Upgrading to fullframe

[aguerra.1993]

Hello everyone, I am wondering if I should upgrade to a full frame camera. I currently shoot a t3i and it has been a good camera to me. I shoot landscape and night photography. I am not a professional and although it would be great if eventually I could become one, I am not actually focused on doing that. I am more of a hobbyist photographer but who doesn't love great quality photos. I want a camera that I can get better quality when I have to bump up the ISO doing star trails and photos of the milky way. The only lenses I have for my T3i are the kit 18-55 and a 50mm 1.8. I have wanted a wide angle but the thing that has held me back was that I always wanted to upgrade to full frame. What are your opinions? Are there cheaper cameras that can perform good at high ISO? I am not a biased toward Canon or Nikon, I will shoot whatever is the best choice, thanks!

Edit- I also do some sports photography and every once in a while portraits, but never professionally or anything, and just about any camera will perform decently in those fields for my needs.

 

[Mach0]

Yours will. General rule of thumb. If you have to ask others if you should go full frame, the answer is no.

 

[aguerra.1993]

Do you think something like a d7100 would be better suited for me?

 

[Derrel]

As FF prices on the Canon 6D and the Nikon D600 and D610 bring the price of FF down and closer to where high-end APS-C was a few years ago, this question, APS-C or FF? is only going to become more common. My opinion as an owner of both is that FF is the handier format because of the greater number of lenses for FF, as well as exactly "How" FF cameras work with the various prime lens lengths. FF makes the 24,28,35,50,85, and 100 or 105mm lenses SUPER-useful in normal, everyday, indoor events. On FF, there's not nearly as much need for exotic, ultra-short lenses with aspherical element designs, just to get decent wide-angle coverage. 24/35/50/85 on FF is a potent prime lineup...on APS-C it's mostly a pain in the ass.

 

[paigew]

I upgraded from the t3i to the 5d mark iii. The iso capabilities are amazing. I love love love my camera.

 

[goodguy]

The T3i is a pretty old design camera, I think it really depends on your needs and wishes.
If you feel you are ready to upgrade either because you feel limited by your T3i or because you simply want to and can afford it then the answer I would say is yes, pull the trigger and get a full frame camera.

Both the 6D and D610 are fantistic cameras but I think the Nikon D610 is a bit better.

 

[aguerra.1993]

Those were really the two cameras I was looking at, the 6D and the D600/D610. What do you think are some advantages of the D600 over the 6D?

 

[Bulb]

Buy what will make you happy.

I skipped right from film to full-frame. The 6D has been an amazing camera so far. I have yet to run into any limitations.

If you want a full-frame camera then a 6D or D610 would be perfect. Of course I would recommend the 6D.

 

[goodguy]

Those were really the two cameras I was looking at, the 6D and the D600/D610. What do you think are some advantages of the D600 over the 6D?

Well 2 things I want to say first

1.The 6D is an awesome camera
2.I am a Nikon guy

So I would go with the D610.
I wouldnt go for the D600, it will be cheaper then the D610 and its almost an identical camera but some of the Nikon D600 has dust/oil issues so I would be careful. The Nikon D610 has resulved this issue so while it is more expensive it is the safer buy, if you feel like you want to take a risk as a camera both cameras are very, very close and would very much the same with very little improvement to the D610 like 1/2 FPS faster and few more minor stuff.
The D610 has the overall slightly better sensor then the Canon 6D also better FA system, read reviews and decide for yourself.
The only advantage the 6D has over the D610 is in night photography but to be honest the D610 is so capable in night photography that the small advangage the 6D has is neglegable in my eyes.

But either one will be a fantastic camera.

 

[astroNikon]

As FF prices on the Canon 6D and the Nikon D600 and D610 bring the price of FF down and closer to where high-end APS-C was a few years ago, this question, APS-C or FF? is only going to become more common. My opinion as an owner of both is that FF is the handier format because of the greater number of lenses for FF, as well as exactly "How" FF cameras work with the various prime lens lengths. FF makes the 24,28,35,50,85, and 100 or 105mm lenses SUPER-useful in normal, everyday, indoor events. On FF, there's not nearly as much need for exotic, ultra-short lenses with aspherical element designs, just to get decent wide-angle coverage. 24/35/50/85 on FF is a potent prime lineup...on APS-C it's mostly a pain in the ass.

Come on Derrel. Don't hide it, tell us what you really think about APS-C :thumbup:

 

[Derrel]

Come on Derrel. Don't hide it, tell us what you really think about APS-C :thumbup:

Well, APS-C is handy if you like to do a lot of telephoto work, and want the MOST pixels placed upon a narrow angle of view. Things like shooting birds in flight, or surfers offshore, or other telephoto-heavy uses make a good, high-quality APS-C sensor a really nice thing to have. The issue is the "quality" of the image at the per-pixel level...and right now, the majority of Canon 's cameras are based on an older, 18-megapixel sensor that they developed and first used in the Canon 7D is 2009...since then, the same sensor has been regurgitated in like five "new models"...meanwhile, Nikon has gone with Sony, and Toshiba, 24-megapixel sensors that are quite a bit better, and have better image quality, and much wider dynamic range, as well as better color depth. Like the OPS T3i...the sensor in that's pretty outdated...same thing with the Nikon D300s...it's still an older, 12MP sensor...the rest of the Nikon APS-C new models are ALL 24 MP sensors, and are years newer than what the D300s has.

