Could I be happy with a switch to FF?

[Groucho]

Of course lens quality comes into play.

But you missed the point. A modern full frame camera gives you approximately a 2-stop advantage over modern aps-c. Some may even say the Canon 6d has a 3 stop advantage over the Canon 70d.
So fullframe ISO of 6400 will have less noise, higher resolution, and better dynamic range, than 3200 on aps-c.

Is the 70d using basically the old 7d 18mp sensor? That one is not at all competitive with today's not APS sensors in terms of noise. Depending on the APS and FF sensor you compare, you may be lucky to get one stop.

You are not gaining more resolution that today's APS sensors unless you have more than 24 mp. You very well may not be getting more DR, either.

My point is that your advantages are more to do with a modern sensor than with FF. Again, it will be very interesting to see how Samsung's new 28mp APS sensor with BSI performs; the technical stats on it are pretty astonishing.

Imagine if C/N didn't treat their APS cameras as second-class... Nikon's flagship APS, the D300, is over seven years old (not counting the add-video D300s from five years ago), Canon took five years to update the 7D, and both are pretty skimpy on premium APS lenses. I suspect that if they weren't trying so hard to push people upmarket, the FF allure wouldn't be as strong for many people.

 

[mom2rtk]

I understood his point, I think you are making a different and valid point. It's true that APS-C take advantage of the "sweet" spot of the lens -- But also true that even APS-C lenses, tend to get better results when stopped down.
But you more often shoot at 2.8 out of necessity, not preference.

On Canon APS-C, even the great 17-55L, is best between F4 and F5.6, even on APS-C

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


Anyway, my point was that having 2.8 zooms is less critical on a fullframe camera, and it's not like shooting with a 2.8 on APS-C is just as good as shooting F4 on full frame.

Let me give an illustration -- For easier math, I'll assume Nikon/Sony/Pentax 1.5 crop ratio:
Taking a portrait......
APS-C, 33mm focal length, 50mm equivalent.....
From 5 feet away, aperture of 2.8, You get a DOF of about 9 inches. And let's say there is adequate light that you need ISO of 3200.

Now, let's put the 50mm lens on full frame -- 5 feet away, aperture of 2.8 -- Depth of field is 6 inches. Depending on the angle of the head, that might not be wide enough to even bring a whole head into focus. If it's a 2-person portrait, it makes it that much more challenging to bring them both into the DOF.
I'd say the difference between DOF of 6 inches and 9 inches is hardly insignificant.

So to get the 10 inches of DOF on the full frame.. You need to stop down to F4. You will obviously need to boost the ISO up 1 stop... to 6400.

So would I rather take this portrait with an APS-C, F2.8, ISO 3200, or Fullframe, F4, and ISO6400 ---
Having experience with both, I get much much better results with the latter set up.
Not to say I can't get good results with the APS-C setup. But having experienced both, the latter is noticeably better.

You make a good point. I'm so used to NEEDING to shoot wide open that I probably have not fully considered the advantage of being able to stop down. Of course, I also have been spoiled by the great performance of the Canon 17-55 when wide open.

My point being, if you have an APS-C camera and find yourself shooting mostly over 1600-3200 then maybe you need to step up to a full frame beast. But under that, the differences ( as the video I posted state ) are negligible.

It also depends on what you are shooting and are doing with the shots. Havoc, are you printing these shots out at 8X10 or larger?

If you are taking a lot of high ISO shots and making large prints then full frame may be worth the extra cost, size and weight.

For me I stopped using a SLR camera for "family shots" because of size and PITA to carry around. I bet over 95% of my "family shots" I don't print out. I save on my computer or online more as a way to remember and document those times. If I want a shot to print out ( or make a Christmas Card, etc.) I will plan it more and make sure I can take it at no higher than ISO 800.

I bought an SLR to take "family shots" and abandoned it because of size, weight and general PITA to carry around. I didn't get back "into" photography until I purchased my mirrorless APS-c camera. The jump up to full frame brings back the PITA factor again (not to mention higher costs) and the times I needed a "full frame" for creative photography over my NEX-7 are very few and far between.

I do find myself shooting at high ISOs a lot of the time. I just seem drawn to low light photography in a variety of settings. I think that's a big piece of why my mind keeps wandering over to 6D territory.........

And I do print out more photos than the average person. I scrapbook and frequently print 8x10 size for my pages.

