Could I be happy with a switch to FF?

[mom2rtk]

I've been mulling over where to go with my camera for a while. My T2i is 4 years old with more than 58K shutter actuations. It has had a few issues that crop up and happen for a while, then disappear. It's still working fine today, but I'm considering where I want to go before it dies.

I really considered myself very happy with APS-C format, and have a great selection of lenses. Unfortunately, many of these lenses would not make the jump to FF with me if I went that direction.

I was so committed to APS-C that I recently bought the Sigma 18-35 g/1.8 lens. Now I find myself disappointed with its early performance. It's just missing focus far too much. I'm about to return it but don't know if I want to try another copy or just a refund. I don't think I can make this choice until I know if I want to make a change to FF or not.

I really hesitate to get a new APS-C camera until I find one that represents a nice jump in high ISO performance. They say the 70D is a little better, but I haven't heard that it's a lot better. I have not seen any confirmation on whether the new 7D Mii is enough better to justify the rather substantial price tag.

So my thoughts keep going back to the 6D which everyone says has amazing high ISO performance. I could sell a few lenses and probably make that happen. But I would have to give up a couple lenses that feel like family to me!

I could probably start with one or two lenses and get by for a while. But if I did, which ones? I have very unsteady hands and love shooting at 2.8 with IS. Would the Tamron 24-70 be the only option to accomplish that?

Mostly I'm just thinking out loud at this point..... as I sit here and try to decide what to do with this Sigma 18-35. I'd love to hear from others shooting with this lens. Maybe I'd like it more if I got an APS-C camera with microadjustment?

 

[havoc315]

I've been giving a lot of thought to similar issues lately, as I contemplate changing systems, and even consider going back to APS-C.

Some would say (and in some ways they are right), that full frame brings less benefit than it used to. Today's APS-C cameras can provide similar ISO performance that you were getting from full frame just 4-6 years ago.
The newest APS-C cameras (the Nikon D5200, D7100, the Sony A77ii, and probably the Canon 7dii) can produce useable images as high as ISO 12800, and very nice images up to ISO 3200 or higher.
And really... there are very few scenes that can't be captured at 6400 or less.

Furthermore, don't underestimate the cost of full frame. The bodies have come down in price. In fact, you can probably get the 6d for less than a 7dii....
But the lenses really can add up.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is about $800.
The Canon 24-70 2.8 is almost $2000.

And don't knock some of the other advantages of APS-C, especially the top end APS-C cameras. Unless you are going to spend $6,000 on the Canon 1dx.... The 6D and even the 5diii won't match the responsiveness of the Canon 7dii or the Sony A77ii.... They won't match the AF coverage. (The 7dii and the A77ii has focal points spread throughout almost the whole frame.. while your typical full frame cameras has the focus points clustered around the center). Not to mention, some people like the 1.5/1.6 extra crop reach on their lenses. A 300mm telephoto becoming 450-480mm is a lot of extra reach!

Now the flip side..... Why I probably am sticking with full frame:

Yes, high ISO performance has gotten better on APS-C cameras. But ISO is like money -- no matter how much you have, it's nice to have more.
Yes --- There may be an image that you *can* capture in high quality at ISO 3200..... But maybe it required you to open up your lens's aperture wide, resulting in a very narrow DOF. Maybe it would have been nice to capture that same quality at ISO 12800, with a stopped down aperture and a wider DOF.
And the extra leverage when shooting sports... being able to get high shutter speeds by boosting the ISO.
Or even when using flash, being able to just use a touch of bounce to fill the exposure evenly, instead of really relying on the flash as a main light source.

When I hang out on Sony dSLT message boards.... the older Sony dSLTs had pretty mediocre ISO performance, so fanboys would make the excuse, "I never need to shoot over ISO 1600 anyway"....
The reality is, once you have more --- You do use it.

Pricing --- Lenses will cost more. But there are also more and more affordable alternatives. And, you can use slower lenses because of the better ISO performance.
I feel a 2.8 lens is a necessity on an APS-C camera. But on full frame --- A constant F 4 is really just fine. I don't usually need or want ultra thin DOF. Even at F4 on full frame, you get plenty of DOF control, can still get very nice bokeh. I do have a 2.8 zoom currently (28-75/2.8), but I almost always stop down to at least F4 anyway.
So lenses will cost more, but there are ways to at least somewhat control the costs.
But even with controlling costs -- Be prepared to spend a lot more in the long term on a full frame system.

