Upgrading to full frame...which company / body is right for me?

Magellan · Oct 10, 2011

Hi there! I've lurked here for quite a while now, but finally decided to join up as I have a question I just can't seem to answer on my own. Apologies if this isn't the correct forum.

I've been shooting with a Canon T2i / 550D for just under a year now. I bought it as my first DSLR, to see if I enjoyed photography as much as I thought I would. Turns out, I do

It didn't take long to figure out that photography is something I want to continue to pursue, perhaps some day as more than a hobby. Now that I've got a firm grasp on things, and am starting to pursue actual photography gigs, I'd like to make the jump up to full frame. But I'm no professional...and don't want to spend professional money. I'm thinking $3000 is my price point for a body and all-purpose lens. Hopefully with a flash, as well.

The obvious Canon choice would be a 5D Mk II, or perhaps a used 1Ds MK II. But everyone I know is saying that Nikon will suit me better. I have less than $1500 tied up in my camera bag right now, and I'm not opposed to selling everything and starting over. I'm not dead set on Canon or Nikon, either...I'd like for someone to make arguments toward Sony, Pentax, or even Olympus.

As for what I'm looking for, to qualify why Nikon supposedly suits me better...my two main priorities are a fast, accurate AF system and excellent high ISO performance. One other thing that's important is build quality...I take my camera literally everywhere, sometimes through wind and rain, and frequently in dusty, arid environments. Primarily I shoot motor sports, concerts (frequently in small venues where lighting isn't the best and flash is frowned upon), and wildlife. I hope to get into portraits and wedding work in the future. I'm not all that interested in landscapes, and rarely do still life.

In sum, what I'm looking for is a camera that takes professional-quality photos, has the potential to withstand poor weather for the next 2-3 years, tracks AF subjects quickly and accurately, and works well in poor lighting. So, if you were me...what would you get, and why? Thanks in advance, and I look forward to some interesting discussions here!

P.S. - I don't plan on taking video all that often. The fact that Canon is better at HD video will hardly influence my decision. Just a note!

Destin · Oct 10, 2011

Honestly, based on what you've said Canon really doesn'y make a camera for you within your budget. The closest thing would be a 7d, but it isn't full frame. The 5d mkII isn't known as an insanely durable camera (it's mostly plastic), and it's AF performance falls short for moving subjects, from what I've been told by a local photographer who has one. Countless online reviews say the same thing, and I'm sure others on here will confirm this.

As for which Nikon body, the D700 is the clear choice. It's completely magnesium alloy body is very durable and it's weather sealed quite well. The thing feels like a brick in your hands as far as build quality goes, and it's AF is the exact same as you'll find in the Nikon D3- a true pro body. A local press photographer who I talk to on the sidelines at football games shoots it at iso 6400 all the time for sports and has no issues with image quality. He claims 10,000 is even useable in a real pinch.

I don't know enough about other brands to really comment on them, other than the fact that I know pentax makes a few weather sealed bodies that have great high iso performance too. The only real problem I'd see with pentax is you'd have a whole lot less choices when it comes to buying lenses.

Robin Usagani · Oct 10, 2011

Jumping to Nikon D700 is not a bad idea. However that will only leave you with small amount of $ for a lens. Personally I would go my route. Buy a $900 5D classic. It has no video and it has 12.1 MP which is perfect IMO. Then you have 2100 left for at least a couple of lenses. That is the best economical route IMO.

Derrel · Oct 10, 2011

Magellan said:
>SBIPfast, accurate AF system and excellent high ISO performance. One other thing that's important is build quality>SNIP>>

tracks AF subjects quickly and accurately, and works well in poor lighting. So, if you were me...what would you get, and why? Thanks in advance, and I look forward to some interesting discussions here!

Nikon D3s if you can afford it. Nikon D700 is you cannot afford the D3s. The D3 shares the same sensor as the D700. The BEST high-ISO camera is the Nikon D3s. Period.

