Please talk me out of doing it, it's a LOT of money. [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

Ezookiel

27-04-2013, 11:35am

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 (http://vimeo.com/channels/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 :eek:
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

27-04-2013, 11:56am

Haha I say you only live once so go for it. But I'm the Queen of shopping because I just want it.. :lol::lol2:

nixworries

27-04-2013, 12:16pm

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

27-04-2013, 12:29pm

.....

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 :p

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

Ezookiel

27-04-2013, 1:14pm

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

27-04-2013, 1:17pm

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

Bear Dale

27-04-2013, 1:33pm

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

27-04-2013, 1:55pm

..... 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

27-04-2013, 3:42pm

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!:devil6:

Roosta

27-04-2013, 3:56pm

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

27-04-2013, 4:00pm

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 :lol:

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

27-04-2013, 4:08pm

Have you read this (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx)?

May help you decide.

Prices?

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

http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/products/Canon-EOS-6D-Camera-%28Body-Only%29.html

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

Tammy (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-Lens-Reviews.aspx).

nwhc

27-04-2013, 4:47pm

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

27-04-2013, 6:13pm

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

27-04-2013, 8:41pm

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

mikec

27-04-2013, 9:20pm

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

27-04-2013, 9:37pm

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

27-04-2013, 9:59pm

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

27-04-2013, 11:58pm

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

28-04-2013, 7:22am

:rolleyes:(This should have been a poll!)

Roosta

28-04-2013, 8:25am

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

28-04-2013, 8:41am

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

28-04-2013, 9:12am

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....:lol:

( 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 ....:cool:

Ezookiel

28-04-2013, 10:16am

$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

28-04-2013, 10:17am

.. ..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....:lol:

.....

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

28-04-2013, 10:58am

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

28-04-2013, 5:05pm

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

28-04-2013, 5:24pm

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

28-04-2013, 5:51pm

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

28-04-2013, 6:07pm

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 :D

Roosta

28-04-2013, 6:28pm

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

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

Wayne

28-04-2013, 6:34pm

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

jjphoto

28-04-2013, 9:53pm

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/fotodiox-pro-adapter-nikon-g-lens-to-canon-eos-mount-adapter-for-canon-eos-1d-1ds-mark-ii-iii-iv-5d-mark-ii-7d-10d-20d-30d-40d-50d-60d-digital-rebel-xt-xti-xs-xsi-t1i-t2i-300d-350d-400d-450d-500d-550d-1000d.html

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

Gonk0

28-04-2013, 10:48pm

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

28-04-2013, 11:17pm

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

29-04-2013, 9:06am

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

29-04-2013, 5:31pm

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

29-04-2013, 5:41pm

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". :D

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

29-04-2013, 7:02pm

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

ameerat42

29-04-2013, 7:12pm

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?
:rolleyes:m.

arthurking83

29-04-2013, 8:21pm

.....

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

I think this was a foregone conclusion before the thread appeared anyhow.

Like Adam said, as a hobbyist, this is more of an emotional aspiration, rather than a scientific/calculated/business decision.

Nothing wrong with the emotional/hobbyist aspect of a decision like this .. LOL mine was! ... but it also has to be said, my decision had nothing to do with any advantage for landscapes .. more so for shallower DOF with full frame capable lenses(oh! and the ability to shoot some quality video too).

As long as you can understand why you're doing something, and how it offers advantages over your current setup, it's almost certain to be money well spent.

Ezookiel

29-04-2013, 8:22pm

My wife may have found a way to say 'no' without actually saying it. She has never said no to any financial decision, she normally leaves those to me (like I said, so she can blame me if it goes wrong). But she just dropped the biggest bombshell ever. She has been a nurse at our hospital for 30 years. She came home the other night and said she'd been offered a job with one of the surgeons in his private practice, because he needs her skills with casts and plastering. I didn't think much about it because he could only give her permanent part-time, and she knows he can't begin to match what she gets from the hospital.
I guess I was wrong - at very least wrong about how much she hates her current job - she went and had a look at the surgeon's practice today, loves the people working there, has been offered a few extra incentives including one of the corporate carparking places, and a rate of pay way higher than she's supposed to get for her qualification, and she's decided she has no choice but to take the bull by the horns and go for it. The extra work she'll need to find, in order to make up the lost income being part time, will come in the form of extra work for another surgeon who is some relative of one of the people in this practice but has his own separate one elsewhere, who will apparently give her work for the afternoons she isn't working. but that has yet to be finalised. So until it is, we're likely to be down a chunk of her pay. However, that said, with 10 weeks annual leave, plus 3 months long service leave now having to be paid out in a lump sum to her, which should more than clear the money owing on her car, and with one of my loans paying out next week, we may actually end up better off. So it's probable that there will only be a short delay while we see how the dust settles with these changes, and probably be better off in many ways - not the least will be a happier wife now in a job she likes.

So the plan is still on, but I now have to take a few extra weeks to follow through, but that's just extra time for research. My intention is to go in and hold both a 6D and a 5DIII and see if either of them have that "it's an extension of me" feel to them, and maybe use that in making the decision, and I'll also take a look at the various lens alternatives you've come up with. So this WILL happen, it just will happen a little more slowly with even more research put in than I'd already started to put in.

Mark L

29-04-2013, 9:29pm

... - at very least wrong about how much she hates her current job - .... , and probably be better off in many ways - not the least will be a happier wife now in a job she likes.

You're way better off, and you still have a camera that takes photos. :th3:
Good luck Mrs Ez.. You won't regret it.;)

arthurking83

29-04-2013, 10:10pm

+1
(to what Mark said).

Brian500au

30-04-2013, 9:54pm

Hobbies cost money. It really depends on how much you are willing / can afford to spend on your hobby. The canon gear you mention in your opening post is top gear, and you will only have yourself to blame if your hobby does not improve in quality.

If you are like me and compromise, it is a short term and eventually you succumb to the temptation. My opinion is if you can afford the gear then why not buy it. Masserati does not make you a better driver but hell if I could afford one I would buy it.