The other differences with APS-C ---- Yes, you lose some reach on the telephoto lenses. But because of the higher overall quality of the images, you gain a bit of cropping ability. If you're not doing birding or lots of wildlife, then you seldom really need to go beyond 200mm anyway.

The AF point coverage and responsiveness is a bigger issue for me -- The 6D probably isn't great if you want to shoot any type of action. (Though photochick does shoot some dance with hers). I have not really used the 6D much, so I can't get too specific. I know the center AF point is excellent.

I did test out the new Nikon D750 this weekend --- I am seriously considering switching to it. In my brief test, the responsiveness and AF coverage were really quite amazing for the price tag.

Finally, I'm sure you know..... Use the Canon loyalty program if you're sticking with Canon. You should be able to get a very nice price on 6d+lens.

 

[fractal]

Crop Sensors vs Full Frame - Crop or Crap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

 

[mom2rtk]

I've been giving a lot of thought to similar issues lately, as I contemplate changing systems, and even consider going back to APS-C.

Some would say (and in some ways they are right), that full frame brings less benefit than it used to. Today's APS-C cameras can provide similar ISO performance that you were getting from full frame just 4-6 years ago.
The newest APS-C cameras (the Nikon D5200, D7100, the Sony A77ii, and probably the Canon 7dii) can produce useable images as high as ISO 12800, and very nice images up to ISO 3200 or higher.
And really... there are very few scenes that can't be captured at 6400 or less.

Furthermore, don't underestimate the cost of full frame. The bodies have come down in price. In fact, you can probably get the 6d for less than a 7dii....
But the lenses really can add up.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is about $800.
The Canon 24-70 2.8 is almost $2000.

And don't knock some of the other advantages of APS-C, especially the top end APS-C cameras. Unless you are going to spend $6,000 on the Canon 1dx.... The 6D and even the 5diii won't match the responsiveness of the Canon 7dii or the Sony A77ii.... They won't match the AF coverage. (The 7dii and the A77ii has focal points spread throughout almost the whole frame.. while your typical full frame cameras has the focus points clustered around the center). Not to mention, some people like the 1.5/1.6 extra crop reach on their lenses. A 300mm telephoto becoming 450-480mm is a lot of extra reach!

Now the flip side..... Why I probably am sticking with full frame:

Yes, high ISO performance has gotten better on APS-C cameras. But ISO is like money -- no matter how much you have, it's nice to have more.
Yes --- There may be an image that you *can* capture in high quality at ISO 3200..... But maybe it required you to open up your lens's aperture wide, resulting in a very narrow DOF. Maybe it would have been nice to capture that same quality at ISO 12800, with a stopped down aperture and a wider DOF.
And the extra leverage when shooting sports... being able to get high shutter speeds by boosting the ISO.
Or even when using flash, being able to just use a touch of bounce to fill the exposure evenly, instead of really relying on the flash as a main light source.

When I hang out on Sony dSLT message boards.... the older Sony dSLTs had pretty mediocre ISO performance, so fanboys would make the excuse, "I never need to shoot over ISO 1600 anyway"....
The reality is, once you have more --- You do use it.

Pricing --- Lenses will cost more. But there are also more and more affordable alternatives. And, you can use slower lenses because of the better ISO performance.
I feel a 2.8 lens is a necessity on an APS-C camera. But on full frame --- A constant F 4 is really just fine. I don't usually need or want ultra thin DOF. Even at F4 on full frame, you get plenty of DOF control, can still get very nice bokeh. I do have a 2.8 zoom currently (28-75/2.8), but I almost always stop down to at least F4 anyway.
So lenses will cost more, but there are ways to at least somewhat control the costs.
But even with controlling costs -- Be prepared to spend a lot more in the long term on a full frame system.

The other differences with APS-C ---- Yes, you lose some reach on the telephoto lenses. But because of the higher overall quality of the images, you gain a bit of cropping ability. If you're not doing birding or lots of wildlife, then you seldom really need to go beyond 200mm anyway.

The AF point coverage and responsiveness is a bigger issue for me -- The 6D probably isn't great if you want to shoot any type of action. (Though photochick does shoot some dance with hers). I have not really used the 6D much, so I can't get too specific. I know the center AF point is excellent.

I did test out the new Nikon D750 this weekend --- I am seriously considering switching to it. In my brief test, the responsiveness and AF coverage were really quite amazing for the price tag.