Havoc,

From what I know of what your shoot and your style, I think the A99 FF is the right camera for you.

For me, "carry-ability" and other factors trump any extra performance I may get. I just wanted to play devil's advocate to help mom2trk figure out what's right for her.

Then of course there's that. "carry-ability" is still a concern for me. I don't think I can commit on how big a role it will play in this decision until I find time to go pick one up in a store. I probably can't make it across town for a few weeks though to do that.

Also, in terms of lens prices....
If you really want to stick to 2.8 aperture, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 gets fantastic reviews, and it's not so expensive..
In fact, as it is stabilized, one can easily argue it's better than the Canon 24-70 2.8L.

If I were to go with the 6D, that would probably be the lens I start with. I probably need to hunt around online and get a comparison of what others think of the IQ on that lens compared to the one I have now.

I was where you are. Then I had the 5D3 and the 6D both in my hands to play with. I went with the 6D for the ISO. While ISO performance isn't usually something I'd say upgrade a camera for, you mom2rtk, are at the point where you know what that performance will get you. You know if you want it. WANT being the operative word there. That's where I was and once I saw the 6D I was sold. Over the 5D3 even. I wanted that ISO baaad.

Useable ISO 12800 SOOC. That's all I'm saying. Noise reduction, no matter how good, is no substitute for low noise in your RAW images. That said, if you have good NR skills you will be that much happier with the camera's range.

Where the 6D falls short.... focusing on moving subjects. There are AF quirks. I find it hits a good 99% of the time for me and the AF is more responsive than my 50D was. And I'm super nit picky on focus. It also blows every other Canon AF system out of the water when your using the center point in low light. Which is handy for dark ride shooting.

As far as lenses... I love the 24-105. But then I've used that focal range for years and it's one I feel suits my style. I went with a 70-200 f/4 over the f/2.8 because the 6D's ISO is that good and the f/2.8 is too darn heavy. I've also got a smattering of primes which make it very fun to shoot in the dark.

As far as the thought of anyone, professional or amateur, needing full frame.... no one does. It's about what you want, not what you need once you get past basic functionality. Unless you start talking high end MF sized sensors. But that's a whole other ball game.

I think for me this is almost becoming an irrational decision. I don't NEED the 6D. But I just enjoy low light photography so much that my mind keeps going there. I think I feel the same way about that usable high ISO that you did.

Honestly, if someone posted a great deal on a refurb model right, now, I'd probably just go crazy and buy one. Thankfully I haven't seen any of those deals lately so I'm able to keep my wits a while longer.

And I agree I would not want to carry a larger camera with a 2.8 zoom. My lesson in upgrading to the heavier zoom with IS last year has taught me that. I need to sell that lens. But sheesh........ the photos from that lens are just awesome. Choices, choices.........

I think I'm really back to wanting to rent one for our trip. But the problem is that I'd probably break into a cold sweat if I tried to go with just one lens. Although I could take my 50 and the Tokina UWA. But the 105 wouldn't give me much reach on a FF for shows.

I posted some pics in the thread asking about shoulder straps. If you need more pics or have a question i would be happy to answer



The lens does hang down but with the strap adjusted tight to the body its secure. With the strap hanging its not much different then the BR strap.

Thanks for doing that. Off to take a look!

Is the 70d using basically the old 7d 18mp sensor? That one is not at all competitive with today's not APS sensors in terms of noise. Depending on the APS and FF sensor you compare, you may be lucky to get one stop.

You are not gaining more resolution that today's APS sensors unless you have more than 24 mp. You very well may not be getting more DR, either.

My point is that your advantages are more to do with a modern sensor than with FF. Again, it will be very interesting to see how Samsung's new 28mp APS sensor with BSI performs; the technical stats on it are pretty astonishing.

Imagine if C/N didn't treat their APS cameras as second-class... Nikon's flagship APS, the D300, is over seven years old (not counting the add-video D300s from five years ago), Canon took five years to update the 7D, and both are pretty skimpy on premium APS lenses. I suspect that if they weren't trying so hard to push people upmarket, the FF allure wouldn't be as strong for many people.

I'm not sure if the 70D is using the same old sensor. I had the impression it was new but not remarkably better at high ISO.

It really seems that many of the advancements lately with Canon cameras have been about video. And I really just don't do video, so that doesn't help me.

I did find out that while B&H allowed me to return the lens after 30 days, the only choice I had was to get a replacement. So I'm taking this one step at a time. If I get a better copy and like it more, that might sway me back to the APS-C camp again.

 

[havoc315]

If I were to go with the 6D, that would probably be the lens I start with. I probably need to hunt around online and get a comparison of what others think of the IQ on that lens compared to the one I have now.

If you want to feel really nerdy, take a look at the charts on photozone.de...

I find their reviews and testing to be the most objective, comprehensive, and easiest to compare and understand.

If I was shooting Canon fullframe.... My top walk-around lens choice considerations would be the Canon 24-105/4, the Sigma 24-105/4 (they end up costing about the same with similar performance), the 24-70/4 (stabilized, more compact, but even more impressive sharpness), and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 (probably better from 24-70 than the 24-105's, but I do like the convenience of having 70-105 in my walk around lens, as I prefer that range for candid portraits).

 

[mom2rtk]

If you want to feel really nerdy, take a look at the charts on photozone.de...

I find their reviews and testing to be the most objective, comprehensive, and easiest to compare and understand.

If I was shooting Canon fullframe.... My top walk-around lens choice considerations would be the Canon 24-105/4, the Sigma 24-105/4 (they end up costing about the same with similar performance), the 24-70/4 (stabilized, more compact, but even more impressive sharpness), and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 (probably better from 24-70 than the 24-105's, but I do like the convenience of having 70-105 in my walk around lens, as I prefer that range for candid portraits).

Thanks. When I get closer to a decision, I'll read up over there.

I would probably start with the 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/4. But who are we kidding. We all know I wouldn't stop there.

 

[fractal]

Is the 70d using basically the old 7d 18mp sensor? That one is not at all competitive with today's not APS sensors in terms of noise. Depending on the APS and FF sensor you compare, you may be lucky to get one stop.

You are not gaining more resolution that today's APS sensors unless you have more than 24 mp. You very well may not be getting more DR, either.

My point is that your advantages are more to do with a modern sensor than with FF. Again, it will be very interesting to see how Samsung's new 28mp APS sensor with BSI performs; the technical stats on it are pretty astonishing.

Imagine if C/N didn't treat their APS cameras as second-class... Nikon's flagship APS, the D300, is over seven years old (not counting the add-video D300s from five years ago), Canon took five years to update the 7D, and both are pretty skimpy on premium APS lenses. I suspect that if they weren't trying so hard to push people upmarket, the FF allure wouldn't be as strong for many people.

Agree on the new Samsung - claims ISO up to 25,000 +. Pretty soon we'll all be shooting our black cats in dark closets.

 

[havoc315]

Is the 70d using basically the old 7d 18mp sensor? That one is not at all competitive with today's not APS sensors in terms of noise. Depending on the APS and FF sensor you compare, you may be lucky to get one stop.

Huh?? The 70D is Canon's modern sensor -- it's their newest sensor that we actually have testing and reviews for, and the 7Dii uses the same or similar sensor (but we don't yet have testing information for it).

Secondly, people too often misunderstand DXO testing when they only look quickly at the scores. Unfortunately, DXO scores are kind of based on the first inning of a baseball game, instead of the entire game. But when you actually look at the full DXO testing, you see that.. for example, the 70D sensor pretty evenly matches a camera like the Pentax K-3 at high ISO.

For example, at a manufacturer ISO of 3200 -- The Pentax K-3 has a measured Signal-Noise-Ratio of 25.9, and the Canon 70D produces SNR of 26.3 (so the Canon 70D has a teeny tiny bit less noise than the K-3 at ISO 3200). Meanwhile, in Dynamic range, at 3200 --The K-3 gives you 9.27 EVs, and the 70D gives you 9.03 EVs. So the Canon gives you slightly less noise, while the newest Pentax camera gives you just slightly more dynamic range.

Anyway, remember.. this thread is about Canon APS-C vs Canon full frame. Sounds like your advice is to abandon Canon and go to Nikon/Pentax/Sony APS-C.

You are not gaining more resolution that today's APS sensors unless you have more than 24 mp. You very well may not be getting more DR, either.

You are misunderstanding resolution -- It's not just megapixels. It's also lens quality, it's noise performance, all contributing to effective resolution. Put a really cheap horrible lens on a 36mp camera, you won't necessarily get any more useable resolution than a 12mp camera.
As ISO increases, you lose resolution as it is obscured by noise.

My statement was that I would take a FF ISO 6400 over an APS-C ISO 3200 ---
Again, sticking with Canon since it's the basis of this thread:
At ISO 3200, the Canon 70D gives you: SNR of 26.3. DR of 9.03, and color sensitivity of 15.8 bits.
At ISO 6400, the Canon 6D gives you: SNR of 27.3. DR of 9.62. And Color sensitivity of 16.4 bits.

So as I said, you get noticeably better IQ in full frame at ISO 6400, than in APS-C at ISO 3200.
Will is be mind-blowing differences?? No. Looking at a little 4X6 or Facebook posting, you probably would never notice the differences. But looking at the images full screen, or large print, those differences will be noticeable.

My point is that your advantages are more to do with a modern sensor than with FF.

So APS-C sensors are improving, but full frame sensors are standing still???

It's the laws of physics. Larger sensors can deliver better IQ than smaller sensors. Yes, APS-C sensors are improving. And today's APS-C sensors can match or surpass yesterday's full frame sensors. And today's full frame sensors continue to be superior to today's APS-C sensors. (And medium format even better, etc).

Imagine if C/N didn't treat their APS cameras as second-class... Nikon's flagship APS, the D300, is over seven years old (not counting the add-video D300s from five years ago), Canon took five years to update the 7D, and both are pretty skimpy on premium APS lenses. I suspect that if they weren't trying so hard to push people upmarket, the FF allure wouldn't be as strong for many people.

The allure of full frame is that it's better. That's the allure of cameras like the RX100 over other P&S cameras. Larger sensors are better.
That's not to say they are necessary --- You can certainly get incredible IQ out of APS-C cameras. And for many uses, you would never notice the differences.
And APS-C cameras have the advantages of being cheaper, with cheaper and slightly smaller lenses. They have the advantages of extra reach on long lenses.
Most people don't *need* full frame. Certainly, no amateur needs it. But then again, you can say that no amateur needs APS-C either.
These are all tools. dSLRs are luxuries for amateurs. Full frame cameras are an even higher level of luxury --- that can be used to produce even higher IQ.

I feel like some APS-C shooters try to deny the advantages of full frame, to rationalize staying with APS-C. The reality is, there is no need for rationalization. There is nothing wrong with APS-C. It even has some advantages. But it's silly to deny that full frame also has advantages.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks. When I get closer to a decision, I'll read up over there.

I would probably start with the 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/4. But who are we kidding. We all know I wouldn't stop there.

If I change systems, and need to start over.....

I'm thinking 24-70/2.8 OR 24-105, and 70-200/4... But I also would want a 2x tele.... A 50/1.4.... Something ultrawide (maybe the new Tamron 15-30 if it's cheaper than the Canon/Nikon branded ultrawides).... probably a macro portrait type lens... I like the Nikon 105/2.8..

Damn, changing systems would get expensive. I think I'd try to force myself to start with 3 --- The 2 you listed, and a 50/1.4. I always like to have at least one small prime for portability and for extreme low light.

I'd really really miss my current Minolta 100/2.8 macro prime (half the price of the Nikon version, so not easy to replace), and my 200/2.8 prime (nothing comparable in a reasonable price range in Canon/Nikon).

 

[fractal]

I'd really really miss my current Minolta 100/2.8 macro prime (half the price of the Nikon version, so not easy to replace), and my 200/2.8 prime (nothing comparable in a reasonable price range in Canon/Nikon).

Havoc,

You let me know if you looking to sell that Minolta 200mm 2.8!

 

[SkaGoat]

Imagine if C/N didn't treat their APS cameras as second-class... Nikon's flagship APS, the D300, is over seven years old (not counting the add-video D300s from five years ago), Canon took five years to update the 7D, and both are pretty skimpy on premium APS lenses. I suspect that if they weren't trying so hard to push people upmarket, the FF allure wouldn't be as strong for many people.

This is a hard argument to make when you consider in the 14 months Canon has released the 70D with a completely new, breakthrough sensor (Dual Pixel AF CMOS), a new, flagship APS-C camera (7Dmii) with an improved version of the Dual Pixel AF sensor, and with better AF (1Dx included), and better FPS than any other camera they make (besides the 1DX), they've also released two new, wide angle EF-S lenses 10-18mm, and 24mm pancake.

I personally feel like the advantage to the Canon system is I have a lot of great lenses to choose from, and the EF lenses work great, and in some cases better on my APS-C body. If I'm a wildlife photog, I want to use the big EF 300mm f/4L IS on my 7D (giving me an effective focal length of 480mm), with fast FPS, and decent IQ.

The only lenses I need that are specifically EF-S are UWA, and there are options there.

Was the 7D long in the tooth? Sure, but only by a year or two, Pentax just caught up with the K3, and Nikon never bothered. Taking Canon at it's word, the 7DmII is top of the hill for APS-C cameras right now.

There have been some independent test shots that have started to filter out from Photokina, and noise is much much better with the new sensor, and Canon has solved the banding issues they had with the older 18mp sensors.

High ISO noise has always been good on the Canons, it's always been noise in lower ISO, and ugly banding noise (instead of natural looking grainy noise) that have been issues.

People who have handled the camera say it's just a little under a stop better than the 70D, which was at least a stop better than the old 7D.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not sure if the 70D is using the same old sensor. I had the impression it was new but not remarkably better at high ISO.

See, I told you that I hadn't been paying much attention.

Their 20mp does look pretty similar to the old 18 and not really competitive with the competition's APS sensors.

Agree on the new Samsung - claims ISO up to 25,000 +. Pretty soon we'll all be shooting our black cats in dark closets.

Not impressed by just that number, my *old* APS-sensor DSLR that I'm now selling did 51,200. (And yes, you could get a usable photo at that ISO...) I think there's a decent number of APS cameras currently supporting 25,600, but this Samsung could be quite a bit cleaner. We shall see!

Secondly, people too often misunderstand DXO testing when they only look quickly at the scores. Unfortunately, DXO scores are kind of based on the first inning of a baseball game, instead of the entire game. But when you actually look at the full DXO testing, you see that.. for example, the 70D sensor pretty evenly matches a camera like the Pentax K-3 at high ISO.

Yes, there's more to it than the final number, but there is also more to it than the numbers. Real-world photos tend to tell quite a different story. Note that I've consistently pointed to the Sony 16mp sensor (specifically the K-5 implementation, going from ISO 80 to 51,200) as probably the best overall APS sensor yet made. And yes, I know Dxomark doesn't agree, though it's awfully close and probably within the margin of error. And that's not the sensor that my current camera uses, so this is not just fanboyism.

If you care about *nothing* but high ISO, you can pore over the graphs, but few people shoot at nothing but high ISOs. The Canon APS sensors just are not competitive. I'll use the Nikon D7100 as an example of the Sony 24mp sensor - for dynamic range, the 70D is 11.6 and the D7100 is 13.7. ISO rating is 926 for the 70D, 1256 for the D7100.

Anyway, remember.. this thread is about Canon APS-C vs Canon full frame. Sounds like your advice is to abandon Canon and go to Nikon/Pentax/Sony APS-C.

No, this thread is "could I be happy with a switch from APS to FF?" (I just re-read the original post to make sure!) and mom2rtk has specifically pointed out considering a D750 or other camera. She's talking about having to sell all her lenses but one - well, no matter how you slice it, that's close enough to starting over to make switching systems something to consider. I have made no specific suggestion about what to do other than to try carrying around an FF for as long as possible to see what the weight and bulk feel like. I did mention that plenty of FF shooters have downsized to other options like the new Fuji system. Though Fuji is probably not the way to go if ISO is a top priority.

You are misunderstanding resolution -- It's not just megapixels. It's also lens quality, it's noise performance, all contributing to effective resolution. Put a really cheap horrible lens on a 36mp camera, you won't necessarily get any more useable resolution than a 12mp camera.
As ISO increases, you lose resolution as it is obscured by noise.

I understand it perfectly. A modern APS sensor and no AA filter with a good lens can hang with the big boys, thank you very much!

Again, sticking with Canon since it's the basis of this thread:
At ISO 3200, the Canon 70D gives you: SNR of 26.3. DR of 9.03, and color sensitivity of 15.8 bits.
At ISO 6400, the Canon 6D gives you: SNR of 27.3. DR of 9.62. And Color sensitivity of 16.4 bits.

But it's *NOT* the basis of this thread. It was crop-sensor vs FF. You're picking a sensor that is not representative of what current APS sensors can do.

The allure of full frame is that it's better. That's the allure of cameras like the RX100 over other P&S cameras. Larger sensors are better.

But that's not a fair statement. There are far, far too many other variables involved. Nobody buys sensors, they buy cameras. (Except for that one Ricoh with interchangeable sensors!) Larger sensors mean larger cameras, larger lenses, larger costs, larger weights, and the sensor technology is too different. As far as I know, nobody makes one big sheet of microsites then uses different-sized cookie cutters to make an APS sensor, FF, 4/3rds, etc. So things are different for each.

There is nothing wrong with APS-C. It even has some advantages. But it's silly to deny that full frame also has advantages.

Nobody is denying that. But it also has big (no pun intended!) drawbacks. And those advantages often aren't as great as some thing.

One final note on sensors - as I've been saying, not all FF sensors are made alike. That Canon 6D sensor is still behind Sony's 24mp APS sensor in color depth (23.8 vs 24.2) and way behind it in dynamic range (12.1 vs 13.7 - and did I mention their 16mp getting 14.1 in the K-5?) Yes, at higher ISOs, the dynamic range gets closer - but using your example, the 6D has less DR at 6400 than the 7100D has at 3200, and I think that stays true across the entire ISO range - at the ISOs where the FF 6D sensor has more DR than the APS 7100D sensor, it's never even one full stop better. Without spending all day, the same appears to be true for the SNR 18%, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc... so, ultimately, as I said earlier - take the same shot on APS at F2.8 at 1600 and FF at F4 at 3200 and what's the advantage? Depending on the APS and FF sensor, you definitely can actually get better performance from the APS sensor.

Now, if you're talking Canon vs Canon, things are simpler (and their APS sensors are not keeping up), but my understanding is that this is more of a "where do I go next" type of thing. With a T2i, big improvements could be had with either sensor size. (The jump I had from the old Samsung sensor in my K-7 to the Sony in my K-5 was probably as big of a jump or more than you'd see going from a 70D to 6D.) If high ISO is the ultimate goal, well... Canon may not be the way to go. Sorry, but that's the way it is at the moment.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Sports

 

[Groucho]

This is a hard argument to make when you consider in the 14 months Canon has released the 70D with a completely new, breakthrough sensor (Dual Pixel AF CMOS), a new, flagship APS-C camera (7Dmii) with an improved version of the Dual Pixel AF sensor, and with better AF (1Dx included), and better FPS than any other camera they make (besides the 1DX), they've also released two new, wide angle EF-S lenses 10-18mm, and 24mm pancake.

I have indisputable proof that Canon doesn't care about it's crop-sensor customers - it took them until 2011[/i] to release a fisheye lens that works properly on crop-sensor cameras, and it's $1,350! Even Nikon, who still hasn't replaced their D300, has had an APS fisheye for years - "only" $800 but it's least it's been out there.

Of course, I am being somewhat tongue in cheek - but let's face it, they definitely don't support APS with high-quality stuff like they do FF. "Breakthrough" sensor? The 70D sensor still lags way behind the Sony sensors in image quality metrics. Canon (and Nikon) still don't make an APS equivalent to the 70-200mm F2.8 - it's astonishing to me that you can't get such a thing unless you go third-party with the Sigma 50-150mm.

Was the 7D long in the tooth? Sure, but only by a year or two, Pentax just caught up with the K3, and Nikon never bothered. Taking Canon at it's word, the 7DmII is top of the hill for APS-C cameras right now.

I think most any reviewer would agree that the K-5 solidly beat the 7D in every area except probably AF speed, and possibly video, and that came out not that long after the 7D, and was followed by the K-5ii and K-5iis and K-3 since then. K-3 vs 7Dmk2 will probably be like K-5 vs 7D, both winning certain categories.

Anyway, this is way off topic. I don't want the thread to devolve into a Canon vs whoever debate.

 

[havoc315]

One final note on sensors - as I've been saying, not all FF sensors are made alike. That Canon 6D sensor is still behind Sony's 24mp APS sensor in color depth (23.8 vs 24.2) and way behind it in dynamic range (12.1 vs 13.7 - and did I mention their 16mp getting 14.1 in the K-5?) Yes, at higher ISOs, the dynamic range gets closer - but using your example, the 6D has less DR at 6400 than the 7100D has at 3200, and I think that stays true across the entire ISO range - at the ISOs where the FF 6D sensor has more DR than the APS 7100D sensor, it's never even one full stop better. Without spending all day, the same appears to be true for the SNR 18%, tonal range, color sensitivity, etc... so, ultimately, as I said earlier - take the same shot on APS at F2.8 at 1600 and FF at F4 at 3200 and what's the advantage? Depending on the APS and FF sensor, you definitely can actually get better performance from the APS sensor.

