Full-frame. Is it worth the cost?

[Braineack]

I shoot at 6400 all the time without even thinking about it.

example: Sleeping Fishing Cat | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[D-B-J]

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.

I'm not a pro either and I love full frame. It does make me feel more "pro" though [emoji106]

 

[CameraClicker]

I have nice low noise shots taken with the T2i/550D at ISO 6400. Usually I try to avoid going higher than 6400 because noise does creep in at 12,800. Last weekend I was shooting with a 5D Mk III, in a church without flash, at ISO 1000. Image quality was sufficient and I had some shutter speed. With the T2i, I would have been unhappy because I would have been at 12,800 with noise or at 6400 with less shutter speed. I was shooting at f/2.8 to isolate individuals. If I had wanted a group shot, f/8 would have been a better choice but in that light, shutter speed would suffer.

Selfie time! I don't know if this will help or just add to the confusion. Three photos, all shot with the 70-200 f/4 L non-IS lens. All at f/8, all with the same strobes, at the same power and placement. The lens was at 70 mm for all three shots

This is with a 5D Mk III, I left some headroom because the next shot is going to be with a T2i, without moving or adjusting the tripod

This is with the T2i from the same place

Sort of worked. Hair got cropped.

So, I moved the tripod back a little over 5 feet and aimed again.

Not super scientific, but I'm framed about the same as in the first photo.

Part 2, don't know if this will work, here are some 100% crops all the same area, one from each of the above photos.

5D Mk III on left, and ...................................................................................................T2i on right

T2i from further back

So, it looks like the 100% crops worked as expected. The T2i appears to be magnified, but not by 1.6 because the T2i is 18 mpx and the 5D Mk III is 22.5 mpx. If I used my 30D instead of the T2i, the crops would be about the same size because the 5D Mk III has almost 3 times the pixels.
In the crop from the 5D focus looks soft. It's hard to get focus exact when you are in front of the camera!

 

[runnah]

Is it nice to have an expensive full frame camera? Yes.

Is an expensive full frame camera essential to enjoying photography as a hobby and to create amazing images? No.

 

[Solarflare]

5Ds used on Ebay is about $500.00...
5D | eBay

Whow ! Really ?? Now I am thinking about getting a 5D plus EF 85mm f1.8 !

(Just joking)

 

[Solarflare]

Personally, I just can't understand the crazy hype over Sony's Alpha 7 cameras and lenses.

I can give you reasons for 2 out of the 3:

Sony A7s: Native high ISO 100k, no banding issues in high ISO, cheap 50mm f0.95 available, new A6000 AF system available (one of the fastest for mirrorless, but not as good as Panasonic GH4), 4K Video at insane ISOs

Sony A7r: Perfect support for manual focussing at highest current resolution available for small format 36x24mm, for example for the new Zeiss Otus lenses

Sony A7: No friggin clue.

The problem with A7 is the lack of good native glas. Yes the 35mm f2.8 is good, but its also very expensive. Same for the Telezoom and the 55mm f1.8. The Normalzoom is crappy. The 16-35mm f4 IS might be good, we'll see about that. Same for the upcoming glas.

At the moment, the three A7* cameras are really just that, great sensor holders for manual focus lenses of any type..

 

[Derrel]

Is it nice to have an expensive full frame camera? Yes.

Is an expensive full frame camera essential to enjoying photography as a hobby and to create amazing images? No.

Even a $475 to $525, old, used Canon 5D, the "classic" is a decent camera for controlled lighting uses or at base ISO and a stop up from that. The 5D classic has BIG pixel wells, and at the per-pixel level, its performance at all ISO values up to about 1600 is as good as the Nikon D3 was.

Clean, used 5D classic bodies are a pretty good value, I think. ESPECIALLY for people who are going to shoot them in decent light, or with studio lighting, and at ISO levels of 800 and lower.

 

[runnah]

Is it nice to have an expensive full frame camera? Yes.

Is an expensive full frame camera essential to enjoying photography as a hobby and to create amazing images? No.

Even a $475 to $525, old, used Canon 5D, the "classic" is a decent camera for controlled lighting uses or at base ISO and a stop up from that. The 5D classic has BIG pixel wells, and at the per-pixel level, its performance at all ISO values up to about 1600 is as good as the Nikon D3 was.

Clean, used 5D classic bodies are a pretty good value, I think. ESPECIALLY for people who are going to shoot them in decent light, or with studio lighting, and at ISO levels of 800 and lower.

If I remember Dan O on the forums uses a mark one and his stuff looks great.

My general point was that there will always be bigger and better. Just wait until medium format becomes cheaper, then everyone will be clamoring for that! Fx sucks, it's all about MX!

 

[NedM]

Is it nice to have an expensive full frame camera? Yes.

Is an expensive full frame camera essential to enjoying photography as a hobby and to create amazing images? No.

Even a $475 to $525, old, used Canon 5D, the "classic" is a decent camera for controlled lighting uses or at base ISO and a stop up from that. The 5D classic has BIG pixel wells, and at the per-pixel level, its performance at all ISO values up to about 1600 is as good as the Nikon D3 was.

Clean, used 5D classic bodies are a pretty good value, I think. ESPECIALLY for people who are going to shoot them in decent light, or with studio lighting, and at ISO levels of 800 and lower.

Derrel, I have thought about purchasing a 5D Mark I.
I would definitely understand full frame more and I know I can find a few cheap ones for under $400 on Craigslist in my area.

I usually work outdoors, with natural light, and reflectors. So I know I would be able to keep my ISO low and my shutter speed high.

But with only 12.8MP, what will I be limited to in terms of my image quality? Would I not be able to make enlargements? How would my resolution be?

 

[jaomul]

Just to give some examples of the difference between crop and fullframe (and I'm a plus 1 on the 5d, great in my opinion for smallish money)

This first one is with a 50mm on 5d at f1.8, to be honest I think the dof is to shallow, but I love the expression on my sons face, but would say f3.2 may have worked better
standout by jaomul, on Flickr

Now this one is 50mm on a nikon d7100. Its also at f1.8, so though the framing isnt exactly the same, it is similar. For this shot I was farther back from the subject and as you can see the dof is dramatically different without the same drop off

Rogue by jaomul, on Flickr

5d handheld at 1600 iso, I though this may be a good example as scenes like this would show up noise more than a brighter scene. I always thought the 5d was a good performer in low light
Dubrovnik old town at night2 by jaomul, on Flickr

 

[theHomelessJedi]

Always Upgrade glass first I say. New bodies keep coming out every year. Lenses will last a lot longer

 

[D-B-J]

Always Upgrade glass first I say. New bodies keep coming out every year. Lenses will last a lot longer

Yes and no. I spent 3.5 years upgrading glass, and then finally upgraded my body. What. A. Difference. A lot changes quickly with bodies, so while I agree glass is super important and holds its value better than bodies, it IS important to upgrade your body as well.