Canon's 7D is not that good a sensor by the standards of what's state of the art now, in 2013. The "camera" part is all pretty solid yes, but the image sensor is outdated; and it's the same 18MP, 2009 sensor in the remainder of Canon's APS-C lineup, with the exception of the new 70D. Canon has done almost nothing to advance its APS-C lineup since 2009. Meanwhile, they took the original 5D (which I still own!) and gave it a facelift to the 5D-II, and then a few years later, they elevated the 5D to its Mark III level and made an incredible pro camera out of what had been a $389 body with a $2,000 sensor in it...not even sure why they called the new one a "Five Dee"... So, in the serious enthusiast/semi-pro/pro/wedding/and generalist d-slr, they made a MASSIVE statement, a monumental leap upward in the quality of the "camera" parts, and slapped in a somewhat better sensor than the 5D-II had used. But they ignored the APS-C segment for years, just sort of treading water after the 7D's release.

It "seems to me" like the camera makers are trying really hard to Re-SET the buyers' expectations to desperately TRY to keep the serious enthusiast buying $1599 to $1999 cameras. Or, at least lusting after cameras priced in that general range. I think Canon publicly stating that it does NOT HAVE immediate plans for a 7D Mark II, and Nikon deliberately dragging its feet on a D300s update/replacement, shows that they're concerned mostly about making an APS-C body for every,single,possible budget at the low end and trying to move users' sights upward to more-profitable cameras, while keeping market share by having bodies prices very low, across a wide range of prices. Right now the D3100,D3200,D5100,D5200,D7000, AND the D7100 are all available as "NEW" in much of the world, and all are priced in very close,close steps,and with kits. Canon has a slew of Rebels at the low end, but has said it's in no rush to upgrade the 7D to Mark II status...instead, they're working reallllllly hard on the 5D-III as a halo product, and also trying to sell off older 5D-II inventory, and have the new 6D priced right where it looks like a very attractive advanced enthusiast/serious user/pro/wedding/generalist camera that can be sold to bring in good, solid money in a d-slr market that has matured tremendously.

Right now, Canon and Nikon have high-end APS-C camera bodies that were premiered in what? 2009 and 2007?

 

[robbins.photo]

Those were really the two cameras I was looking at, the 6D and the D600/D610. What do you think are some advantages of the D600 over the 6D?

Well the 6D has built in GPS and a better ISO boost capability, The Nikon D610 has better image quality, lower noise at high ISO, better autofocusing (39 focus points vrs 11, 9 cross focus points vrs 1), shoots faster (6 FPS vrs 4.5, which would be handy for your sports photos), and it has 2 slots for SD cards instead of just one.

I guess my thought process would be, do you really think you need this much camera, and how much have you budgeted for lenses once you purchase the body? For the type of photography you mentioned above one of the things on my wish list would probably be a good 200 mm telephoto with F/2.8 - if you don't mind using a tripod or monopod for your shots you can usually get one for around $500-600 without some form of image stabilization - VR/IS. If you would prefer VR/IS of some sort so you can more easily go handheld then a lens like that is going to run you closer to $900-$1000 used.

Now depending on your budget if you could get something like the D610 with a lens like that, maybe a good 50 mm prime and such to compliment and your pretty sure you'll really make good use of that kind of high end, pro equipment then it might be worth considering.

However, if you don't have a budget that is going to let you get the good glass and the expensive full frame pro body, well honestly you'd be better off stepping down and going with something like a D7100 with the better glass. A less expensive, less advanced camera body with really good lenses is going to give you better results than a really high end camera body and only a cheap lens or two - so unless your budget for this is pretty good honestly I'd think you would most likely be better off going DX first. Just make sure when you buy the lenses they are FX - that way if and when you feel you really need an FX body, you can upgrade at that point.

I think somebody else pretty much nailed it right on the head, if you have to ask if you should go full fx/pro body then you probably don't really need one. Sure, I'd love to drop that kind of money on a camera body myself, but honestly it just doesn't really make that much sense for me personally. I think you might be in the same place to be honest with you.

 

[hamlet]

Don't listen to the nay sayers. Get the best you can afford if you love photography.

 

[SCraig]

Don't listen to the nay sayers. Get the best you can afford if you love photography.

Define "Best". Is it simply more expensive? Is it simply full-frame vs. crop-sensor? More bells and/or whistles? Or is it perhaps something that suits what the person shoots? What makes a camera body "Best" for every situation and every photographer?

I don't want a full-frame camera, I prefer APS-C. I don't need 59 autofocus points, I only use one at a time. I have no use for WiFi or a built-in GPS, I can't think of a single benefit for me in having a WiFi-enabled camera and have GPS on my phone if I need it. In other words, what is "Best" for me is not what is "Best" for others.

My advice to the OP is simpler: Define what your needs are and then determine the best camera fit for those needs.

 

[goodguy]

My advice to the OP is simpler: Define what your needs are and then determine the best camera fit for those needs.

That is a very good advice!

But there could be another reason to upgrade and thats simply if you want to.
If you want to upgrade and can afford it then thats another good and legitimate reason.
I have found myself more then few times in my life upgrading stuff like cars, watches, TV and lots others simply because I wanted to, I didnt need the improved options they gave me but I wanted them.
Nothing wrong with that as long as you can afford it.