Yes, if you compare a brand new APS-C sensor with a 5-year-old full frame sensor. When comparing equivalent generation sensors from the same brand, the full frame will win every time.

You still aren't grasping the DXO scores, and their deficiencies.
For example, the Canon 6D sensor vs the Sony 24mp ff sensor, as in the D600. (Released the same year, so they are the same generation).

At very low ISO, the D600 performance is higher. But once you get into mid and high ISO, the 6D starts to take the lead. Like I said -- DXO scores only measure the first inning score, not the whole ballgame.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Wow. Lots of nit-picking going on here.

Y'all argue specs. Metakes pictures.

Do what I did. I bought a 70D and a 6D. Next problem.

 

[mom2rtk]

Wow. Lots of nit-picking going on here.

Y'all argue specs. Metakes pictures.

Do what I did. I bought a 70D and a 6D. Next problem.

You should get your order in now for the 7Dmiii. Then you could give me your side by side by side comparison!

Remind me what lens(es) you have for the 6D.

Tell me a little more about when you pull out one camera versus the other.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

The only EF lenses I own are the 70-200 2.8L, a nifty 50 and the 24-105 f4L. I also have a 2x Extender that I use with the 70-200 sometimes in the daytime. I have a much broader variety of EF-S lenses.

Long story short. I use the 6D for everything that's not rapid motion. The 6D is my goto at Disney. I can take the nifty fifty and do dark rides until the cows come home and until you's stood on the train station and taken pictures of the parades (night and day) with the 70-200 2.8 and a 6D, you haven't lived. I take my tripod with me every trip and I've yet to ever drag it to a park. I just can't get motivated to deal with having to mess with it.

For any kind of amateur portrait work or wedding work, the 6D is the cat's meow.

If my little girl is doing sports and especially if I need the reach, I grab the 70D. I do a little wildlife and birds in flight since I have a large woods on my farm and I enjoy the 70D for that too. For dance and competitions, there's nothing better that the 6D but the 70D works too especially with the 70-200 at 2.8.

You know? Somebody would have to make me a mighty fine offer on the 70D to make me buy a MkII. I just don't get it. There's not enough "there" there for me to jump in cost for what I do. I don't make a living with my cameras. They are just one of my hobbies. I guess the other reason for not really being overly excited about the MkII is because the 6D closes the gap nicely with the 70D. I don't have an in-between need if that makes sense.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a gadget guy and cameras is one of the things I "collect." I'm not a great photographer but I'm decent. I just don't spend enough time with it for lack of time doing other things.

I'm in the glass business for a while now. I just don't see anything on the imminent horizon that these cameras won't do for what I use them for. Then again, I'm apt to change my mind with the next Canon announcement. I'm married to Canon because of my glass, 40 years of using Canon and the familiarity that comes with that, and I don't like the interface/controls on Nikons. People can argue all they want to about this brand and that brand and this feature and that feature but at the end of the day, Canon wins the most important battle of them all: availability and general quality of GLASS.

I also have a couple of Sony Nex's that I use mostly for "pocket" DSLRs at WDW. With a 22mm on them, I can throw them in my pockets and get by when don't want something hanging off my shoulder all day. I have more PnS's than I can count and they mostly just collect dust.

I know. Way more than you wanted to know but maybe that helps some.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Here's a link to cause trouble in your life. We're due for a new 6D deal any day now.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/

 

[mom2rtk]

The only EF lenses I own are the 70-200 2.8L, a nifty 50 and the 24-105 f4L. I also have a 2x Extender that I use with the 70-200 sometimes in the daytime. I have a much broader variety of EF-S lenses.

Long story short. I use the 6D for everything that's not rapid motion. The 6D is my goto at Disney. I can take the nifty fifty and do dark rides until the cows come home and until you's stood on the train station and taken pictures of the parades (night and day) with the 70-200 2.8 and a 6D, you haven't lived. I take my tripod with me every trip and I've yet to ever drag it to a park. I just can't get motivated to deal with having to mess with it.

For any kind of amateur portrait work or wedding work, the 6D is the cat's meow.

