full censor vs a crop sensor is their a $1500.00 difference

[RumDaddy]

Im debating on exchanging/upgrading my new 60d to a 5d mark II. What are the benifits of a full sensor camera compared to a crop sensor and is it worth the extra $1500.00.

 

[Big Mike]

To some...yes. To others...no.

Keep in mind that you may need to upgrade your lenses as well. EF-S or other lenses made for crop sensors won't be useful with a full frame body.

 

[SabrinaO]

Is that really the price difference????

 

[RumDaddy]

5 or my 6 lenses are EF-S. The other one my new favorite. Works just fine on my 50D and Ill be keeping that as a back up.

SabrinaO 60D is $999.00 5d markii is $2500.00.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Is it worth it?

I dunno. Do you sell your images?

 

[Vtec44]

IMHO, if you're making money off of your images then it's definitely worth the investment because your reputation will be on the line (at least on the technical part). You want the pictures to have the best quality possible, full frame body and top of the line lenses. So to me, it is not worth it as I don't make money off of my images enough to justify the price difference in lenses and body.

 

[RumDaddy]

I dont sell my images but I do sell my services and get paid to shoot.

 

[Derrel]

Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...

As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it. If you're looking for the lowest-cost, highest megapixel full frame d-slr, the SOny A900 and A850 are the lowest cost AND the highest MP models currently on the market, and are actually pretty nice cameras, with good viewfinders, and actually quite nice ergonomics and 'feel'.

The value of a FF camera depends on what you need it for, and to an extent, on which camera maker you buy it from. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all selling very different types of FF d-slrs at the $1899-$2600 price points. FOr people photography, I prefer the "look" of shallower depth of field, and the way FF allows me to use traditional focal lengths, in traditional locations, to get the kind of background control that is a total PITA to achieve with a crop-body camera.

 

[DisasterDan]

Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...

As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it.

Things like this make me want to just sell all my equipment and go with nikon :er:

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I have Nikon but never realized canon lens aren't interchangeable.

 

[usayit]

Such a subjective question it is impossible to answer.

It is to some and not to others.

For me, going from 1.33x to FF was worth it... because the focal lengths and their FOV on 135 film was ingrained into my mind from way back in the film days. I want my 50mm to look like the 50mm I remember.

 

[johnh2005]

uh oh, Canon vs. Nikon



And, NO, I will not share. I think this is going to turn EPIC... I am talking Lord of the Rings epic.

 

[gsgary]

The 5Dmk2 must be really bad, shame it is the most popular wedding camera in the UK

 

[usayit]

uh oh, Canon vs. Nikon



And, NO, I will not share. I think this is going to turn EPIC... I am talking Lord of the Rings epic.

You can almost cut and past Derrel's response in every Canon thread.... lol

 

[o hey tyler]

Too bad you bought Canon, whose EF-S lenses will not even MOUNT on their FF bodies...Nikon's FX bodies WILL mount and WILL shoot the Nikkor DX lenses, either at reduced megapixel count, OR with almost full-frame coverage in the 4:5 aspect ratio on the D3 series bodies...as Nikon showed, there is no real reason that a reduced-circle lens must be made so that it will mount ONLY on crop-frame bodies....as Nikon proved, a reduced-circle lens can easily be made so that it works on ANY camera body currently made...

As to the worth of a 5D-II with a $389 EOS Elan body paired with a $2,000 sensor....hmmm....the sub-systems (simplified extremely centrally-weighted autofocusing, color-blind metering, no built-in flash, no flash commander, slow FPS, poor light meter readouts for use in bright light) ehhhhh....I can see how many people do not see the value proposition in the 5D series. It's another matter entirely if you're looking at a Nikon D700 at the SAME price as the Canon 5D-II....there you're getting a camera with a full-bore professional autofocusing system, color-aware light metering for both daylight and flash, built-in flash, built-in flash commander system, faster FPS, and a rugged pro-type camera body, not a consumer body that has had a good sensor dropped into it. If you're looking for the lowest-cost, highest megapixel full frame d-slr, the SOny A900 and A850 are the lowest cost AND the highest MP models currently on the market, and are actually pretty nice cameras, with good viewfinders, and actually quite nice ergonomics and 'feel'.

The value of a FF camera depends on what you need it for, and to an extent, on which camera maker you buy it from. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are all selling very different types of FF d-slrs at the $1899-$2600 price points. FOr people photography, I prefer the "look" of shallower depth of field, and the way FF allows me to use traditional focal lengths, in traditional locations, to get the kind of background control that is a total PITA to achieve with a crop-body camera.

Yeah, how the **** do all those professional wedding photogs get such great images out of 5D2's? Jeeze. :meh: