Please talk me out of doing it, it's a LOT of money.

[Roosta]

Ezookiel, Have you spoken to William? as he and Joel (JSP) purchased the 6D, might be worth seeking his opinion, as Will shot predominantly APS-C.

[Wayne]

If a 5DIII and the 2 'L' lenses you mentioned are costing $10k, you need to shop elsewhere. They can be had with more than $3k change from that $10k.
I'm a gear head, I won't try and talk you out of it.

[Tommo1965]

I was at a school ball send off the other day...everyone there had a camera of some description...when all the group..about 30 young people lined up in front of two stretch hummers end to end ..i heard a few people echoing each other that they couldn't fit the whole scene in ..I thought smugly to myself that I could with my full frame beast..that sense of one upmanship was worth every cent of the $10,000 investment....

( truth) if you want to quantify expenditure over need..you will be on a hiding to nothing as far as photography is concerned ....( a sage reply ) "if the want...gets the better of the need or afford..then you will have your 5dIII and lenses young grasshopper"

anyway buy a Nikon..you will be much happier...nikon come with a money back gurantee that you will never concern yourself with the cost ever again...Just ask Wayne ....

[Ezookiel]

$10k was a big ballpark figure.
I expected a lot of change. I got the figure by putting the items in a basket at Teds Cameras website, knowing that walking in gets a much better deal, and shopping around an even better one again.

[arthurking83]

.. ..i heard a few people echoing each other that they couldn't fit the whole scene in ..I thought smugly to myself that I could with my full frame beast..that sense of one upmanship was worth every cent of the $10,000 investment....

.....

Yeah, but what exactly is it about a full frame camera that gets the entire scene in one shot that you can't achieve with an APS-C camera?

[zollo]

Yeah, but what exactly is it about a full frame camera that gets the entire scene in one shot that you can't achieve with an APS-C camera?

The Nikon 14-24. and before you say Sigma 8-16 or sum thin, they play in a different iq league, which is important in landscapeography.

[Ezookiel]

In theory, the same lens on an APS-C and on a FF camera, SHOULD get more of the scene in on the FF, as there's more of the sensor on all sides, but I'm only going by what I've read and heard, not personal experience. But if I do buy either of these, I'll be more than happy to take the shot with both the 60D and the new 6D/5DIII and compare the two for you all.

[ameerat42]

Of course it will. For the same (compatible) lens you'll get a larger field of view on a FF camera then on an APS cam.
Am.

[Ezookiel]

Just entered a comp (not a photography one) with the 5DIII as a prize - drawn end of May. With my luck I'll win it just after I buy one

[ricktas]

The Nikon 14-24. and before you say Sigma 8-16 or sum thin, they play in a different iq league, which is important in landscapeography.

Not sure a 14-24 fits on a 5D Mk III

[Roosta]

Not sure a 14-24 fits on a 5D Mk III

100 MPH Tape, although , the AF may be affected.

[Wayne]

Canon users wish the Nikkor 14-24 would fit on their bodies.

[jjphoto]

Canon users wish the Nikkor 14-24 would fit on their bodies.

There are adapters that allows you to use it on Canon bodies with aperture control.

http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/fot...50d-1000d.html

http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

[Gonk0]

Canon users wish the Nikkor 14-24 would fit on their bodies.

Whats wrong with the canon 16-35 II f/2.8L lens?, and Canon users don't have to worry about the 14-24 the 16-35 pretty much covers the 14-24 and gives you a bit extra too, unless I'm missing something.

Also Ezookiel, don't buy the Canon 24-70 save some $$ and buy the Tamron 24-70, I was looking at buying the canon until I read a lot of different reviews on the net, then decided to go with the Tamron 24-70
so far it has been a great lens.

- - - Updated - - -

Canon users wish the Nikkor 14-24 would fit on their bodies.

Whats wrong with the cannon 16-35 II f/2.8L lens?, and Cannon don't have to worry about the 14-24 the 16-35 pretty much covers the 14-24 and gives you a bit extra too, unless I'm missing something.

Also Ezookiel, don't buy the Canon 24-70 save some $$ and buy the Tamron 24-70, I was looking at buying the canon until I read a lot of different reviews on the net, then decided to go with the Tamron 24-70
so far it has been a great lens.

[Speedway]

The lenses you mention are not exclusive to ff cameras and work perfectly well on a crop body. Get the lenses then after you use them for a while look at updating the body if you still want to. I seem to be one of the few that doesn't believe that ff body's are a must have item, for my use a crop body is an advantage.
Cheers
Keith.

[AdamR]

I went crop to full frame and am now back to crop. Much of a muchness to me. Some lenses I will agree suit full frame more. Like your short fast primes. Some lenses suit crop. Anything over 85mm I love on crop. 180mm macro = almost a 300mm macro. Love it. Either way.

In regards to your situation and the two discussed lenses. I would rather a 17-55mm 2.8 with IS anyways and then id prefer the 70-200 on crop. So to me, no brainer, 7d or 60d would be perfect.

[ktoopi]

I just bought a 5D mk iii only last week (upgrade from 7D) and I LOVE LOVE LOVE it!! The high Iso capability blows me away!! Do it I say, you only live once

[MissionMan]

Let's be realistic here. You're saying "Please talk me out of this" but what you really mean is "Please tell me I'm making the right purchase and give me a justification to help me convince my partner this is really in the interests of world peace, international freedom, saving the poor, helping feed the third world etc".

You're forgetting that there are two things at hand:

1. You're a professional photographer, in which case this decision is a no brainer, buy the best you can afford and forget the justification.

2. You're a hobby photographer, in which case, you don't really need this but you want it. Photography, like any hobby, is an emotional sell. If you don't buy it, you'll regret not doing it. If you do buy it, you'll feel guilty about the money you've spent on yourself.

I tend to look at it like this:

When I bought my gear, I figured it was a long term investment in our future. I did the sums on my gear and at $10K all up, it equated to about $2000/year (maybe more if I upgrade my body at some time but the lenses should last at least that long) or about $5 per day. I spend $5 per day on coffee without flinching so why should producing amazing family photos which last a lifetime be worth any less than that? I have photos of my daughters that are mind blowing (by my standards). These I couldn't replace or certainly couldn't have achieved with my previous rig.

So yes, I didn't need the gear, but looking back, there isn't a family photo I can look at and say, I would have accepted something worse.

Sure it's not a real justification, but if our politicians can justify some of the crap they spend our tax money on, then this flies for me.

[Ezookiel]

Missionman, you're a mind-reader.
Pretty much sums it all up for me.

[ameerat42]

Zook. This thread has become worse than Norse saga. Can you tell me in just a few words what we're (speaking for yourself) doing?
Do we buy, or not?

Have we/they made up your mind yet?
m.