Finally, I'm sure you know..... Use the Canon loyalty program if you're sticking with Canon. You should be able to get a very nice price on 6d+lens.

I would probably be happy with the 7Dmii, but that price scares me. And I was hoping to do something before our early December Disney trip, but they aren't shipping until November. I'd like to see more real life reports on ISO performance before pulling the trigger myself.

I guess on the lens front I would probably scale back on the number of lenses I have if I went FF, so that would help with the cost. And I might consider 3rd party lenses. I don't see myself dropping the cash to get the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. I'd go with the Tamron that has VC. Then add a Sigma or Tamron 70-200 and call it good.

You do make a good point about the AF system. Mostly I want that high ISO performance. But I am still shooting some action with my daughter on the school volleyball team. Mostly I'm still sucking at it too! I'm at 3200 ISO and 2.8 and still struggling. I thought I might sit closer and try the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but I'm having so many troubles with the focus on that I'm giving up. The only really sharp shots I've had yet are with the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. You should see the bag of lenses I've been bringing in to see if I can make it work! Maybe I could just get them to move the next game outside?

I'm open to all options, including using the Canon Loyalty program. But honestly, the T2i isn't dead yet. I'd probably want to keep it as a backup. I was considering buying a broken camera on Ebay or something though. Is that what you mean?

 

[mom2rtk]

Crop Sensors vs Full Frame - Crop or Crap?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

I enjoyed that. But what's with the squirrel?

 

[havoc315]

I would probably be happy with the 7Dmii, but that price scares me. And I was hoping to do something before our early December Disney trip, but they aren't shipping until November. I'd like to see more real life reports on ISO performance before pulling the trigger myself.

I guess on the lens front I would probably scale back on the number of lenses I have if I went FF, so that would help with the cost. And I might consider 3rd party lenses. I don't see myself dropping the cash to get the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. I'd go with the Tamron that has VC. Then add a Sigma or Tamron 70-200 and call it good.

You do make a good point about the AF system. Mostly I want that high ISO performance. But I am still shooting some action with my daughter on the school volleyball team. Mostly I'm still sucking at it too! I'm at 3200 ISO and 2.8 and still struggling. I thought I might sit closer and try the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but I'm having so many troubles with the focus on that I'm giving up. The only really sharp shots I've had yet are with the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. You should see the bag of lenses I've been bringing in to see if I can make it work! Maybe I could just get them to move the next game outside?

I'm open to all options, including using the Canon Loyalty program. But honestly, the T2i isn't dead yet. I'd probably want to keep it as a backup. I was considering buying a broken camera on Ebay or something though. Is that what you mean?

Sure, buy a $5 old broken Canon P&S off e-bay.

I use a 200/2.8 prime on full frame for indoor sports/action... Usually need ISO between 6400-10,000, and get great shots. If you switched to full frame, you could also consider the Canon 70-200 F4.

Of course, getting a shot that is accurately focused is even more important than reducing noise.

Higher ISO will let you use faster shutter speeds AND smaller aperture for more depth of field. But you still need a system that can AF accurately.

It's a great sampling of jpegs as opposed to RAW, but for the 7Dii, take a look at the image comparisons on imaging-resource. It should give you a pretty good idea of the ISO upgrade. (though some of the improvements may simply be due to better jpeg processing). They don't have the T2i, but they do have the T3i for comparison -- To my eye, the 7Dii looks not quite 1 stop better. ISO 6400 on the T3i looks just about the same as 12800 on the 7Dii, maybe 6400 on the T3i is just slightly better. On the other hand, the 6D looks 2-3 stops better than the T3i -- ISO 25600 on the 6d looks a tad better than 6400 on the T3i.

Personally... considering that the 6D is *cheaper* than the 7dii potentially... and considering that the 6D still looks 1+ stops better than the 7dii.... I'd probably go with the 6D, even if the Af may be a bit more frustrating doing sports.
Though... it's for those same reasons, that personally, I'm leaning towards the Nikon D750 over the Canon 6D. (For great low light ISO PLUS great AF).

 

[mom2rtk]

Sure, buy a $5 old broken Canon P&S off e-bay.

I use a 200/2.8 prime on full frame for indoor sports/action... Usually need ISO between 6400-10,000, and get great shots. If you switched to full frame, you could also consider the Canon 70-200 F4.

Of course, getting a shot that is accurately focused is even more important than reducing noise.

