Debating next camera... full frame or not...

Photoform · Apr 11, 2016

I'll lay the groundwork... most importantly I don't have any expensive glass. I've been using my trusty t1i for years as a hobbyist. I plan on sticking with Canon for what it's worth.

I want to upgrade (few red dots now I can't get rid of) within the year and I'm looking at pricing and bundles, but I've been going back and forth over whether I really need OR want full frame.

When I think of most of my use it boils down to small product photography and vacations (people, land/cityscapes, and architecture, with a little macro stuff mixed in). As far as prints, I average less than 1 16x20 print per year so large prints are certainly not very important.

I've never used a full frame so I suppose I don't know what I'm missing, but when I think full frame I also think it's not as great an upgrade because I don't have expensive glass. On top of that I was thinking if I went with a 70D I could use the EF-S 18-200mm as a nice walkaround/everything lens.

So basically I'm looking to step it up to the next level camera-wise (pro-sumer level?) but it's by no means clear to me if I should get something like the 70d or an entry level full frame Canon. I figure this is something most people have pondered once they needed to move up to the next level so I'd love to hear from you all. Thanks!

JacaRanda · Apr 11, 2016

Just keep in mind the EF-S lenses don't work with the FF cameras. I'd go with upgrading lenses first especially if you don't already know if you need FF or not.

robbins.photo · Apr 11, 2016

Ok, well having recently upgraded to full frame I can share a few thoughts. I shoot Nikon mind you, so YMMV, however I'm very happy with my move to full frame.

I don't have top of the line expensive glass, I shoot a tamron 28-75 2.8 and a tamron 70-300mm vc, get great results with both.

The funny thing is I do a lot of shooting indoors at the zoo. Shots that I took with aps-c sensor d7100 using a 70-200 mm 2.8 required a lot more processing to remove noise and get them to look acceptable, with the full frame I can shoot the much slower tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 with no noise reduction or very minimal noise reduction, so if anything I needed more expensive glass for the aps-c.

I can tell the difference in other areas as well. Bokeh on the aps-c would often seem "jagged" and is much smoother on fx. The shots even at low iso seem much "cleaner".

So for me I've been very happy with full frame.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Watchful · Apr 11, 2016

I personally don't like the full frame design, it was made by a person that was too weak to carry a large camera and wanted to take 35mm film still shots. It was never the best format, imo.
If the film of 1923 had been higher quality, we might not have ever gone down the 24mm x 36mm format road. It might well have been 18mm x 24mm.
Having said that, I have a few full frame type cameras and I use them, mainly because I have them.
Everyone likes different things, that's why we have different things on the market. Full frame will be more light sensitive, all things being equal, however the way technologies advance, that might not be true for long, if it still is.
It's hard to compare 2 different formats to say which has the more sensitivity per pixel. The main reason a full frame is more sensitive is just because it spreads the light out across a larger area of pixels.
I'd recommend trying out both and deciding which you prefer, you can rent or buy and return within 30 days if you buy from a good source that does not charge a restocking fee. (I like Amazon)

bratkinson · Apr 11, 2016

When I finally moved from film to digital about 15 years ago, I started small with a compact Canon G-3. My upgrade path was a G-5, then a 30D, 60D, and finally, a 5Diii (full frame) 3.5 years ago. Why the continuous upgrade path? I found I was doing most of my shooting indoors under varying lighting than formerly outdoor, mostly daylight photography. I needed the faster lenses ($$$) and high ISO capabilities to get the shots I wanted. That was my 'driving factor'. Note, too, that I don't shoot movies...only stills.

So, consider what are your 'driving factors' as to why upgrade? Granted, the T1i is older digital technology and its inherent limitations back then. Upgrading the body to a 60D or 70D would make good sense, in my opinion. That way, you gain the newer capabilities including more pixels (more 'room' for cropping in post, if needed), better focusing systems, higher ISO speeds with acceptable noise levels, and video capabilities. The good news is that you don't have to replace any of your lenses, therefore, that can be done at a later time if desired, and/or when funds become available.

Why not full frame? Granted, there's a degree of 'elitism' in shooting with a full frame camera. But results-wise, except for a handful of extremely low light situations (I prefer to shoot with available light rather than flash) where I cranked up my ISO speed 25,600, ISO speeds in the 2400-3200 range usually suffice for the bulk of my shots. The exceptional AF system and high ISO speeds are why I shoot full frame. For the hobbyist that I am, it's mostly overkill. I suspect that full frame for your needs would be overkill as well.

