Could I be happy with a switch to FF?

[mom2rtk]

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.

Are you heading west?

I'll file that nugget away about the Tokina. I'll try to hold on to that one if I have a fire sale! It zooms so little I treat it like a prime already anyway.

Mostly I just want to break new ground photographically on this trip. If the 18-35 can get its act together, that might do the trick. But then I'm also concerned the T2i might not last through the trip. Sort of an irrational fear, but I had a DSLR die in DL a number of years ago.

 

[Pixel Dust]

Are you heading west?

I'll file that nugget away about the Tokina. I'll try to hold on to that one if I have a fire sale! It zooms so little I treat it like a prime already anyway.

Mostly I just want to break new ground photographically on this trip. If the 18-35 can get its act together, that might do the trick. But then I'm also concerned the T2i might not last through the trip. Sort of an irrational fear, but I had a DSLR die in DL a number of years ago.

Boo, no Florida.

I hope the 18-35 works out. It's supposed to be awesome. What about renting the 7D instead of the 6D?

 

[mom2rtk]

Boo, no Florida.

I hope the 18-35 works out. It's supposed to be awesome. What about renting the 7D instead of the 6D?

I thought you were east coast folks. Too bad, it would have been fun to meet up! We'll have to compare shots from the 2 coasts later.

I would consider renting the 7D but don't know if I'll be able to get my hands on a rental so soon after it comes out. All I've heard is that it comes out in November, and we leave 12/6. They are taking pre-orders on it now.

 

[havoc315]

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?

You're gaining lots!
I seldom shoot at 2.8, even when using APS-C --- Even on APS-C, you often want to stop down to F4 to get adequate DOF and to sharpen up the lens.

For extreme low light situations, I'll keep a 1.4/1.8 prime in my bag, regardless of APS-C or full frame.

Part of the beauty of full frame is that you no longer need 2.8 is as many situations.
When I switched to full frame, the biggest improvement I saw was not in extreme low light situations -- it was in every day "medium" light situations --- Situations where I previously needed a 2.8 aperture to get an ISO 1600 shot... and had to keep the shutter speed a little too slow.....

So the shot might have some motion blur, might be soft from using the lens wide open, and DOF may be a bit too narrow..
To being able to use a faster shutter speed, getting to stop down the lens to it's best use, to getting adequate DOF..

Take a 50mm shot on APS-C, that I previously shot at ISO 1600, 2.8 aperture, 1/40 shutter speed....
Now take the same shot, at ISO 6400, 4 aperture, and 1/80 shutter speed --- The second shot was much better.

Shooting at 2.8 is not a "good" thing --- unless you are going for super narrow DOF. Instead, huge apertures are sometimes a necessity for low light. With full frame -- it's no longer necessary!

If the noise performance is the same, I'd much rather shoot at F4/ISO3200, than F2.8/1600, in most situations.

Take a look at:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1

The Canon 17-55 2.8 -- You really need to stop it down between 4 and 5.6 to control vignetting and get maximum sharpness.

For optimal sharpness.... since I'm not usually aiming to minimize DOF, I tend to stop down to F8 as long as I have adequate light.

So my shots, stopped down to F8, end up looking better on fullframe than on APS-C. (Not to mention, my long lenses weren't 2.8 anyway previously).
Not to mention improved dynamic range and color depth! It's not just ISO, though that's the biggest difference.

Certainly, some people over-estimate the utility of full frame. But I feel many APS-C shooters dismiss the idea of full frame without realizing the advantages.

I was an APS-C shooter for years. I didn't think I'd ever really benefit from full frame... As I contemplate switching systems now, I don't think I can give up the benefits I've seen with full frame.

A couple examples of what I mean:

Shot at F 5.6, ISO 500:
untitled-14.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Shot at F 7.1, ISO 8000:
manhattan-86.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Shot at 6.3, 3200 --- If I used a wider aperture, the DOF would be too narrow for both faces:
untitled-9.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Shot at 4.5, ISO 1250:
untitled-10.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

1250 is still flawless on full frame. Shot at 2.8, the image would have been too soft. At 4.5, it's nice and sharp, with still plenty of bokeh.

My standard walk-around zoom is a 2.8, because I'm fortunate that Sony makes an economical 2.8 zoom, but if and when I switch to Canon or Nikon, I'll simply switch to a F4 zoom. As I rarely ever use my lens open wider than 2.8 anyway.

(I would still try to use a 2.8 for shooting indoor sports... a matter of getting every possible advantage. But if I was rarely shooting indoor sports, I'd probably just live without it).

 

[Groucho]

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

We'll just miss you, we're leaving on 12/2. Arriving 11/20, just in time for the D23 event!

Regarding size - I think it's different when the camera/lens itself is heavier versus one bag of lenses - my bag tends to get moved from arm to arm as the day goes on and is more easy to set down, to give my shoulders a rest, but the camera is pretty much going to be riding on the same place on your neck or shoulder all the time.

Considering that you're potentially going to have to sell all your lenses, have you looked at the competition? The D750 seems close to what I would want if I was after a FF DSLR (still no in-body stabilization though!), and Sony's mirrorless model is worth consideration, especially as size/weight is a concern.

You're gaining lots!

It sounds like your issues are more with lens performance wide-open... On my better lenses, I don't really have any issue shooting wide-open, and if you're using a FF lens on APS, most of the weaknesses of shooting wide-open are reduced because the troublesome edges are cropped off.

As for DoF - well, the DoF change is a little over one stop, so for equivalent DoF, F2.8 on APS is going to be very close to F4 on FF. It seems to be that the only advantage is one that is completely dependent on your lens and its quality wide-open. If you've shooting with an F4 lens, it very well may be performing at its best there, and quite probably not as good as an F2.8 stopped down to F4. So, we're back to, say, roughly equivalent photos from a fast APS zoom at 20mm F2.8 vs a FF zoom at 30mm at F4; same field of view, nearly the same DoF, both shooting wide open, possibly similar lens size and weight also. The advantages are more about the lens than the sensor itself.

Finally, as for dynamic range, my last DSLR (shoot - I still need to put it on eBay!) had the best dynamic range of any DSLR up to that point when it was released, beating FF sensors. Such measurements are real moving targets.

I certainly don't dislike FF sensors and if Pentax releases one next year and it matches what I'd like to see (24mp, in-body IS, as small/light as possible, weathersealed of course), I'm certainly going to be considering it... but I certainly don't think it's automatic that your pictures are going to suddenly get better just because of the sensor size. (Though there may be other features in the higher-end camera that help you get the shot you're after.) I also already have a big pile of FF lenses and shoot a lot of legacy manual-focus lenses; the larger viewfinder of FF certainly is nice for such things.

 

[havoc315]

We'll just miss you, we're leaving on 12/2. Arriving 11/20, just in time for the D23 event!

Regarding size - I think it's different when the camera/lens itself is heavier versus one bag of lenses - my bag tends to get moved from arm to arm as the day goes on and is more easy to set down, to give my shoulders a rest, but the camera is pretty much going to be riding on the same place on your neck or shoulder all the time.

Considering that you're potentially going to have to sell all your lenses, have you looked at the competition? The D750 seems close to what I would want if I was after a FF DSLR (still no in-body stabilization though!), and Sony's mirrorless model is worth consideration, especially as size/weight is a concern.


It sounds like your issues are more with lens performance wide-open... On my better lenses, I don't really have any issue shooting wide-open, and if you're using a FF lens on APS, most of the weaknesses of shooting wide-open are reduced because the troublesome edges are cropped off.

As for DoF - well, the DoF change is a little over one stop, so for equivalent DoF, F2.8 on APS is going to be very close to F4 on FF. It seems to be that the only advantage is one that is completely dependent on your lens and its quality wide-open. If you've shooting with an F4 lens, it very well may be performing at its best there, and quite probably not as good as an F2.8 stopped down to F4. So, we're back to, say, roughly equivalent photos from a fast APS zoom at 20mm F2.8 vs a FF zoom at 30mm at F4; same field of view, nearly the same DoF, both shooting wide open, possibly similar lens size and weight also. The advantages are more about the lens than the sensor itself.

Even the best 2.8 lenses sharpen up, when stopped down. While premium F4 lenses tend to do well, wide open.
And with shorter lenses --- Under 100mm, especially if they are stabilized.. you can really get away with slower shutter speeds.
From an exposure perspective, there rarely is ever a need to shoot at 2.8 with a short lens on full frame.

 

[mom2rtk]

You're gaining lots!
I seldom shoot at 2.8, even when using APS-C --- Even on APS-C, you often want to stop down to F4 to get adequate DOF and to sharpen up the lens.

For extreme low light situations, I'll keep a 1.4/1.8 prime in my bag, regardless of APS-C or full frame.

Part of the beauty of full frame is that you no longer need 2.8 is as many situations.
When I switched to full frame, the biggest improvement I saw was not in extreme low light situations -- it was in every day "medium" light situations --- Situations where I previously needed a 2.8 aperture to get an ISO 1600 shot... and had to keep the shutter speed a little too slow.....

So the shot might have some motion blur, might be soft from using the lens wide open, and DOF may be a bit too narrow..
To being able to use a faster shutter speed, getting to stop down the lens to it's best use, to getting adequate DOF..

Take a 50mm shot on APS-C, that I previously shot at ISO 1600, 2.8 aperture, 1/40 shutter speed....
Now take the same shot, at ISO 6400, 4 aperture, and 1/80 shutter speed --- The second shot was much better.

Shooting at 2.8 is not a "good" thing --- unless you are going for super narrow DOF. Instead, huge apertures are sometimes a necessity for low light. With full frame -- it's no longer necessary!

If the noise performance is the same, I'd much rather shoot at F4/ISO3200, than F2.8/1600, in most situations.

Take a look at:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1

The Canon 17-55 2.8 -- You really need to stop it down between 4 and 5.6 to control vignetting and get maximum sharpness.

For optimal sharpness.... since I'm not usually aiming to minimize DOF, I tend to stop down to F8 as long as I have adequate light.

So my shots, stopped down to F8, end up looking better on fullframe than on APS-C. (Not to mention, my long lenses weren't 2.8 anyway previously).
Not to mention improved dynamic range and color depth! It's not just ISO, though that's the biggest difference.

Certainly, some people over-estimate the utility of full frame. But I feel many APS-C shooters dismiss the idea of full frame without realizing the advantages.

I was an APS-C shooter for years. I didn't think I'd ever really benefit from full frame... As I contemplate switching systems now, I don't think I can give up the benefits I've seen with full frame.



1250 is still flawless on full frame. Shot at 2.8, the image would have been too soft. At 4.5, it's nice and sharp, with still plenty of bokeh.

My standard walk-around zoom is a 2.8, because I'm fortunate that Sony makes an economical 2.8 zoom, but if and when I switch to Canon or Nikon, I'll simply switch to a F4 zoom. As I rarely ever use my lens open wider than 2.8 anyway.

(I would still try to use a 2.8 for shooting indoor sports... a matter of getting every possible advantage. But if I was rarely shooting indoor sports, I'd probably just live without it).

You make good points. And have given me a lot to consider. I knew most of that, but sometimes I need to be reminded.

We'll just miss you, we're leaving on 12/2. Arriving 11/20, just in time for the D23 event!

Regarding size - I think it's different when the camera/lens itself is heavier versus one bag of lenses - my bag tends to get moved from arm to arm as the day goes on and is more easy to set down, to give my shoulders a rest, but the camera is pretty much going to be riding on the same place on your neck or shoulder all the time.

Considering that you're potentially going to have to sell all your lenses, have you looked at the competition? The D750 seems close to what I would want if I was after a FF DSLR (still no in-body stabilization though!), and Sony's mirrorless model is worth consideration, especially as size/weight is a concern.


It sounds like your issues are more with lens performance wide-open... On my better lenses, I don't really have any issue shooting wide-open, and if you're using a FF lens on APS, most of the weaknesses of shooting wide-open are reduced because the troublesome edges are cropped off.