Higher ISO will let you use faster shutter speeds AND smaller aperture for more depth of field. But you still need a system that can AF accurately.

It's a great sampling of jpegs as opposed to RAW, but for the 7Dii, take a look at the image comparisons on imaging-resource. It should give you a pretty good idea of the ISO upgrade. (though some of the improvements may simply be due to better jpeg processing). They don't have the T2i, but they do have the T3i for comparison -- To my eye, the 7Dii looks not quite 1 stop better. ISO 6400 on the T3i looks just about the same as 12800 on the 7Dii, maybe 6400 on the T3i is just slightly better. On the other hand, the 6D looks 2-3 stops better than the T3i -- ISO 25600 on the 6d looks a tad better than 6400 on the T3i.

Personally... considering that the 6D is *cheaper* than the 7dii potentially... and considering that the 6D still looks 1+ stops better than the 7dii.... I'd probably go with the 6D, even if the Af may be a bit more frustrating doing sports.
Though... it's for those same reasons, that personally, I'm leaning towards the Nikon D750 over the Canon 6D. (For great low light ISO PLUS great AF).

Clear as mud, isn't it?

Do you know if there are limitations on the models Canon will accept for the Canon Loyalty program? If I can find one cheap enough, I would pick one up to have on hand when a deal presents itself.

I've considered renting a 6D for our trip to Disney, but I'd also have to rent a lens, and by the time I do that, I'd have a nice down payment on buying one, so I hate to do that. And I sure don't want to sell any of my crop lenses until I'm sure that's where I'm going.

I think the T2i and T3i use the same sensor, so I would expect what you saw on imaging resource to be indicative of what I would experience.

Back to my regularly scheduled flip flopping.

 

[Skywise]

Yes, but it ultimately depends on what you're trying to get out of it.

I made the (expensive) jump to FF last year and don't regret it but I generally shoot landscapes and low light situations where FF can really shine over cropped. I did a video of Wishes last year with my T4i and a video of Holiday Wishes and the Star Wars Weekends fireworks with my 6D. Both got great video of the fireworks - But with the T4i and the 10-22 EF-S lens I got lots and lots of picture noise in the background even when I had dropped the exposure levels 1 full stop. I was able to correct alot of that in Lightroom but that required ramping up the contrast and I lost some of the finer details of the fireworks. The castle projection animation with my trusty 17-55 F2.8 did much better (although the light changes there aren't as disparate as with the fireworks)

Holiday Wishes I shot with a 6D and the 16-35 f2.8II at almost full auto (I hadn't quite got the feel of exposure levels and how the camera behaved so I left it at default. The video of this had very little noise but the camera's lighting check tended to make the brighter fireworks over exposed. I can dial that back in lightroom but it impacts the rest of the show as well.

For SWW I used the same setup but this time dropped the exposure by a full stop and ended up with near perfection. (Still did some post processing in lightroom to add a touch of contrast and boost the saturation but I could've lived with the original)

From a general viewpoint, details are much finer and I have better color shades throughout the images with the FF. However, even though it's a noticeable difference to my eyes, it's not a GREAT difference. If you're going to be taking mostly family photos or action style shots (especially sports) you might just be better off with a cropped camera.

 

[havoc315]

Clear as mud, isn't it?

Do you know if there are limitations on the models Canon will accept for the Canon Loyalty program? If I can find one cheap enough, I would pick one up to have on hand when a deal presents itself.

I've considered renting a 6D for our trip to Disney, but I'd also have to rent a lens, and by the time I do that, I'd have a nice down payment on buying one, so I hate to do that. And I sure don't want to sell any of my crop lenses until I'm sure that's where I'm going.
.

I've had the same thoughts on rentals.... I rented the A99 before I bought it.
For my Alaska cruise next year, I will certainly want/need a super-telephoto that I don't own...

But how's this as an option over renting: Buy used! Buy used off Ebay from a reputable seller. Camera and lens. If you love it, great -- keep it. If you need to re-sell it, having only owned it for a couple of weeks --- It's a bit of a gamble, but you could probably recover most of your buying price. (Ok, once you factor in shipping and eBay fees.. etc.. might not be cheaper than renting, but might be about the same price... and you have the option of keeping it if you loved it).

My understanding of the Canon loyalty program is they will take any Canon camera. You get a further 20% off a refurb camera body. I believe you can also get 20% off of one refurb lens and flash as well, but not sure about that. I've never used the program, only read about it.

