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

[Ezookiel]

I've been leaning towards going FF for quite a while now.
Just like Holden once advertised their HSV's with something along the lines of "I just want one" as the reason for buying one. I want to go FF for no really specific reasons. I just want to go that way.

It comes down to two things.
Firstly, I want to go to FF
Secondly, I need faster better glass for the sorts of night shots I'm aiming to eventually do and whilst the 60D is more than capable of it - even DakotaLapse uses a 60D for some of his stuff - it becomes a case of if I one day plan to go FF, then buying expensive glass now for the 60D and then changing later to FF, means a more expensive changeover later. Yes, some of the glass would work on both, but work on it, and originally be designed for it, are two different things.

If I do it, I'd probably aim to get myself a 5DIII, and a pair of L series lenses to cover the same range my current 18-200 covers, so probably the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L ISII and maybe the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II. That's about $10k by my guesstimates
Massively overkill for my skill level, and way too much to sink into a camera when I'm not a professional, and never plan to be. So I probably need to be talked out of it

So start talking before I do something stupid like go into a store and hold one, to see how it feels, because if it becomes an extension of me, the way the 60D has, and feels comfortable and easy to use, I'll probably do something stupid like buy one.

[Koko]

Haha I say you only live once so go for it. But I'm the Queen of shopping because I just want it..

[nixworries]

i went full frame with the 5d mark III tamron 24-70 and the tamron 70-200 vc 2.8 both of tamrons new lenses, saved heaps on the lenses and loving the quality from both lenses

[arthurking83]

.....

It comes down to two things.
Firstly, I want to go to FF
Secondly, I need faster better glass for the sorts of night shots I'm aiming to eventually do and whilst the 60D is more than capable of it ......

While a modern FF equivalent will always have an advantage over an APS-C camera in terms of low light/high ISO performance with that sort of financial outlay, you need to ask yerself is the money worth it.

You have all the reasons to do it, and as far as I can see, no reason not too.


But have you researched all the options for lower light photography .. ie. in terms of faster lenses for APS-C.

I doubt that you'll get anyone here trying to talk you out of it, and for that kind of perspective on this issue you may have to take this query to the minister of finance/better half/other half/missus/girlfriend/etc.
But if you bring this query here, you're more likely to get answers that will get you into a deeper financial crisis


I'd recommend that you do it(get the FF camera of your choice) .. before someone talks you into getting a 1DmkV!

[Ezookiel]

My main reasons for FF, as much as I jokingly say it's just because I want one, the fact remains that most of my photography is landscapes (a plus for FF) and low light (a plus for FF).
There are a heap of options for faster glass on the crop sensor without having to go to L series, but if I'm going to do something, I tend to do it to the max.
I'm in the odd position of having a minister for finance, but one that leaves all finance decisions to me - I guess it's so she can blame me when they go wrong.
It may or may not happen, but it's the way I'm headed at the moment.

[ameerat42]

Zook. DON'T DO IT!!!
(Unless you want to.)
Am.

[Bear Dale]

You have an itch that wants to get scratched.

So my only suggestion is; if you can afford it without causing financial ruination to you or your family it will give peace of mind if that itch is scratched.

If you honestly can't afford it.....don't sweat it. Before long the 5D3 will be 'old news' and there will be something newer released by Canon (or Nikon or whoever). You then may be in the position to buy something newer or pick up a bargain 5D3 from someone updating.

The other thing I'd be REALLY leaning towards because you say your into landscapes is a very lightly used 5DMKII ...... there honestly couldn't be a cheaper way to get a FF camera than buying a 5DMKII and you won't see any difference in IQ buying a 5D3 (just a lighter wallet or more CC debt).

[arthurking83]

..... the fact remains that most of my photography is landscapes (a plus for FF) and low light (a plus for FF).
.....

Landscapes - No!
Low light - Yes!

Landscapes are traditionally captured at the lowest(or lowest native) ISO.

If FOV is your priority, then there is no difference in IQ between say an 8mm lens on APS-C or 12mm lens on full frame both captured in the lowest ISO rating.
Where the smaller format is an advantage is that because of the shorter focal length, you naturally get a deeper DOF for the image.

So this is where FF has an advantage .. the ability to capture a shallower DOF for a given FOV(if this is important to you) .. with less work to do so.
Of course if you're prepared to do more work, you can always capture the same shallow DOF that is possible with FF with a smaller framed camera too.
DOF is after all a product of the lens, not the camera.

But for deeper DOF, the smaller framed camera will produce more for a single exposure, which gives you the ability to shoot at a faster aperture setting.
This can then give you an advantage in terms of shutter speed, for example minimizing or eliminating subject movement blur.

Don't confuse the number of pixels with the format size.

For example a 24mp APS-C camera is just as equally capable as a 24Mp full frame camera at the same low(or native low) ISO.

of course FF can have other advantages say in terms of dynamic range, but this is also a product of the technology available of the time too.

I'd say if it's advantages that you are after, they can be placed (in simple terms) like this:

Portrait - FF is an advantage
Low light - FF is an advantage
Landscape - APS-C is an advantage
Macro - APS-C is an advantage.
High speed(eg sports) - FF is (usually)an advantage, with caveats.

.... but if I'm going to do something, I tend to do it to the max.

Then there is no argument .. it's best to do it ... quickly... and be done with it.

that's what I did too.

The suggestion of the cheaper Tammy lenses also has merit if keeping the financial burden low is also important.
I'm currently swayed heavily toward the 24-70/2.8VC as well. At under $1K, and with stabilization, it sounds like a good compromise.

[bobt]

I went through the various standard stages. First people told me to concentrate on good glass - I was skeptical. Then i bought some lenses that only fit the smaller sensor cameras, telling myself I'd NEVER want to go full frame.

