Who has "upgraded" from APSC to Full-Frame?

[GTaudiophile]

I am struggling between the 7D and the 5DII as my next DSLR...

What APSC camera did you have? With what lenses?
To what FF camera did you upgrade? With what lenses?

How has this experience been so far? Pros/Cons?

 

[angry hampster]

Went from 20D->5D and never looked back. With my 5D I'm able to push exposures in post processing up to 2 full stops with no noise. The RAW files are so much better to work with than my 30D backup cam.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Went from 20D->5D and never looked back. With my 5D I'm able to push exposures in post processing up to 2 full stops with no noise. The RAW files are so much better to work with than my 30D backup cam.

What glass as you using?

 

[rudder]

Went from a 40D - 5D. The only thing I miss is the 6.5fps. I am torn between spending a little for a 30D or 40D for sports or go for the gusto and get the 5D2. I can't ever see going back to aps-c as my only body.

Right now my lenses consist of 35-80mm macroed, 28-75 tamron, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 70-300 canon IS. Going to pick up an L lens... likely the new 100mm L macro. This stupid forum got me hooked on macro after the 35-80mm thread.

 

[corkyg]

I followed the exact same path as Angry Hamster and can echo the same results. I made no lens changes except adding the 24-105L lens that was kit for the 5D. I later added a 50mm f/1.2 to the arsenal for low light work in church (flash is a no-no.) Currently use these lenses:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Corky-G/lenses.jpg

Keys: 1= 16-35mm f/1.8 L; 2=24-105mm f/1.4 L; 3=70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO;
4=70-200mm f/2.8 L; 5=50mm f/1.4; 6=50mm f/1.2 L; 7=24mm f1.4 L;
8=Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro.

Will probably upgrade to a 5DII body, mainly to get Live View.

 

[randomlinh]

I just picked up a 5D, seemed like a pretty good deal. I currently have a 20D/40D. My initial impressions are so-so to be honest. I'm more impressed with how the 40D comes close to the 5D IQ. The noise is of course better, but not by as much as I thought it might. However, I have not tried pushing the 5D files vs the 40D. Basically, I haven't blown away based purely on IQ. I also haven't been able to try this out in good weather, I got bogged down Saturday in getting new glasses.

What has inked a bit of "I'm not going back" is it feels GOOD to have that VF (I used my old K1000 till it broke because I loved the VF). It also lets me use the 135L. I did not like that FL on crop, but really like the lens.

I struggled against buying a 7D because I have my crop lenses all done:
Tamron 17-50
Tokina 50-135
Sig 30
Sig 50
Canon 85/1.8.

I don't need the 7D AF. It also didn't look like a huge enough improvement in high ISO to justify... so it's only plus was movies, which I want to play with, but not pay for =) Basically, I was waiting for a 60D.

I actually am perfectly happy with crop. The 5D was partially impulse and a good deal. I figured, worst case, my 20D being replaced by the 5D would be a big plus (keeping the 40D no matter what, need the backup). But if I can push 2 stops w/o issue, I will hold off on replacing the 40D w/ a 60D and just get a 5DmkII down the line when the mkIII's are out.

The biggest con I can think of so far is my lens line up. I did not want to get the 70-200 IS, too much money. But hopefully sigma's 70-200 OS will be under $1200 new. I'll sell all the APS-C lenses and add a Canon 24/2.8 and 135L. All very expensive ventures =(

 

[GTaudiophile]

If I go 5DII over 7D, I will sell my mint-condition, razor sharp EFS 17-55 2.8 IS and EFS 10-22. I would PROBABLY keep my 70-200 F4L IS.

I just can't decide on a lens package...

17-40 F4L
24-105 F4L IS
70-200 F4L IS
35 F1.4L
+ Maybe the 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 USM

VERSUS

17-40 F4L
24-105 F4L IS
35 1.4L
135 F2L + 2x Extender? (I don't usually travel with a tripod so this one might be hard to hand-hold.)

I have already struggled with the 16-35 2.8L II vs. 17-40 F4L debate, and I don't think I can justify the former. I also have little interest in the 24-70 2.8 because of its lack of IS and weight.

In the end, I could also decide that I did not save enough or just take the easy path and buy the 7D.