If you really want to stretch your budget... the Canon 5diii will give you great AF AND the great low light performance. (some say the 6d is even better, but it's very close).
The 5dii, through the loyalty program, SHOULD be $2200 if my math is correct.

hmmm, maybe I should consider that over the D750 actually...

 

[Groucho]

Not being a Canon shooter, I can't comment specifically on that - but over in the Pentax world, it's often a hot topic. There's plenty of folks who are annoyed that Pentax doesn't have a FF DSLR (it's looking like 2015 is the year, though - and they *do* have the completely awesome medium-format 645Z with really great high ISO peformance) but there's also a lot of folks who *don't* want FF. Similarly, go read some of the comments on any of the Fuji X-series cameras over at DP; there's been a lot of people who have dumped their FF cameras to shoot with the Fuji APS system.

The high ISO thing is definitely not as big of an issue as it used to be - especially since that amazing Sony 16mp sensor. Samsung's new 28mp APS sensor with BSI could potentially be a game-changer, too.

Cropping is not really such an issue depending on the quality of your lenses. I'm shooting with a 24mp APS sensor now and even with 40-50-year-old prime lenses, I'm still getting good per-pixel levels of detail. Focus is even more critical, though. Obviously the bigger sensor will be more tolerant of poor lenses, but you're also more likely to get the outer edges of lenses designed for FF which may be a big weaker than than the center, whereas the APS camera will chop those off.

There's two big concerns I have with FF... obviously the cost is much higher, not just for the body, but for equivalent lenses. I'm also concerned about the weight - even with a nice Op/Tech sling strap, after a day or so, my shoulder can get fairly sore carrying about my gear. I recently picked up a Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 (the smallest/lightest one out there) and nice as it is, it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than my 50-135mm F2.8 which covers almost exactly the same range as the 70-200mm does on a FF camera. My "normal" zoom would go from a 16-50mm F2.8 to a 28-75mm F2.8. My 200mm lens would need to become a 300mm lens, and my 300mm lens would have to be a 450mm. This seemed to be one of the big reasons that I'd read for folks going to the Fuji system (and for other folks abandoning FF) - the gear is just so darn big and heavy. Would a stop or two of high ISO performance and less purple fringing in really wide photos really be worth the thousands you'd have to spend and the extra pounds (and bigger bags or less lenses) that you'd have to carry around? (I'm not counting cropping as I wouldn't want a FF with more than 24mp, same as I have now.)

 

[fractal]

I enjoyed that. But what's with the squirrel?

Lol - I was thinking the same thing.

This video convinced me to stay with my APS-C camera. As he said - the differences are "negligible". Factor in the size, weight and cost of going full-frame and for me it's a no brainer.

 

[mom2rtk]

Yes, but it ultimately depends on what you're trying to get out of it.

I made the (expensive) jump to FF last year and don't regret it but I generally shoot landscapes and low light situations where FF can really shine over cropped. I did a video of Wishes last year with my T4i and a video of Holiday Wishes and the Star Wars Weekends fireworks with my 6D. Both got great video of the fireworks - But with the T4i and the 10-22 EF-S lens I got lots and lots of picture noise in the background even when I had dropped the exposure levels 1 full stop. I was able to correct alot of that in Lightroom but that required ramping up the contrast and I lost some of the finer details of the fireworks. The castle projection animation with my trusty 17-55 F2.8 did much better (although the light changes there aren't as disparate as with the fireworks)

Holiday Wishes I shot with a 6D and the 16-35 f2.8II at almost full auto (I hadn't quite got the feel of exposure levels and how the camera behaved so I left it at default. The video of this had very little noise but the camera's lighting check tended to make the brighter fireworks over exposed. I can dial that back in lightroom but it impacts the rest of the show as well.

For SWW I used the same setup but this time dropped the exposure by a full stop and ended up with near perfection. (Still did some post processing in lightroom to add a touch of contrast and boost the saturation but I could've lived with the original)

From a general viewpoint, details are much finer and I have better color shades throughout the images with the FF. However, even though it's a noticeable difference to my eyes, it's not a GREAT difference. If you're going to be taking mostly family photos or action style shots (especially sports) you might just be better off with a cropped camera.

That's the problem though. I shoot action AND landscapes. I want great focus ability, great reach, and great low light performance. I just want it ALL. Oh, and at a low price of course!