As for DoF - well, the DoF change is a little over one stop, so for equivalent DoF, F2.8 on APS is going to be very close to F4 on FF. It seems to be that the only advantage is one that is completely dependent on your lens and its quality wide-open. If you've shooting with an F4 lens, it very well may be performing at its best there, and quite probably not as good as an F2.8 stopped down to F4. So, we're back to, say, roughly equivalent photos from a fast APS zoom at 20mm F2.8 vs a FF zoom at 30mm at F4; same field of view, nearly the same DoF, both shooting wide open, possibly similar lens size and weight also. The advantages are more about the lens than the sensor itself.

Finally, as for dynamic range, my last DSLR (shoot - I still need to put it on eBay!) had the best dynamic range of any DSLR up to that point when it was released, beating FF sensors. Such measurements are real moving targets.

I certainly don't dislike FF sensors and if Pentax releases one next year and it matches what I'd like to see (24mp, in-body IS, as small/light as possible, weathersealed of course), I'm certainly going to be considering it... but I certainly don't think it's automatic that your pictures are going to suddenly get better just because of the sensor size. (Though there may be other features in the higher-end camera that help you get the shot you're after.) I also already have a big pile of FF lenses and shoot a lot of legacy manual-focus lenses; the larger viewfinder of FF certainly is nice for such things.

It's a great time to be at DLR! And I'm really hoping it's warmer than it was that time last year.

You do make a good point about carrying the camera vs. carrying a bag. I've joked about a "rent-a-baby" business at WDW so people can max out rider swap. Maybe I need to rent one for myself so I'll have a stroller to carry all my gear!

I think part of my issue with all of this is that I'm spoiled by how sharp that Canon 17-55 is, even wide open. And I use it wide open quite a bit. Between that wide aperture and the IS I have been able to get sharper shots than ever in the past.

That said, I have fleetingly considered ditching it all and going with a system with in-body stabilization more than once. Then I think on it some more, and it gets to be a little overwhelming.

And mirrorless is tempting too, except that I need an optical viewfinder, so I think the choices are a little more limited there.

 

[mom2rtk]

Even the best 2.8 lenses sharpen up, when stopped down. While premium F4 lenses tend to do well, wide open.
And with shorter lenses --- Under 100mm, especially if they are stabilized.. you can really get away with slower shutter speeds.
From an exposure perspective, there rarely is ever a need to shoot at 2.8 with a short lens on full frame.

I'm really hesitant to give up any advantage. I have very unsteady hands and having a 2.8 lens with IS has been a wonderful thing for me. Would a high quality F4 lens still be good enough? Hard to say. I've changed my mind on all of this about a half dozen times today! LOL.

 

[SkaGoat]

Even the best 2.8 lenses sharpen up, when stopped down. While premium F4 lenses tend to do well, wide open.
And with shorter lenses --- Under 100mm, especially if they are stabilized.. you can really get away with slower shutter speeds.
From an exposure perspective, there rarely is ever a need to shoot at 2.8 with a short lens on full frame.

You are right, almost all lenses are sharper when stopped up a little, but I think you may have missed his point... basically he was saying on a APS-C camera you don't have as big a drop is IQ, using EF lenses, you don't lose as much sharpness as with FF, and avoid most vignetting. You are only using the centre of the lens, where it is sharpest.

Personally, I'd rent a 6D, with whatever walk around lens you'd plan on using with it if you switched to FF for your December trip. This way you can see if it's worth the expense, and aggravation of selling a bunch of your crop lenses, for the type of shooting you might do.

A 6D + Canon 24-70 f/4 IS is $115 for 5 days rental.

A 7Dmii will cost $82 to rent for 5 days when they're available.

I expect AF performance to be similar to your T2i, but image quality will be a lot better.

If you don't shoot RAW, then the move to FF is a waste.

FYI, a 6D is about 160 g lighter than the 7DmII.... crops are not always lighter, 7D is a beast.