You want good AF, and tracking, and a FF sensor...forget the Canon 5D series...the AF is okay, but there's already track noise in the shadows at ISO 200...People who have only used a Canon 5D (I own one, myself!!!) will tell you the AF is "good". Yeah, I'll give it "good": with 1) good light and f/2.8 or faster lenses and 2) subjects that are in the center of the frame and 3)not moving really fast or erratically and 4) subjects that have adequate contrast

Good is "good". There are some "Excellent" AF systems on the market. The 5D seres does not make excellent. In the same way that a Chevy Volt does not compare to a Corvette in terms of acceleration, or top speed. If you have never used a PROFESSIONAL-level Nikon, you will be amazed at the simplicity of the handling, and of the better control layout Nikon has compared to other camera makers. Nikon has bigger controls, better-placed controls, and CONSISTENT FUNCTION of controls across multiple exposure modes, plus the Fn button, a DOF button you can actually USE while shooting and focusing, better flash metering and flash control, color-aware light metering,etc,etc).

The Canon 5D classic is a $389 EOS ELan body basically, with the AF system for the Canon 20D slapped into it. I have a 5D and a Canon 20D. I'm aware of what they're like. The 5D is a very,very low-spec, slow body that would really suck for motorsports...it is as slow as the Nikon D70 is...it's as feeble as the Rebels are...and while you're at it, you'd want to send it back to Canon so they could re-glue the mirror on and put the 50 cent brace on the mirror armature to keep the damned mirror from falling OUT! (seriously, no joke...)

Robin Usagani · Oct 10, 2011

^^ I agree with he says. I own both 5D classic and 5DII and I find a lot of things frustrating and wish I had D700. But you cant buy a used full frame Nikon for $900. Sometimes price is the deciding factor. Personally I rather have not as great of a body with outstanding lenses than a nice body with a cheap lens. Lenses do not depreciate as much as bodies.

Derrel · Oct 10, 2011

There are times when lenses are more-critical than the body. THere are entire segments of photography where the BODY determines, in large part, the ease of success, especially for the less-advanced, newer shooter. The way I see it is this: if the camera itself is really FAST, and really capable, and really advanced, it makes shooting action, sports, whatever, pretty easy. If the camera is slow in all aspects (slower AF, slower mirror up, slower mirror down, slower frame rate, slower writing to the buffer, slower clearing the buffer), then the camera sucks for any kind of "faster" work.<br><br>I shot newspaper sports assignments with the Nikon D1h, a 2.7 megapixel d-slr with very fast handling...it was a better sports camera than the 5D, despite a number of "limitations"...the 5D is DOG-slow...motor sports doesn't really demand high resolution: cars and motorcycles are large, shot at close range, and have large areas of broad, flat paint...they do not need many MPs to be rendered quite well...most of the events are held in daylight, usually in good weather... I would rather have a $400 Nikon D2h or D2Hs, than a brand-new Canon 5D Mark II for action work.<br><br>If you want to shoot "action", you want a camera that will advance your lenses capabilities, not hold them back. If you want a camera for 2 to 3 years worth of water-proof,weather-proof work, the Canon 5D series has demonstrated rather bad reliability..it's not sealed very well. IS FF really needed for your motorsports work??? If it is, Nikon is your company at $2,700 for a D700, more for a D3 series body...

penfolderoldo · Oct 10, 2011

Again, I find myself agreeing - at least in part - with Derrel (this is becoming somewhat of an unsettling habit! :lol:

) When I shoot motorsport i've never felt the need for FF, I use the 7D or my trusty old 1D mk III. For full frame sports bodies i'd have to say make the leap to Nikon, as Canon really have lost their way here a tad. My choice? for what it's worth a 1D mk III... would've been the 7D but seeing as how it's just about to go back to Canon for the 2nd time to get the AF supposedly 'fixed' some more my levels of patience and enthusiasm for this particular Canon offering are dropping faster than a proverbial tart's knickers!