I've had the same thoughts on rentals.... I rented the A99 before I bought it.
For my Alaska cruise next year, I will certainly want/need a super-telephoto that I don't own...

But how's this as an option over renting: Buy used! Buy used off Ebay from a reputable seller. Camera and lens. If you love it, great -- keep it. If you need to re-sell it, having only owned it for a couple of weeks --- It's a bit of a gamble, but you could probably recover most of your buying price. (Ok, once you factor in shipping and eBay fees.. etc.. might not be cheaper than renting, but might be about the same price... and you have the option of keeping it if you loved it).

My understanding of the Canon loyalty program is they will take any Canon camera. You get a further 20% off a refurb camera body. I believe you can also get 20% off of one refurb lens and flash as well, but not sure about that. I've never used the program, only read about it.

If you really want to stretch your budget... the Canon 5diii will give you great AF AND the great low light performance. (some say the 6d is even better, but it's very close).
The 5dii, through the loyalty program, SHOULD be $2200 if my math is correct.

hmmm, maybe I should consider that over the D750 actually...

Yeah, that's a thought too. I have bought a few used lenses on Ebay. And I have sold a few. But I also feel like I'm picking my way through a minefield when I do.

The 20% off refurb sounds like a nice deal, but I want my basic lens to be a 2.8 with IS, and Canon doesn't have one of those (I think I saw they had filed a patent for one, but even if it comes out, I won't want to pay for it!) But there are second hand Tamrons on Ebay I could make do with.

And considering the 6D or 7DMii is pushing the budget already, so pushing it any further is definitely out of the picture.

And LOL..... look at you wavering again already. You sound like me now!

 

[mom2rtk]

Not being a Canon shooter, I can't comment specifically on that - but over in the Pentax world, it's often a hot topic. There's plenty of folks who are annoyed that Pentax doesn't have a FF DSLR (it's looking like 2015 is the year, though - and they *do* have the completely awesome medium-format 645Z with really great high ISO peformance) but there's also a lot of folks who *don't* want FF. Similarly, go read some of the comments on any of the Fuji X-series cameras over at DP; there's been a lot of people who have dumped their FF cameras to shoot with the Fuji APS system.

The high ISO thing is definitely not as big of an issue as it used to be - especially since that amazing Sony 16mp sensor. Samsung's new 28mp APS sensor with BSI could potentially be a game-changer, too.

Cropping is not really such an issue depending on the quality of your lenses. I'm shooting with a 24mp APS sensor now and even with 40-50-year-old prime lenses, I'm still getting good per-pixel levels of detail. Focus is even more critical, though. Obviously the bigger sensor will be more tolerant of poor lenses, but you're also more likely to get the outer edges of lenses designed for FF which may be a big weaker than than the center, whereas the APS camera will chop those off.

There's two big concerns I have with FF... obviously the cost is much higher, not just for the body, but for equivalent lenses. I'm also concerned about the weight - even with a nice Op/Tech sling strap, after a day or so, my shoulder can get fairly sore carrying about my gear. I recently picked up a Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 (the smallest/lightest one out there) and nice as it is, it's quite a bit bigger and heavier than my 50-135mm F2.8 which covers almost exactly the same range as the 70-200mm does on a FF camera. My "normal" zoom would go from a 16-50mm F2.8 to a 28-75mm F2.8. My 200mm lens would need to become a 300mm lens, and my 300mm lens would have to be a 450mm. This seemed to be one of the big reasons that I'd read for folks going to the Fuji system (and for other folks abandoning FF) - the gear is just so darn big and heavy. Would a stop or two of high ISO performance and less purple fringing in really wide photos really be worth the thousands you'd have to spend and the extra pounds (and bigger bags or less lenses) that you'd have to carry around? (I'm not counting cropping as I wouldn't want a FF with more than 24mp, same as I have now.)

I don't do a long of really long shooting. The 2.8 lens I use now is the 50-150. If I sold that and got the 70-200 it would be close enough to the same coverage.

But the bulk and weight issue is very real for me. I actually have 2 versions of that 50-150 because the first one doesn't have IS. When they came out with the version that has IS, I bought it with the expectation that I would sell the old one. But the new one is so much heavier and larger I can't bring myself to sell the old one yet. Selling one of those will be part of the budget for the new camera.

But part of me thinks if I can ditch some of these extra specialty lenses (faster and wider) and go with just a couple on a FF camera, it might seem like less bulk and weight in the end anyway.

