Crop Or Full Frame?

[sashbar]

I'm finding myself drawn to nature photography and street photography.

Now for the nature photography I do I usually frequent a nature reserve and a botanical garden that are near to me. And to be honest for the flower shots I take the gear I have is most certainly sufficient.

However when it comes to wildlife at the nature reserve the auto focus just seems to constantly be just a tick to slow to get the shot. I.E. I can get the bird in the frame and close enough but it just isn't sharp.

And when it comes to street photography I feel like I can't hit that perfect frame size. The nifty fifty isn't as good for street shots when its really a nifty eighty. It feels to tight and as it often forces me to crop out elements that give key context to images I want for street photography. So I end up using the 18-55 4.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens. Which in turn means I'm stuck with a smaller aperture and have to use a higher ISO or a slower shutter speed depending on lighting conditions. And being that I live in Michigan nine months out of the year the sky is a dull cloudy grey winter color. Which means dimmer light. Not to mention the 18-55mm has its own framing issues. Whats to much? Whats to little? I often miss that decisive moment trying to frame the shot just right.

These two genres will lead you in opposite directions regarding your camera choice. Nature photography will probably benefit from a full frame camera with it more nuanced colour gradation and depth as well as shallow DoF, whereas street photography requires a different approach.

I am not too much into flowers, trees and horizons, but when it comes to the the street a full frame camera makes little sense to me. It also depends on what kind of street photography you are into, but in most cases a good modern APS-C sensor with a working ISO 6400 does very well. If you want to do well as a street photographer you may consider to go away from zooms. You could try a fast 23, 27 or even 35 mm prime lense for street. You will be surprised, but often it is actually easier to shoot with a prime as soon as you get used to it and start feeling its DoF and framing ability. You will know exactly where to stand and will feel the distance much better compared to a zoom. It also can help you to develop your style or at least ensure a consistent shooting.

I put aside shooting birds, as this kind of photography will make you invest a ton of money into your gear if you want to do it right.

 

[Designer]

..the massive jump in image quality and crap ability.

Is this a typo?

 

[Benji Molotov]

..the massive jump in image quality and crap ability.

Is this a typo?

Yes. I didn't notice it till after posting and couldn't seem to find an edit function to fix it.

And it's fixed now after I finally found the edit function. New to the forums, still finding my way around the layout and user functions.

 

[Benji Molotov]

I'm finding myself drawn to nature photography and street photography.

Now for the nature photography I do I usually frequent a nature reserve and a botanical garden that are near to me. And to be honest for the flower shots I take the gear I have is most certainly sufficient.

However when it comes to wildlife at the nature reserve the auto focus just seems to constantly be just a tick to slow to get the shot. I.E. I can get the bird in the frame and close enough but it just isn't sharp.

And when it comes to street photography I feel like I can't hit that perfect frame size. The nifty fifty isn't as good for street shots when its really a nifty eighty. It feels to tight and as it often forces me to crop out elements that give key context to images I want for street photography. So I end up using the 18-55 4.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens. Which in turn means I'm stuck with a smaller aperture and have to use a higher ISO or a slower shutter speed depending on lighting conditions. And being that I live in Michigan nine months out of the year the sky is a dull cloudy grey winter color. Which means dimmer light. Not to mention the 18-55mm has its own framing issues. Whats to much? Whats to little? I often miss that decisive moment trying to frame the shot just right.

These two genres will lead you in opposite directions regarding your camera choice. Nature photography will probably benefit from a full frame camera with it more nuanced colour gradation and depth as well as shallow DoF, whereas street photography requires a different approach.

I am not too much into flowers, trees and horizons, but when it comes to the the street a full frame camera makes little sense to me. It also depends on what kind of street photography you are into, but in most cases a good modern APS-C sensor with a working ISO 6400 does very well. If you want to do well as a street photographer you may consider to go away from zooms. You could try a fast 23, 27 or even 35 mm prime lense for street. You will be surprised, but often it is actually easier to shoot with a prime as soon as you get used to it and start feeling its DoF and framing ability. You will know exactly where to stand and will feel the distance much better compared to a zoom. It also can help you to develop your style or at least ensure a consistent shooting.

