Add full frame to my bag?

[Shaun Liddy]

I currently have a 7D MKii and love this body for it's quick frames per second, program-ability, lightweight (until I add the dual battery grip and a larger lens), auto ISO does a good job, and it's extra reach.

But I am at a point where I can see the benefits offered by a full frame, especially when shooting in lower light situations. Thinking to look for a used 5D MKii or a 6d while keeping my 7d MKii. I know these will not keep up with the 7D MKii for action shots (like when I am at the drag strip, or birds) but I think they would do well at my slower/non moving targets.

It is either that or buy a Sigma 18-35 1.8 for now and eventually go with a full frame next year maybe?

At home and inside with my girls, I tend to shoot around 3.5F - 1/125 - ISO 3200 with no flash. These are the types situations where I think the full frame would be very beneficial. I am thinking I will get better results with the FF in these situations than I would with the Sigma 18-35 1.8. I would also imagine doing any astro shooting with the Tokina 11-20, the FF would again shine.

Current lens line up:
Sigma 18-300 2.8
Tokina 11-20 2.8
Yongnou 50mm 1.8


Looking for feedback from others.


Shaun

 

[robbins.photo]

I currently have a 7D MKii and love this body for it's quick frames per second, program-ability, lightweight (until I add the dual battery grip and a larger lens), auto ISO does a good job, and it's extra reach.

But I am at a point where I can see the benefits offered by a full frame, especially when shooting in lower light situations. Thinking to look for a used 5D MKii or a 6d while keeping my 7d MKii. I know these will not keep up with the 7D MKii for action shots (like when I am at the drag strip, or birds) but I think they would do well at my slower/non moving targets.

It is either that or buy a Sigma 18-35 1.8 for now and eventually go with a full frame next year maybe?

At home and inside with my girls, I tend to shoot around 3.5F - 1/125 - ISO 3200 with no flash. These are the types situations where I think the full frame would be very beneficial. I am thinking I will get better results with the FF in these situations than I would with the Sigma 18-35 1.8. I would also imagine doing any astro shooting with the Tokina 11-20, the FF would again shine.

Current lens line up:
Sigma 18-300 2.8
Tokina 11-20 2.8
Yongnou 50mm 1.8


Looking for feedback from others.


Shaun

Well for shooting indoors at home you'd probably be better off with a good external flash unit used off camera, assuming your talking more portrait style than candids of course.

 

[Shaun Liddy]

I do have 3 external flashes with a wireless transmitter and tripods etc. Most of my around the house shooting is candid.

My around the house example was just one low light example.

 

[robbins.photo]

I do have 3 external flashes with a wireless transmitter and tripods etc. Most of my around the house shooting is candid.

My around the house example was just one low light example.

If such is the case then full frame would probably be a big benefit. The wider aperture 1.8 would help but most likely wouldn't be as effective since you'd be shooting at much wider apertures, and for people candids what the usually means is a lot of missed shots.

So really it comes down to is do you shoot enough in lower light to make it worth the investment? Also keep in mind that not all canon lenses will work on their full frame bodies so you'll want to investigate and see which lenses you have that will, and what it might cost to get lenses if needed.

 

[Ysarex]

Your basic thought process is sound in that a larger sensor will, all else equal, provide better low-light performance.

All else is not equal. The Canon cameras you're talking about are old tech. This industry is a moving target. Canon has never been the low-light leader and so the 5DmkII and 6D are by today's standards fair performers. APS class cameras recently released will equal or exceed the low-light performance of the 5D2. The New Nikon D500 uses Sony's new dual-gain sensor tech (as does the Sony A6300 and Fuji X-T2) they're all APS class cameras that I'd rather have in low-light than a 5D2. 5D/6D are getting long in the tooth and not really that big an upgrade if you're serious about low-light. I know brand switching is a big deal and you already have lenses, but as robbins said your lenses may not work FF anyway. Something to consider.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

The 5D-Mark II's biggest issue was its weak AF system in marginal light levels; it was built on a $389 EOS Elan class camera body and subsystems. The 6D has an even more-simplified system, but allegedly it works better, and it was built on a NEW platform, and it has pretty good performance as to the minimum light level needed to lock focus on the 6D.

The Yongnuo 50/1.8 is a bad lens, and is not nearly as good optically as the Canon 50/1.8 EF-II which its exterior was copied from (check the reviews). The beauty of full-frame is how great the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm and 85mm prime lenses work, in the real, actual world, indoors, and outdoors. Crop-frame basically destroys these prime lens lengths, and really cramps a person's style indoors. The 50 and 85 suffer terribly when shot indoors on APS-C at 1.6x.

Lens focal lengths for family photography of children would be the 35mm on FF, 50 on FF, and the 85mm on FF: those three lenses can cover a huge range of family and child work, even in poor light, with good lens speed, and better optical quality than zooms.

Personally, if it were me, I would look at the Canon 35/2, the 50/1.4 USM, and their 85/1.8 as a very, very potent setup, on the 6D. Consider that $2k in Nikon will buy you a better camera than a $3499 Canon, with a used D800 or a brand new D500 moving you way higher than either an antiquated 5D-II or a now aging 6D.

 

[Ido]

Read DPReview's excellent "What is equivalence and why should I care?" multi-part article. I would suggest the other members here read it, too.
In the indoor example you gave, you're shooting at f/3.5 and ISO 3200. Assuming you want to keep the shutter speed the same, and also the framing, you're presenting two options of improving this low light image:

• Switching to a full frame setup, and, I assume, using the same relative aperture (f/3.5) with an equivalent focal length (i.e. a longer focal length that gives the same field of view). This will give a shallower depth of field, because of the longer focal length, and purportedly lower noise because of the bigger sensor.
• Using a bigger relative aperture, that a different lens would allow. This, combined with decreasing the ISO, would give a shallower depth of field and lower noise.

The article I linked to above explains how you can equalize the depth of field, so you have a better comparison. Make sure you test every claim about noise with their studio scene comparison tool.