Lol - I was thinking the same thing.

This video convinced me to stay with my APS-C camera. As he said - the differences are "negligible". Factor in the size, weight and cost of going full-frame and for me it's a no brainer.

OK, this is bad. I am changing my mind with every post on this thread.

 

[havoc315]

The 20% off refurb sounds like a nice deal, but I want my basic lens to be a 2.8 with IS, and Canon doesn't have one of those (I think I saw they had filed a patent for one, but even if it comes out, I won't want to pay for it!) But there are second hand Tamrons on Ebay I could make do with.
:

I'd seriously consider the Canon 24-70F4 -- it is stabilized. And on full-frame, 2.8 really is less critical. Can save money and weight with the F4. If you are gaining 2-3 stops in ISO performance, you can afford to lose 1 stop on the lens...

Also consider getting another lens through the refurb program, even if it's your second lens (a prime or long telephoto)

 

[mom2rtk]

I'd seriously consider the Canon 24-70F4 -- it is stabilized. And on full-frame, 2.8 really is less critical. Can save money and weight with the F4. If you are gaining 2-3 stops in ISO performance, you can afford to lose 1 stop on the lens...

Also consider getting another lens through the refurb program, even if it's your second lens (a prime or long telephoto)

Well there you go spending even more of my money! Which is fine because I always try to spend everyone else's here too.

I have considered the f4. But I just hate to give up a stop from the get-go when gaining ground is what I'm after.

 

[Groucho]

But part of me thinks if I can ditch some of these extra specialty lenses (faster and wider) and go with just a couple on a FF camera, it might seem like less bulk and weight in the end anyway.

Have you gone to a camera store to get an idea of the weight and bulk that you're considering carrying? A 70-200mm F2.8 on a FF body is a pretty serious neck/shoulder killer... might even be worth doing a rental for a week or so and try spending most of a day wearing it. How it feels after five minutes is a lot different than how it feels after five hours. (Or after ten hours a day for ten days in a row!)

I'd seriously consider the Canon 24-70F4 -- it is stabilized. And on full-frame, 2.8 really is less critical. Can save money and weight with the F4. If you are gaining 2-3 stops in ISO performance, you can afford to lose 1 stop on the lens...

So....... you buy the FF to gain high ISO, then get a slower lens which forces you to use the extra ISO... so what exactly are you gaining?

 

[Pixel Dust]

What lenses do you have now?

And I was hoping to do something before our early December Disney trip, but they aren't shipping until November.

Ummm, when in December??

 

[mom2rtk]

Have you gone to a camera store to get an idea of the weight and bulk that you're considering carrying? A 70-200mm F2.8 on a FF body is a pretty serious neck/shoulder killer... might even be worth doing a rental for a week or so and try spending most of a day wearing it. How it feels after five minutes is a lot different than how it feels after five hours. (Or after ten hours a day for ten days in a row!)

I haven't yet, but probably need to. We only have Best Buy on our end of town, so would need to get some time to get across town to an actual camera store. I just figure that I carry a very heavy bag with me in the parks already (with various lenses) so how much worse could it be with a heavier camera if I cut back the number of extra lenses I was carrying?

I really am so well equipped on the crop lenses that I probably just need to hold out for the 7DMii. It certainly makes sense.

But my mind just can't let that high ISO performance on the 6D go.......

 

[mom2rtk]

What lenses do you have now?



Ummm, when in December??

We are heading to DLR 12/6 to 12/14.

Here's the list:

1) Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS (This one's my baby. It never disappoints).
2) Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
3) Sigma 30mm f/1.4
4) Canon 50mm f/1.8(I think this is the only one that would work on FF)
5) Tamron 16-300 VC
6) Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
7) Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS (I'm planning to sell this or the non-IS version)

I just bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 but am very disappointed with the focus on it. It's heading back to B&H today. I'm too late for a refund, but they are graciously exchanging it for a new copy. We'll see how that goes.

 

[Pixel Dust]

We are heading to DLR 12/6 to 12/14.

Those just happen to be our exact dates also!


The Tokina 11-16mm should work on a full frame. Although, only at 16mm. I'm still using it on my Nikon D600.

Here's a video with it being used on a 6D: http://youtu.be/ISFzKI_uDz8?t=4m40s

Sigma may be releasing a new 24-70 mm f/2.8 soon. Though, probably not before the trip.