 

[mom2rtk]

I think you may have missed his point... basically he was saying on a APS-C camera, using EF lenses, you don't lose as much sharpness as with FF, and avoid most vignetting. You are only using the centre of the lens, where it is sharpest.

Personally, I'd rent a 6D, with whatever walk around lens you'd plan on using with it if you switched to FF for your December trip. This way you can see if it's worth the expense, and aggravation of selling a bunch of your crop lenses, for the type of shooting you might do.

A 6D + Canon 24-70 f/4 IS is $115 for 5 days rental.

A 7Dmii will cost $82 to rent for 5 days when they're available.

I expect AF performance to be similar to your T2i, but image quality will be a lot better.

If you don't shoot RAW, then the move to FF is a waste.

Our trip is 9 days long, so will cost more but your point is taken. I'm still considering the rental option.

I do shoot RAW, so not an issue. Although I often say I wish I was good enough to back to shooting Jpeg.

If I thought my daughter would consistently carry the T2i, I'd take 2 cameras and use it as a chance to compare some images at home side by side when we get back. But I know how she operates. And I don't want to carry both.

 

[SkaGoat]

Our trip is 9 days long, so will cost more but your point is taken. I'm still considering the rental option.

I would just hate for you to go through selling half your kit, only to realize the improvement wasn't worth the aggravation.

Personally, if I moved full frame, I'd have to get a 5Dmiii, the frame rate is too slow, and the buffer too small, with the 6D, and I couldn't go back to only 11 AF points after having the 7D.

But you're lucky and don't have that issue!

 

[mom2rtk]

I would just hate for you to go through selling half your kit, only to realize the improvement wasn't worth the aggravation.

Personally, if I moved full frame, I'd have to get a 5Dmiii, the frame rate is too slow, and the buffer too small, with the 6D, and I couldn't go back to only 11 AF points after having the 7D.

But you're lucky and don't have that issue!

Yeah, I probably wouldn't actually sell more than 1 or 2 lenses until I knew I was really happy with what I was keeping. I mean, I bought that 50-150 with IS almost a year ago with the intention of selling the old one and I STILL can't make up my mind which one to let go!

Coming from the T2i I wouldn't miss the buffer or the AF points. But once again, your point is taken.

My daughter is in 8th grade playing for the school volleyball team. I really want to do better shooting her games. But she's new to the sport and could quit next year. So I could have several years of sports shooting left, or about 3 weeks!

I will say the only time the buffer ever bothered me on one of my Rebel models was when my son was running XC. I hated having to be so careful with my shots at the finish line. But those days are over.

 

[nbaresejr]

I will read through this thread more as soon as i get time and better respond. I just made the move from t2i to 6d. To me it was well worth it. The cost was high but the difference I am seeing in the images is amazing.

I just got back from Maine last night for a short weekend trip and I can post some images at some point. I went with the 6d 24-70 f4 IS combo.

 

[mom2rtk]

I will read through this thread more as soon as i get time and better respond. I just made the move from t2i to 6d. To me it was well worth it. The cost was high but the difference I am seeing in the images is amazing.

I just got back from Maine last night for a short weekend trip and I can post some images at some point. I went with the 6d 24-70 f4 IS combo.

I'd be very interested in your feedback since you took one of the paths I'm considering!

A couple questions:

1) What lens did you use on your T2i?

2) What do you typically shoot? Much low light?

3) I'd love to hear your feedback on ISO performance on one versus the other.

 

[nbaresejr]

Ok i have caught up reading this thread.

1. my t2i used the following lenses- Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, Sigma 10-20, Canon 50 1.8, Canon 70-200 F4 IS

2. I mostly shoot landscapes but with my son 9 months old now I have started to shoot alot more of him and family. For me low light is indoor shots of family. I will be getting into more low light stuff as my son gets older I believe and one of the reasons I made the jump.

3. ISO performance is unbelievable. Now you must be realistic, a shot at 12,800 is going to have noise. If i had to compare 12,800 on full frame to the t2i i would say someplace in between 3200 and 6400. Noise reduction works quite well and I would say i retain far more detail in pics with the 6d and NR.