I put aside shooting birds, as this kind of photography will make you invest a ton of money into your gear if you want to do it right.

To be honest it's becoming pretty apparent that you're spot on.

I'm not going to find a set up that does it all for the budget I'm on. Seems the best solution would be a used 70-200 F.28 for the botanical photography I do and a Sigma 30mm F1.4 for a fifty equivalent fast street lens.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[CygnusStudios]

A camera is just 1 tool in the photographers kit. It doesn't do all the work alone. Personally I like full frame cameras, simply because I was used to a full 35mm before digital came along. With a full frame, I can crop the image to match those of a crop sensor. It doesn't work the other way around.

Just because the full frame is the proper tool for my use doesn't mean it will be the proper tool for someone else.

As others mentioned your photography style will dictate what you need, along with the tools in your arsenal. What lenses do you have, what lighting do you have, what are you shooting, do you need higher iso ranges, what kind of space are you shooting in, those sorts of things.

If you are shooting wide, there is nothing like a 14mm on a full frame camera. But everyone doesn't need that.

As far as "pro" cameras are concerned. The real difference is how well they stand up to the elements and abuse. Image quality isn't a big difference, but if you are regularly shooting in foul weather and need that extra protection, or you slightly abuse your gear, it's worth spending the extra money.

When people ask me about what they should get, my recommendation is always to start with glass and lighting and only upgrade the body once you wear it out. The greatest tool a photographer has is directly behind the camera.

 

[weepete]

Or buy one of these Ricoh GR Digital Camera 175743 B H Photo Video and stay with your crop sensor and buy a nice telephoto L lens for the wildlife.

 

[Gary A.]

I picked up photography about a year and half ago. I started out on a cheap used Canon 30D and an 18-55 4.5-5.6 kit lens and absolutely fell in love with the hobby.

Pretty soon though it became apparent that if I wanted to create the type of quality pictures I was imitating I needed to invest in something a bit better gear wise. So I purchased a Canon EOS Rebel SL1, an upgraded IS 18-55 kit lense and a 55-250 4.5-5.6 lens, a nifty fifty and a pancake F2.8 40mm. And I was in love all over again with the speed of the autofocus, the massive jump in image quality and crop ability. And I absolutely do enjoy the lite weight camera body and the functionality it gives me with photography.

But, because there has to be a but, I feel like I've outgrown the kit lenses. It's time for me to pop my "L" lens cherry.

Now here's my real dilemma. If I'm going to shell out the cash for a 24-105 F4 L IS USM, a 70-200 F4 L IS USM, and a Sigma 50 F1.4 EX DG HSM....is it worth it to put them on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR?

I know it would be an improvement with good optics but it would still be pretty tight with that crop factor.

That being said while I can justify spending that much on the lenses I don't know if I can justify another thousand plus dollars for a professional camera like a used 5D Mark ii to use as a hobby.

My other option is a used 5D, but would that be a step back from the SL1 in image quality because of the older model?

This is the cross roads I'm stuck at right now.

I would love some opinions about the situation from someone who may have found themselves at a similar crossroads.


Cheers!
Benji Molotov

To answer your question, for most serious photogs, yes.

The journey for most photogs is to upgrade from kit to medium grade then final to premium grade lenses. If you think/know that this is a passion that will last for years then skip the waste of money on better lens and start now to collect the best.

There isn't any magic between FF and APS-C. There is between a fast pro lens and a slow consumer lens. I do recommend the f/2.8 70-200 over the f/4. That stop is a significant difference when shooting low light, not only in exposure but also in focusing.

To my eye the only difference between FF and APS-C is in lens choice. The APS-C does long better/easier/cheaper and the FF does wide better/easier. I'm I better with a 300mm on the FF than a 200mm on a APS-C, for what I shoot and how I shoot ... No, there isn't any significant differences ... same-o for wide. I have complete FF, MFT and APS-C systems and I'm dumping the FF and MFT in favor of the APS-C.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary

PS- For clarity, I'm dumping the FF for mirrorless and the MFT for the better sensor.
G

 

[Gary A.]

PPS- For some people, (myself included), "Crap Ability" is appropriate.
G

 

[sashbar]

"Crap ability" is another term for "high definition" and "ultimate sharpness".

 

[sashbar]

Or buy one of these Ricoh GR Digital Camera 175743 B H Photo Video and stay with your crop sensor and buy a nice telephoto L lens for the wildlife.

I can second that, since I love shooting with Ricoh GR.

 

[Derrel]

A portion of your dissatisfaction is a result of the slow, variable maximum aperture lenses you have. Lenses like the 18-55 and 55-200 and 55-250 lenses have slow max apertures at their shortest lengths, and when zoomed to maximum length, suffer terribly from slow (meaning "small diameter") maximum apertures which cause phase detection AF systems to be presented with in-focus/out-of-focus decisions that are not very clear-cut...which is why you're having that "AF seems a tad bit too slow" feeling so often.

I've used pro-grade lenses with economy bodies (Nikon D40,Nikon D70,Fuji S1 Pro, Fuji S2 Pro) with very much outdated, simple, limited-area AF systems, and I have also used the same, low end, now-outdated bodies with top-drawer lenses with high-grade silent wave in-lens focusing motors focus, and those bodies normally focused FAST, and quite reliably. The faster maximum apertures, and longer focal lengths like 70-200 and 85,135,200,and 300mm, mean that the AF system gains the benefit from shallower depth of field, and more-distinct "in-focus" and more-distinct "out-of-focus" feedback due to the much,much shallower DOF that wider maximum apertures create--especially in the telephoto lengths.

With short focal length lenses, which 18-55mm most decidedly is, at small apertures like f/5.6, everything beyond about 25 feet is in a manner of speaking "more or less within the depth of field band". In my experience with longer, slow tele-zooms, AF performance is simply not as **consistently and reliably** good as it is with high-grade lenses, even on a professional-level camera. Sure, the higher-end bodies do tend to perform a bit better, but even migh-level pro bodies can, at times, hunt for focus, or refuse to focus, or fail to lock focus, under certain challenging situations. At least compared to the way the same camera will perform with something like an 85/1.8 or 200/2 or 300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 on the camera.

As far as the 50 as 80mm dilemma on 1.6x....yeah, I understand that one. There are two new inexpensive Canon pancakes, the 24mm and the 40mm, which might be good options for your street work, and which will not break the bank. I'd also give Canon's 35mm f/2 a look-see (and don't listen to the internet whiners who lament that it's not a 35mm/1.4-L grade lens). As far as getting good pictures, the SL-1 ought to be better in many ways than a HUGE, black Canon 1DX. Small lens, small camera = more comfortable, less-suspicious people in my experience. I think the SMALLER sensor cameras are actually beneficial for street/macro/close-up stuff: more depth of field at every picture angle; I see FF as a slight limitation for much street work. I don't think you need a new, FF body, but you definitely need some better-performing lens options if you really want to leverage the SL-1.

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 mentioned might be a good option. There are plenty of those around used, so you can get one cheap if you look.

 

[shefjr]

To answer your question in your first post, I would always upgrade my lenses before the body. Is there a need to buy a new body with the lenses? IMO, no. I'm not a canon shooter so I don't know quite where the lenses fall but, if it were me I would take the extra change that I was gonna put into a full frame and instead buy f2.8 lenses instead of the f4. You seem to have a propensity to countinually want to upgrade so, maybe you should just go all the way with the lenses. Once you have all the lenses you want then buy the full frame camera.
Of course this is just my opinion and also what I did. It worked well for me.

Edit,
After reading further down, it sounds to me like a upgrade in glass would help with some of the issues. f2.8 glass would be my suggestion.

Well see that's the thing. You're right. I thought about that. But being that I'm only doing it as a hobby..that's way more than I can spend. And to be honest I'm starting to thing that I'm jumping the gun here and should learn far more before making a purchase like this.

Perhaps there is a better third option. A canon 35mm F2 that will give me a focal length that's pretty close to an actual 50mm to use for street photography. And take some more time to hone my skills with wildlife photography.

I haven't read any other responses here because, wow, there are a lot of long responses. From knowledgeable and well respected members I might add. Your profile says you are 24 so you have a lot of time yet to invest in expensive gear over time if your hobby becomes something more than that. The only other thing I would add is that I would suggest you take a long hard look at yourself. If you are the type of person who will be satisfied with your purchase of the f4L lenses then I say go for it. I know for me personally, I made a lot of dumb purchases when I first started out and wasted a lot of money. A LOT! I'm not trying to push you one way or another. I have zero to gain. I Just hate to see people blow money.
I guess, my one other suggestion would be to take a look at one of your favorite photos that you have that would be in your mind perfect if you had been able to nail exposure. Then, dismantle it. Meaning, pretend that you had a f4 lens or f2.8 and just see how many stops you could have dropped your ISO or raised your shutter speed. That might give you some sort of idea of what your need would be. Then if you're feeling really crazy rent the f_ and see if it suits your needs. Either way I hope you find what works for you. With those who have responded here I'm sure there has to be some great advice.

 

[pomomojo]

How long have you owned the Canon SL1? How long have you owned your currents lenses? I would strongly advise buying a full frame, even an older 5D Mark II, until you define your particular shooting style. I'm considerably older than the original poster, but picked up the hobby within the same time period (Fall 2013). GAS creates a lot of temptation, though your current gear is probably more than sufficient for your skillset and hobbyist interest.

If speed is a major concern, I suggest buying a fast prime (F1.8 or better) at a 30-35mm focal length (50mm equivalent). A fast 50mm-equivalent is fine for most indoor zoo exhibits and work double duty for street photography. Full frame cameras with "pro-grade" 24-70mm f/2.8 are heavy as hell and noticeable in public. Achieving a sharp image is a non-factor if you never capture the moment. If you really catch the photography bug, you will undoubtedly have an opportunity to buy better gear at a later juncture (e.g. the latest and greatest), and, hopefully, have a a bit more expendable income to fulfill your stylistic needs.

 

[Philmar]

I shot with a 30D and L lenses for 6 years. I've shot with a FF and the same lenses for the last 2.
As a test I ask you to go view my 12,000+ images randomly at this link:
Flickriver Random photos from Phil Marion
It sorts them randomly. Look at the photos and decide if you can tell the difference between FF and the crop sensor. You would be hard pressed to tell unless you printed large versions of them.
The FF sensor will help get shots in dim light that the 30D wouldn't do as good a job with.
Lenses are more important than the body. Upgrade the glass and then when you have the cash upgrade the body. That's the route I took. Bodies become obsolete after a few years - the glass lasts longer. I wanted another crop sensor and was sick of waiting for the 7D II so I bought FF.
Many people spend as much as they can on an expensive body and buy a body with features they never use. And while using the cheaper kit lens they wonder why they can't get crisp photos or shots with minimal depth of field.

 

[UjaiDidida]

I'm in the same situation like you. I own an SL1 after using an older body. This slr is great, very comfortable to use and I use it with almost the same lenses like you, but no pancake because our niche is not the same. I like it because it is new too. I'm thinking to make a jump to FF too but would wait instead because most of the Canon FF are few years old since its release date. If I'm going to make an upgrade, I'll just spend on lenses for the FF body first before owning the body itself.