One of the interesting aspects of a full frame camera is its larger size and weight compared to the crop-sensor Canon cameras. Everything associated with the full frame is more expensive as well...from L brackets to battery grips and batteries. And don't forget that the lower cost EF-S lenses can't be mounted to a FF body, so the lenses are more expensive as well.

Not long after I bought the 60D, I made the decision to upgrade to full frame due to low light needs. So I made it a point to replace my EF-S 18-135 and EF-S 55-250 with EF 16-35 and EF 24-105 lenses, respectively. The 16-35 did all the 'wide' work I needed and the 24-105 for everything else. I missed the 'do all' flexibility of the 18-135, but the need for a flash when using it indoors outweighed my desire for that focal length zoom range. I later bought a used EF 80-200 for the times I needed more 'reach' than the 24-105 provided. Funny thing, though, when I finally replaced my 60D with a 5Diii, I discovered the 24mm end of the 24-105 is usually 'wide enough' for my needs. As a result, the 16-35 now spends a lot more time in my bag. The EF 16-35, when mounted on a crop sensor body, had an apparent focal length (field of view, actually) of 25-56mm...easily provided by the 24-105 on the 5Diii.

So, I'd recommend your purchasing a 70Dii and hold off buying a new lens with it. You may be pleasantly surprised that the lens(es) you have meet your needs. But if you're really looking for a 'do all' lens, I'd recommend the 18-135 instead of the 18-200, primarily because the 18-135 produces sharper, less distorted images than the 18-200. But then, sharpness can be improved slightly in post, and distortions can be automatically removed in post as well, with software such as Lightroom.

goodguy · Apr 11, 2016

Currently all of Canon full frame cameras are old, old, old and are due to be replaced soon, I am not saying they are bad, not at all but if I would want a new FF canon I would wait a bit for the new 5D IV or new 6D II

If you willing to consider APS-C then the new Canon 80D seems like an excellent camera, it will be a big step up from you old T1i

JacaRanda · Apr 12, 2016

Some of this can get really confusing especially when you don't mention a budget. Some of us want the latest and greatest, but new technology does not guarantee better photography. That will be more based on what you do with what you have. Just think of the googles of photos made last year and the year before and the year before that are wonderful images...... You are using a T1I, pretty much anything made in the last 5 years is going to be an upgrade. Save yourself some money and buy something used now. Use it until you outgrow it and by then you will have a better idea of what you need or want.

Here is a TPF member that uses a very ancient 5d Mark 1, a full frame camera announced in 2008. Alex- Probably the Most Beautiful Person I've Ever Photographed.

Here is a link to someone I follow on Flickr that uses a 70D Ger Bosma

I suggest browsing photos created by different cameras old and not so old.

jaomul · Apr 12, 2016

What improvements over your current camera do you want in your new camera?

Photoform · Apr 12, 2016

Thanks for the help so far!

jaomul said:
What improvements over your current camera do you want in your new camera?

Mostly I want improved image quality because I can tell the T1i sensor has some dead pixels or what-have-you (red dots) that I cannot get rid of. Beyond that I want the improved low light performance, larger viewfinder (rebel line is so small once you've used higher end cameras), and then just the other perks from newer technology. For example, by no means do I NEED the video upgrade, but it will be very mildly useful.

All in all, I imagine any newer camera will offer less noise and i'll have a fresh new sensor. I hate having to edit out red dots on a black background...

jaomul · Apr 13, 2016

All good reasons to change.

I have used a few older and newer Canon models and I agree that a newer model such as the 70d should give most of the improvements you need. On paper the newer canons have marginally better noise characteristics, but when you take into consideration there's nearly twice as many pixels, anything resized down, especially from raw files should give substantial improvements.

I am not sure how invested in lenses you are, or what budget is but another option may be a 6d with a 24-105mm L lens. This would be a major step up over what you have or a 70d unless you require faster fps or af, which you're original post, suggests you don't.

Either camera should improve on your current model.The 18-200 lens may be a good one, but if you do go down the 70d route it might be an idea to look at a lens that will get more from the new 20mp sensor