Things I noticed right away
1. The weight was not that much different from the t2i w/ Sigma 17-50 to the 6d w/ 24-70 f4. The 6D is much larger and feels overall better in my hand.
2. Pics are much better straight out of the camera. They are sharper and have much greater color saturation. This could be all lens, you will have to decide that.
3. Dynamic Range seems to be better. I can push shots more in lightroom when adjusting.
4. I can set a minimum shutter speed when in AV. I have it on 1/125. This greatly helps me. Cant tell you how many times shots were ruined because the shutter speeds dropped too low.
5. I can set the flash speed at a 1/180 minimum. This may be a problem for some. The max sync speed is 1/180. On the t2i is was 1/200. No worry though if using a Canon flash you can use the HSS feature.
6. The lack of cross type points is of no concern to me right now. I always shot center point with the t2i and continue to do so with the 6d. The outer points are just fine for me in good light also. Tracking in AI SERVO using center point is very good also. I tested it at my job with kids playing football. Keeper rate was high.

I am not missing the 2.8 lens right now. I find the f4 just fine with the higher ISO capability. 2.8 lenses are going to add significant weight. I carried around the 6d, 24-70 f4, 70-200 f4 IS and 50 1.8 this weekend and it was not that bad.

I switched straps on the camera when I got home. I have been wanting to move away from the Black Rapid strap because of it taking up the tripod screw. Every time I used a tripod I would have to take the lug out and then put it back when finished. I ordered a Luma Labs Cinch with membrane connector and its much much better. I now have my ProMediaGear plate on full time and using the tripod is a breeze.

The image shown is straight out of the camera. No adjustments or noise reduction applied. Shot at 12,800 ISO. I took this after i finished my tripod shots just to see what it would look like in lightroom. I am posting a pretty large shot so you can get an idea of noise.
12,800 Test Shot by Nick Barese, on Flickr

Any other questions let me know. I am still learning this camera. Maybe Danielle could answer some of your questions also. She has been using this camera also.

 

[SrisonS]

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.

It's funny you say that. Because I was having a lot of focusing issues with my copy of the 30mm, on my T4i. But the 18-35 has been nothing but great for me!!! Heck, with its performance, it's keeping me in the Crop frame of mind. Not that I'm looking for anything new at the moment though.

 

[Groucho]

It's a great time to be at DLR! And I'm really hoping it's warmer than it was that time last year.

Whoops! I misread. I'll be at WDW. It should be a great time there, too.

You do make a good point about carrying the camera vs. carrying a bag. I've joked about a "rent-a-baby" business at WDW so people can max out rider swap. Maybe I need to rent one for myself so I'll have a stroller to carry all my gear!

We've just done 1.5 trips so far without the stroller and while it is overall great to shed that baggage, it was great to just toss a tripod in the bottom and hang the camera bag on the handle when pushing it around.

And mirrorless is tempting too, except that I need an optical viewfinder, so I think the choices are a little more limited there.

I agree in principle but I think the future is in digital OVFs and it's only a matter of time before the quality is good enough that no one will mind, and the extra features will make it the preferred choice. It's inevitable... I think. But that's a whole different conversation!

Does the T2i have the same sensor as the 7D? As I recall, it was good for high ISO at the time, but is behind now, and its dynamic range is way behind the modern sensors. Just going to something new might make a big difference for you. (Although I haven't been paying enough attention to know how Canon's current sensors compare.)

 

[HPS3]

Hey Groucho, I like your thoughts on crop vs FF

I've shot with a few FF (D600, 6D and A7) and you are right, they don't make you a better photog. I enjoy playing around with different cameras but only one system really grabbed me. Fuji!

I don't know where Havoc finds those lenses that are unsharp wide open lol

Fuji's lenses are all tack sharp wide open and full of contrast. Even the 56 is super sharp at 1.2.

Fuji, like Pentax, uses no AA filter. I find the files to be full of detail when compared to the 6D and A7. I also have no problem with the noise, but I'm not a pixel peeper.