I just bought the Canon 6D full frame, and couldn't be happier. Low light and high ISO - amazing stuff. Go for it!

[Roosta]

Sorry AK83, I have to disagree with APS-C and landscape. Most pro's will use Medium/Large format to capture Landscapes. Most togs I've seen use FF at a minimum if available to them.

I understand the beginner or someone first starting out with limited budget, grabbing an APS-C body, cost off course would be the driving force.

IQ would be very important to someone like the example Ezookiel has supplied.

Ezkookiel, if looking at time lapse, have you looked at other formats to capture this in? Gopro - and other motion type cameras?

You say the main reasons are - Landscape and ISO. I personally agree with FF, but ISO does work in-conjunction with the processing power of the camera itself, the ability to capture and read the information the sensor captures. A 5D MK 111 will give you this, as it's best to have the better exposure to work with in the first place.

Get the camera, grab good glass, yeah so you may need to up date the body again down the line/maybe not, but if you don't want/need to swap brands, you'll have the glass.

[Ezookiel]

The only reason I rated FF as an advantage for Landscapes is the wider field of view. It does see slightly more of the scene. I wasn't really factoring in DOF as I thought I'd be able to control that to a degree with the aperture - well enough for most purposes.
The whole question has definitely had its advantages, in that it finally made me go and do some research on just what advantages/disadvantages there are between FF and Cropped.
It really does seem that for every advantage in one area, there are disadvantages in others, and a bit of a balancing act is required.
My main concern is making sure I'm doing it for genuine reasons, and not because I think I'll magically become a better photographer or something. I still have a lot to learn, and I'm sure I could continue to get better using the 60D, so the reasons for going to FF need to be quantifiable, tangible, real reasons. It will also help soothe the nerves at the thought of that kind of money. Carrying the price of a good second-hand car around, and with the same insane depreciation rates of most cars, makes it worry me. $10k put into an investment would be much smarter, but much less fun.
The good thing is that no-one has yet come in and said, "Sorry mate, but I've seen your photos, and you're kidding yourself", but maybe you're all just being polite

I'll have to see what kind of deals can be done, and will definitely go have a look at some of the reviews of those Tammy lenses. It's all very well to be elitist and to like having the red stripe or the white barrel on your lens, but I'd much rather people look and think how smart I was to buy a Tammy at half the price if the results are going to be the same or similar.

[Roosta]

Have you read this?

May help you decide.

Prices?

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/compare/2687/3685

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/...y-Only%29.html

Examples only, but way less than 10K.. Enough to buy another lens maybe.. ??

Tammy.

[nwhc]

I thought about a 5D 3 as well couldn't justify the outlay for something I make no money off.
Went with the 6D and love it.
By my guesstimates you would only be looking at 6.5K for that set up even less with tamron & sigma glass.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought about a 5D 3 as well couldn't justify the outlay for something I make no money off.
Went with the 6D and love it.
By my guesstimates you would only be looking at 6.5K for that set up even less with tamron & sigma glass.

[Ezookiel]

I hadn't really considered the 6D - you've gone and thrown a huge spanner in the works because now I have to do a whole lot more thinking, and thinking is really hard for me
That actually looks really good, and one of those reviews has it as better at high ISO than the 5DIII, even though only marginally.
Aaaarrrgggghhhhh - decisions, decisions.

[MissionMan]

Whatever your choice is, you won't regret it. I don't regret what I spent on my camera and lenses.

[mikec]

You should also consider weight. FF means your gear will get heavier, larger sensor means bigger glass, especially with the constant 2.8 zooms.

I'm slowly switching out to a lighter setup, when you see what the newer ASP-C gear is achieving these days it does beg the question if you aren't earning money from your gear or printing large format regularly, why do we need FF? Yeah there are some advantages but its only really some DOF and high ISO gains.

[jjphoto]

The 2 lenses you're considering will last a very long time so I don't see them as a waste of money. Don't skimp on lenses. Just, don't skimp on lenses. However, both of those zoom lenses are very slow, obviously very fast for zooms, but still slow for their respective focal lengths and you will almost certainly find this limiting at some stage. I would suggest you pony up for a 50/1.4 or similar such as 35/2-1.4, 85/1.8-1,2 or something with a bit of speed. Such primes are not a replacement for the 2 zooms you've listed and each has it's uses.

On the other hand the body will be worth next to nothing in a few years so maybe you should look at getting a second hand one to save a few bucks, or maybe even a 5D2 or 6D. It almost doesn't mater in comparison to the lenses as you can always upgrade the body and you almost certainly will.

I think FF is the way to go for most photography aside from sport or other specialised areas where a small sensors greater depth of field can be a benefit, but it all depends on how you like to shoot. I'd be shooting on 10x8 if I could.

[Ezookiel]

Thanks John, I agree. My theory is that the lens is almost more important than the body. A crappy piece of glass will hold a photo's quality back far more drastically than the body will for the general photography needs of most people. It's also why I'm thinking that since I need better glass, I may as well start off going up to FF now so that the glass I buy now will move from body to body if/when I later upgrade again, rather than needing to change both.

Anyway, it's all theoretical until I see what happens with the money. My wife has just quit her job and moved to a part-time one, with the promise of a second part time one to go with it in the near future, but until that last part happens her income will drop about 40% and so I'm sure not going to touch that kind of money until we know her income is back up to where it was. But the moment we know, I'll burn rubber to get to the store to start comparing a real-life 6D and 5DIII.

[cupic]

Option 2 is the 6d and the 24-70 to get you started and satisfied knowing that sooner or later 70-200 will complete the package till you go wide

[ameerat42]

(This should have been a poll!)