Magellan · Oct 10, 2011

Thanks for the tips! I hadn't considered an original 5D, but I suppose that's an option. A friend of mine uses one (for much the same purposes I do), and he likes it. However, in his words, "a 1-series anything completely ridicules anything else Canon has to offer." Meaning, given the chance to upgrade, he would. I played around with his a bit, and felt the controls were somewhat counter-intuitive. I feel much the same about the 5D Mk II. I didn't rule it out because it'd certainly be easier to stay with Canon, and I'm sure I could adjust to the new controls given some time. However, 5Ds are still going for $1200-1500, from what I can see. You tell me where I can find a 5D for $900 and I'd gladly pick one up, even if it's not what I stay with...that's not much more than what I could sell my T2i for.

I do have a maximum price point to start out with, but money isn't an obstacle in the long term, per se. I don't need to upgrade right now; I could always keep saving if necessary. If I were worried about money, I'd just continue using the T2i. I am still considering whether it'd be better to get some good glass and keep the T2i, but based on reviews and input from friends, it seems my money would be better spent on a full frame body. Even the cheap lenses I have look markedly better on full frame, based on what I've seen.

I guess full frame isn't "necessary" for motorsports, but definitely nice to have because of high ISO capabilities. On a cloudy day, it can be necessary to shoot at ISO 1600. At night under stadium lighting, it is absolutely necessary to shoot at ISO 1600, sometimes even higher. Noise is extremely apparent on the T2i at that ISO level, especially while using continuous AF. The main reason I want to go FF is to move out of merely "acceptable" noise levels in low light and into "hardly noticeable" noise levels.

Overread · Oct 10, 2011

A 7D should be able to shoot at ISO 1600 without much trouble at all provided the exposure itself is good and would be my choice at least for your motorsport and wildlife interests; the fullframe however has its advantage in the closer concert work and general portrait wedding lines.

Personally I think you need to step back and take a look at the whole range on offer; consider the lenses as well as the bodies (and the prices of course - whilst long term there may be no limits big differences will affect how long "long term" takes to get to) and the flash system (ok no battle there nikon tends to win that hands down). Get a feel for what kind of lenses and gear you will go for and see what fits you best from the two brands.

Either brand will perform well in any field of interest and many of the differences can come down to personal choice and selected as well as experience; in addition many advocate the brand that they shoot with and chose. As for which is the best overall - eh Canon Nikon it flits between the two as to which has the geeks vote online - a few years back Canon was THE name; currently it appears to be Nikon, but give it a year or two and it could easily be Canon again; however it might also be Sony or one of the others keen to push into the DSLR work (Canon and Nikon have the edge now in that they have the biggest lens ranges on offer).

Robin Usagani · Oct 10, 2011

Stick with your t2i a little bit longer and buy nice lenses now (EF lenses, bot EF-S). Then wait for 5D III. I'm hoping canon will step up their game so I don't have to switch to Nikon.

Robin Usagani · Oct 10, 2011

Oh, regarding 5Dc, I see it on Denver CL once in a while. Usually it comes with a grip at around $1100. I'm confident you can get one for 900-950. Just bargain it down. Or buy it on eBay.

Magellan · Oct 10, 2011

Good point! Lens selection is something I figured I'd worry about later, assuming I switch from Canon. I suppose I'd rather have a great body and decent lenses than an entry-level body and professional lenses. Here's what I currently have. In terms of length, these have suited me well on a crop body:

EF 70-210mm f/4
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 35mm f/2

Though I often find myself wishing I had something more wide-angle...which the 35mm would be perfect for on a full frame. If I were to purchase a lens right now, it'd probably be the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

Also, here's an example of what I mean about noise on a crop body while shooting motorsports...

This image was taken at ISO 1600 on a very cloudy day (right before a thunder storm) and to me, the noise is somewhat obtrusive. I believe I may have even used noise correction in Lightroom on that one.

Overread · Oct 10, 2011

A 70-200mm f2.8 would give you a whole stop more light to work with in light without you having to worry about touching the ISO - and further more something as stella as a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII would be tack sharp from the 2.8 aperture (earlier versions are a little softer wide open - the same is true of nikon as well their VRII 70-200mm f2.8 is another stella performer on par with the canon).