I also can't remember the last time I shot narrower than f10 (unless you want starburst). I like that I can shoot my 18/2 at f2 and get decent DOF at low ISO.

I think I'm the only one in the Fuji camp here and I'm also waiting to see what Pentax brings cause I sure like the rendering on the 43 and 70 limiteds.

 

[mom2rtk]

Ok i have caught up reading this thread.

1. my t2i used the following lenses- Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, Sigma 10-20, Canon 50 1.8, Canon 70-200 F4 IS

2. I mostly shoot landscapes but with my son 9 months old now I have started to shoot alot more of him and family. For me low light is indoor shots of family. I will be getting into more low light stuff as my son gets older I believe and one of the reasons I made the jump.

3. ISO performance is unbelievable. Now you must be realistic, a shot at 12,800 is going to have noise. If i had to compare 12,800 on full frame to the t2i i would say someplace in between 3200 and 6400. Noise reduction works quite well and I would say i retain far more detail in pics with the 6d and NR.

Things I noticed right away
1. The weight was not that much different from the t2i w/ Sigma 17-50 to the 6d w/ 24-70 f4. The 6D is much larger and feels overall better in my hand.
2. Pics are much better straight out of the camera. They are sharper and have much greater color saturation. This could be all lens, you will have to decide that.
3. Dynamic Range seems to be better. I can push shots more in lightroom when adjusting.
4. I can set a minimum shutter speed when in AV. I have it on 1/125. This greatly helps me. Cant tell you how many times shots were ruined because the shutter speeds dropped too low.
5. I can set the flash speed at a 1/180 minimum. This may be a problem for some. The max sync speed is 1/180. On the t2i is was 1/200. No worry though if using a Canon flash you can use the HSS feature.
6. The lack of cross type points is of no concern to me right now. I always shot center point with the t2i and continue to do so with the 6d. The outer points are just fine for me in good light also. Tracking in AI SERVO using center point is very good also. I tested it at my job with kids playing football. Keeper rate was high.

I am not missing the 2.8 lens right now. I find the f4 just fine with the higher ISO capability. 2.8 lenses are going to add significant weight. I carried around the 6d, 24-70 f4, 70-200 f4 IS and 50 1.8 this weekend and it was not that bad.

I switched straps on the camera when I got home. I have been wanting to move away from the Black Rapid strap because of it taking up the tripod screw. Every time I used a tripod I would have to take the lug out and then put it back when finished. I ordered a Luma Labs Cinch with membrane connector and its much much better. I now have my ProMediaGear plate on full time and using the tripod is a breeze.

The image shown is straight out of the camera. No adjustments or noise reduction applied. Shot at 12,800 ISO. I took this after i finished my tripod shots just to see what it would look like in lightroom. I am posting a pretty large shot so you can get an idea of noise.

Any other questions let me know. I am still learning this camera. Maybe Danielle could answer some of your questions also. She has been using this camera also.

Thank you so much for taking the time to post your thoughts. Your selection of lenses probably gave you similar results to what I get.

Interesting that you found the weight about the same but the 6D is larger. I need to get to a store and feel one in my hands. I'm one of the ones who has preferred the Rebel line because I like the smaller size. That would be a concession on my part to give up. It won't be a deal breaker though.

I tend to shoot with center point AF as well, so not sure the AF point issue will be a huge deal to me either.

The selection of lenses you are carrying now seems very similar to what I would carry if I made the switch. I might go with a 2.8 on the 24-70, but would likely go f/4 on the telephoto.

And thank you for posting the full size photo. That's quite remarkable at 12,800 ISO. Was that shot in RAW or Jpeg? Because I'm thinking the camera applies some NR when you shoot Jpeg. I could be wrong though, so I'm hoping someone will confirm.

When I upgraded to the T2i from the Xsi, I was very happy to finally get 3200 ISO. It really opened up new territory in what I could shoot. I consider it usable from the T2i if I apply noise reduction in LR.

I am currently using a BR strap and have the same frustration with the tripod socket. I am also reading along the strap thread and considering a change. I appreciate you giving your thoughts on that.