 

[adairusmc]

I wanted to get a 5DII really bad when I upgraded to my 7d, but for my budget it came down to get a 5D2 body only, or the 7D with a lens I wanted, flash, and tripod. It sounds like budget isn't an issue here, and I wish it weren't the case for me.

 

[angry hampster]

What glass as you using?

Canon 24-70, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Tamron 17-35. Had a 50mm f/1.4 and Canon 17-40 that I also really liked using on the 5D.



I should also add that I'm *very* impressed with the Tamron 17-35. I think I may make a new thread for it!

 

[jpeyton]

Went from a D300 to a D700.

The cameras are very similar in setup/controls/AF. But the IQ difference, despite having the same resolution, was easily noticeable. The D700 is better in low light, but my images in good light feel sharper as well. And having a full-frame camera fits my shooting style (fast-aperture, thin-DOF) perfectly.

 

[Maximus96]

went from xsi to 5D, huge difference. the slow shutter didn't bother me because the xsi was equally slow. i didn't know what a fast shutter was suppose to be like. then i bought a 7D, another huge difference compared to 5D in terms of auto focus and shutter speed

 

[corkyg]

When did 1/8000th of a second shutter speed become "slow?"

 

[Maximus96]

i meant fps, the big mirror is "slow", 3 fps is "slow"

 

[jpeyton]

When did 1/8000th of a second shutter speed become "slow?"

He used the wrong terminology. The 5D1/2 have noticeably longer shutter lag and mirror blackout times than the competition, much closer to Digital Rebel territory than 1D territory.

 

[Shimmishim]

40D -> 1DMarkIIn -> 1DMarkIII -> 5D -> 5DMarkII

I've tried the 7D and it just didn't feel right so I sold it.

The 5DMarkII... was definitely a love-hate at first due to its slow FPS (versus the 40D and MarkIII) and crappy AF points. But once you learn how to use it (only use center point now), it's a great camera. I love mine and thinking about selling my MarkIII to get another once. It's a special camera. I can't wait til the 5DIII comes out.

I love primes so I shoot mostly primes: 35L, 85LII, 45 TS-E, and 24 f/2.8. Only zoom I own is the 70-200 f/2.8IS and it's probably the only zoom I'll own... but there are benefits of zooms over primes.

Your lens selection will depend on what you shoot, not on just the camera.

 

[corkyg]

Shimmishim, . . . I call it zooming with your feet. Primes are gredat!

 

[GTaudiophile]

According to Canon Rumors, the 5DIII will NOT get the new AF system in the 7D as this would cannibalize 1D sales. I would prefer the 5DIII of course but I think the 5DII is only half way through its life cycle, and I can't wait that long.

As for lenses, I am stilling toying with these ideas:

Option A
17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200/F4L IS, 135L

Option B
17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200/F4L IS, 135L (But would add a 50 1.4 USM II if/when it comes out.)

Option C
17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200/F4L IS, 35L


I am leaning towards B right now.

I recently rented both a 35L and an 85LII for my 20D and ended up using the 85L more, much to my surprise, so I think a 135L on FF would be nice.

I do NEED some sort of UWA lens and I do not want to pay out the butt for the 14L nor the 16-85LII. This leaves the 17-40L as the best option. Of course I wish that Canon made a EF 17-70 F4L IS or something.

The 24-70L vs. 24-105L is the hardest debate. The former gives you better low-light performance but the latter is lighter, has IS, and has more reach. The former is also due for an upgrade shortly with a 24-70 F2.8 IS version that will devalue the non-IS version to some extent.

The 70-200 F4L I do own already. It is light weight and razor sharp. I plan on holding on to it.

 

[angry hampster]

24-105 also isn't weather sealed like the 24-70. I don't see the 24-70 getting IS any time soon. IMO it doesn't need it either.

 

[corkyg]

24-105 also isn't weather sealed like the 24-70.

I may be wrong, but as I recall, the 5D is not weather sealed either.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Went from a D300 to a D700.

The cameras are very similar in setup/controls/AF. But the IQ difference, despite having the same resolution, was easily noticeable. The D700 is better in low light, but my images in good light feel sharper as well. And having a full-frame camera fits my shooting style (fast-aperture, thin-DOF) perfectly.

Thank god there is at least one other Nikon guy in here!

