higher ISOs even 6400 and higher - which varies dependent upon subject matter.

I'm not pro but I use the LowLight ability for other photographic genres
 

Most reactions

Back
Top