If Danielle doesn't chime in at some point and if I get close to pulling the trigger, I'll PM her.

 

[mom2rtk]

It's funny you say that. Because I was having a lot of focusing issues with my copy of the 30mm, on my T4i. But the 18-35 has been nothing but great for me!!! Heck, with its performance, it's keeping me in the Crop frame of mind. Not that I'm looking for anything new at the moment though.

Scott, I'm glad you chimed in. I'm very encouraged that you have had great success with the 18-35! Mine went back to B&H yesterday. I'm crossing my fingers that I get a better copy. It's still back ordered at B&H though, so I'm not sure how long I'll have to wait.

I had sort of had these mixed feelings about crop/FF a while back, but decided to stay with crop with the addition of the 18-35. The issues I had with it are what pushed me back into thinking all of this through again. My focus with that lens was only good about 25% of the time. It really was awful.

I will say though that I had great luck working with Sigma before when I had some back focusing issues on my 30mm and my 50-150 lenses. I sent the lenses and camera in to Sigma and they calibrated them to the body and it has been smooth sailing ever since. The 30 mm lens is sharp as a tack. But I really just want to shoot wider with a fast lens. If the 18-35 doesn't pan out this time, I guess I'll try sending it in to Sigma again, but there's no guarantee that will do the trick either.

Whoops! I misread. I'll be at WDW. It should be a great time there, too.


We've just done 1.5 trips so far without the stroller and while it is overall great to shed that baggage, it was great to just toss a tripod in the bottom and hang the camera bag on the handle when pushing it around.


I agree in principle but I think the future is in digital OVFs and it's only a matter of time before the quality is good enough that no one will mind, and the extra features will make it the preferred choice. It's inevitable... I think. But that's a whole different conversation!

Does the T2i have the same sensor as the 7D? As I recall, it was good for high ISO at the time, but is behind now, and its dynamic range is way behind the modern sensors. Just going to something new might make a big difference for you. (Although I haven't been paying enough attention to know how Canon's current sensors compare.)

Well, it looks like you'll just miss Franklin (Pixel Dust) and Missy though!

When we still used a stroller, I purposely kept my old broken tripod (still quite stable but the handle to raise the center column was taped together) so I could leave it hanging on the handle of the stroller. If someone had stolen it, I would have been ready to buy a new one. Now I just have a nice small lightweight one my daughter carries for me, but keep it in the locker part of the time. Don't get me wrong though..... I've been tempted to rent a stroller to push my bag around occasionally!

I do keep watching the conversations on mirrorless. I have been encouraged by the posters here who have switched and done great things with them. I will keep watching, and could see myself considering it down the road.

The T2i does have the same sensor as the 7D. And I have watched ever since hoping for Canon to make the jump to a new sensor that moved the ball forward again. I hear great things about the 70D, and that's not totally out of the question, but have not seen consensus yet that the sensor is that much better. So I wait. And I quibble.

Hey Groucho, I like your thoughts on crop vs FF

I've shot with a few FF (D600, 6D and A7) and you are right, they don't make you a better photog. I enjoy playing around with different cameras but only one system really grabbed me. Fuji!

I don't know where Havoc finds those lenses that are unsharp wide open lol

Fuji's lenses are all tack sharp wide open and full of contrast. Even the 56 is super sharp at 1.2.

Fuji, like Pentax, uses no AA filter. I find the files to be full of detail when compared to the 6D and A7. I also have no problem with the noise, but I'm not a pixel peeper.

I also can't remember the last time I shot narrower than f10 (unless you want starburst). I like that I can shoot my 18/2 at f2 and get decent DOF at low ISO.

I think I'm the only one in the Fuji camp here and I'm also waiting to see what Pentax brings cause I sure like the rendering on the 43 and 70 limiteds.

Havoc, you are sort of my polar opposite. I'm always hesitant to make a change, and have to think it to death before jumping in. I love that you have tried a variety of systems and continue to put out great shots regardless of which system it is. Fuji, huh? I'm so behind!