I did the same move, from d300 to d700. Love the low light capability. Probably didn't "need" to upgrade, but it sure is nice to have .

I had the 17-55/2.8 on my D300, and sold it and primarily use my 24-70/2.8 now.

The only thing I don't like is a 70-200 on a d700 isn't an effective 105-300 with the 1.5X crop on the d300 when shooting tele. (yes I know the FL stays the same, it's only the FOV that changes)

 

[pennylane]

Thank god there is at least one other Nikon guy in here!

I did the same move, from d300 to d700. Love the low light capability. Probably didn't "need" to upgrade, but it sure is nice to have .

I had the 17-55/2.8 on my D300, and sold it and primarily use my 24-70/2.8 now.

The only thing I don't like is a 70-200 on a d700 isn't an effective 105-300 with the 1.5X crop on the d300 when shooting tele. (yes I know the FL stays the same, it's only the FOV that changes)

That's funny, I'm not really a huge fan of my 80-200mm on my D90. For people/portraits, the 80mm isn't wide enough while on the other end, the 200mm isn't all that necessary. As a general zoom, the 200mm doesn't feel narrow enough. I've been thinking that 70-200mm is a perfect focal length range on full frame but a little odd on DX.

 

[angry hampster]

I may be wrong, but as I recall, the 5D is not weather sealed either.

No, but we were talking about the various dis/advantages to the lenses so I thought I'd throw that in.

 

[Bowfinger]

Thank god there is at least one other Nikon guy in here!

I did the same move, from d300 to d700. Love the low light capability. Probably didn't "need" to upgrade, but it sure is nice to have .

I had the 17-55/2.8 on my D300, and sold it and primarily use my 24-70/2.8 now.

The only thing I don't like is a 70-200 on a d700 isn't an effective 105-300 with the 1.5X crop on the d300 when shooting tele. (yes I know the FL stays the same, it's only the FOV that changes)

Me three. Went from a D200 to D700. Absolutely love the low light capabilities. I take a lot of pictures in rather dimly lit performance halls, and it's been a godsend there. In general, even in good light I've found the D700 to work more smoothly than the D200 (not that it was bad by any means), and have seen a significant increase in picture quality. Great investment.

For glass, I already had a set of full-frame lenses, primarily the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and 50mm f1.4 prime. Like you, I miss the extra range on the 70-200. I'm now browsing for something longer. On the other end, however, I like the greater wide angle capabilities full frame with the 14-24.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

It depends on what you're shooting, and the lenses that you need for what you shoot. I like wide-angle shots. There aren't any really good wide-angle lenses (zooms or primes) for APS-C. There are plenty for full-frame. There's simply no 17-40mm f/4L equivalent in APS-C. The 10-22 has good IQ but relatively poor build quality, and isn't constant maximum aperture. Plus the 10-22 costs practically the same as the 17-40. The same fact also extends to the normal zooms. You can't get a 24-105 f/4L or 24-70 f/2.8L equivalent in APS-C. If Canon extended the range of the 17-55 to 15-55, it would be good enough for me. But nope, we're stuck at 17 (27-28mm equivalent) which just doesn't have that "wow" factor that 24mm can give. Canon has started making some 15-xx EF-S lenses, but still nothing with a constant max aperture.

That said, I will always keep a crop body in my arsenal. The speed and the added effective length can be very handy.... again, depending on what you're shooting. My 70-200 f/4L lives on my 20D (often with the 1.4x TC), and my 24-105 lives on my 5D. Before I bought the 5D, I had a 40D, and before that I had a DRebel. But I had never bought any EF-S lenses (besides the 18-55 kit lens) because I knew I wanted to go full-frame, for the reasons stated above. The 24-105 is remarkably effective on the 5D... even indoors, just bump up to ISO 800 or 1600 and it's pretty usable. Of course I have the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 if I need a faster lens (really want a 35L and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4.... I can't stand the build quality of the Canon 50/1.4). I am probably going to upgrade my 70-200 to the f/2.8 IS version soon, but I am happy with the f/4 of the 17-40 and 24-105. If I were doing a lot of weddings or something I would probably move to the 24-70, but for my purposes I prefer the extra length, lower weight, and IS of the 24-105.

 

[deanx0r]

People who upgraded from crop to full frame are usually the ones who struggle with their photos.

/ducks