If my little girl is doing sports and especially if I need the reach, I grab the 70D. I do a little wildlife and birds in flight since I have a large woods on my farm and I enjoy the 70D for that too. For dance and competitions, there's nothing better that the 6D but the 70D works too especially with the 70-200 at 2.8.

You know? Somebody would have to make me a mighty fine offer on the 70D to make me buy a MkII. I just don't get it. There's not enough "there" there for me to jump in cost for what I do. I don't make a living with my cameras. They are just one of my hobbies. I guess the other reason for not really being overly excited about the MkII is because the 6D closes the gap nicely with the 70D. I don't have an in-between need if that makes sense.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a gadget guy and cameras is one of the things I "collect." I'm not a great photographer but I'm decent. I just don't spend enough time with it for lack of time doing other things.

I'm in the glass business for a while now. I just don't see anything on the imminent horizon that these cameras won't do for what I use them for. Then again, I'm apt to change my mind with the next Canon announcement. I'm married to Canon because of my glass, 40 years of using Canon and the familiarity that comes with that, and I don't like the interface/controls on Nikons. People can argue all they want to about this brand and that brand and this feature and that feature but at the end of the day, Canon wins the most important battle of them all: availability and general quality of GLASS.

I also have a couple of Sony Nex's that I use mostly for "pocket" DSLRs at WDW. With a 22mm on them, I can throw them in my pockets and get by when don't want something hanging off my shoulder all day. I have more PnS's than I can count and they mostly just collect dust.

I know. Way more than you wanted to know but maybe that helps some.

Thanks for that thorough rundown!

In retrospect, you weren't the right person to ask. You completely bypassed the decision I am contemplating by using both! And it really is the best of both worlds. The problem I have is that if I want to go the 6D route, I need to sell a bunch of EF-S glass to pay for it. So while I could keep the T2i around (it probably isn't worth much anyway) I wouldn't have a lot of glass left to support it.

I've changed my mind several times again today. I just keep feeling this pull to the 6D. When I got the email from B&H today saying my replacement copy of the Sigma lens is backordered, I almost called to see if they'd let me exchange toward a 6D instead. Then I looked up the weight and saw that it's 50% heavier than the T2i and decided I need to go pick it up somewhere first.

So I still sit here and equivocate.

Didn't you have the T2i before? If you did, how do you think the focus on the 6D compares to the focus on the T2i?

Here's a link to cause trouble in your life. We're due for a new 6D deal any day now.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/

Thanks WF! I think you might have provided that for me earlier, because I'm finally subscribed and getting email updates. And yes, I noticed it had been a while since the last 6D deal.

I did see a couple of those older deals were on overseas models. I hope they have something different offers. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that.

 

[nbaresejr]

I've changed my mind several times again today. I just keep feeling this pull to the 6D. When I got the email from B&H today saying my replacement copy of the Sigma lens is backordered, I almost called to see if they'd let me exchange toward a 6D instead. Then I looked up the weight and saw that it's 50% heavier than the T2i and decided I need to go pick it up somewhere first.

You do need to pick it up and see it for yourself. Your current setup (t2i w/ 17-55 2.8) is 1175 grams (2.6 lbs). My 6D with 24-70 f4 IS is 1460 grams (3.2 lbs). Very little difference. If you add the tameron 24-70 for the 2.8 the weight goes up to 3.7 lbs.

Thanks WF! I think you might have provided that for me earlier, because I'm finally subscribed and getting email updates. And yes, I noticed it had been a while since the last 6D deal.

I did see a couple of those older deals were on overseas models. I hope they have something different offers. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that.

That is how i purchased my Camera/ lens. There were deals for the "street price" with 24-105 is was $1999 after rebate and with the 24-70 f4 IS it was $2199. I went with option 2. It was $2650 out of pocket but Canon had $200 off for the camera and another $250 off the lens when purchased with the camera. My rebates are being processed right now and my $450 should be in the mail any day.

The street price is legit. They are from authorized dealers. The thing is you dont know the dealer until later on in the process. The place I dealt with was very very good with email and communication and I had my Camera in 2 days after placing the order.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

So while I could keep the T2i around (it probably isn't worth much anyway) I wouldn't have a lot of glass left to support it.

I'm fairly uneducated about Canon glass but can't the FF glass also be used on the APS-C?

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I'm fairly uneducated about Canon glass but can't the FF glass also be used on the APS-C?

Correct. You just can't use EF-S on FF.