first full frame - worth it?

[juststu82]

Hi

I have a 50D I use as my main camera and was thinking of getting an original 5D as a full frame option to use also. I know they are similar side by side apart from crop but there is no way I could afford a newer full-frame. Any thoughts on this?

Thank you,

Stu

[ameerat42]

Some thoughts are forming... but require a catalyst: Why?
To expand: what for? To do what with? And such like.
Am.

[Mary Anne]

You do know that you can only use EF lenses on a Canon FF body, so if you are using EF-S lenses on the Canon 50D you will have to buy new lenses.

[juststu82]

I'm not using efs for that reason.

I like Landscapes and macro which I know at least Landscapes are better on full frame. I'm also keen to maybe carry it light with a fifty and a flash so I can carry it to work and shoot some street shots at lunch.

[bobt]

You may find that you end up using one almost exclusively. I went full frame, moving up from a 40D to a 6D, but I also have a 500D. After a while I found out that I was using the full frame exclusively, although it lacked a couple of benefits of the 40D. I figured that an excellent camera was just sitting around doing nothing, so I gave to to my daughter. As for the 500D, it rarely gets used and also just sits there. The reality is that you will probably end up using just one because it's just easier. Full frame is a joy in terms of IQ and ability to crop to a small part of the image - I certainly wouldn't go back.

[William W]

. . . I like Landscapes and macro which I know at least Landscapes are better on full frame. I'm also keen to maybe carry it light with a fifty and a flash so I can carry it to work and shoot some street shots at lunch.

Not sure that response addresses all that Am asked of you: but . . .

We’d be in for a long debate arguing each side of the toss that landscapes are “better” on full frame.

To carry to work for some street shots (with a flash?) – not sure that a 5D would be lighter, less conspicuous, easier to use and better generally for street work than a 50D – but
I get the point that you have a 50mm prime lens and a 50mm prime on a 50D is a bit long.

Macro: many marco-photographers like the APS-C format, simply for the DoF advantage it provides.

All that stated – precisely what lenses do you have?

WW

- - - Updated - - -


You may find that you end up using one almost exclusively. I went full frame, moving up from a 40D to a 6D, but I also have a 500D. After a while I found out that I was using the full frame exclusively, although it lacked a couple of benefits of the 40D. I figured that an excellent camera was just sitting around doing nothing, so I gave to to my daughter. As for the 500D, it rarely gets used and also just sits there. The reality is that you will probably end up using just one because it's just easier. Full frame is a joy in terms of IQ and ability to crop to a small part of the image - I certainly wouldn't go back.


I think that most general photographers just end up using one camera because it is easier so to do, but for clarity the OP is discussing two specific camera models:

I believe that if the OP cropped a 5D (5D is the camera under consideration of purchase) to the equivalent of the 50D sensor size (50D is the camera the OP has now) - the image from the 50D would win, hands down.
So for the purposes of OP and addressing the question as it was asked, I don’t think that the ability to crop to a small part of the image from the 5D, is any reason to buy it.

I think that it is very important to consider the specific cameras in those sorts of comparisons and not assume blanket rules apply when comparing APS-C Format to 135 Format.

WW

[Dug]

I can't think of a compelling reason to get an original 5D, just because it is a full frame.
On a budget I would start at the 5D mk2 and get, live view, double the pixel count (of the 5D) and a usable rear screen.

The 5D could be a bulkier, less enjoyable to use option than what you already have, with little to show for it in the IQ department.

[juststu82]

All good points. I think the main thing I got from this is it is better to save the extra six hundred or so and get the mk II. I'm using exclusive the 50mm prime at present with a view to get an 80mm 1.8 and a 70-200 f4L when I can, later on I will also look at getting a "cheaper" wider L lens. My focus is on lenses at the moment but the thought came up about also going full frame as I started in film and Zack Arias in particular worded it perfectly for me in that a cropped sensor always feels too tight in some way. I still stand where I normally would with my 50mm on film and then have to step backwards four or so steps to get the shot in frame, I have never gotten used to a crop sensor internally.

[ameerat42]

It may be even cheaper to "get used" to a crop sensor:D

[juststu82]

Yes, cheaper is better and that's why I'm more concerned with getting good lenses and bouncing the full-frame idea around.

Thanks guys

[arthurking83]

......

Macro: many marco-photographers like the APS-C format, simply for the DoF advantage it provides.

.....

Well .. err, yes and no.

Technically, you get no difference in DOF no matter what lens, focal length or format is used once you get into macro photography!

The DOF for a macro image shot at 35mm will be the same as for that same macro shot used with a 200mm lens!

DOF at a specific magnification level will be the same no matter what camera, format or lens is used.

(at it's simplest explanation) the longer focal lengths will simply give you greater working distances(which can be an advantage, or not).

If you just want to 'get closer' with less cropping, then what WW describes can be useful(using a smaller format at close range for deeper DOF).


Personally, I found that the move to the larger 135mm format(from D300 to D800) has been a better experience for doing macro photography.
I can get more of the subject in the frame and/or higher magnifications than you can with a smaller format sensor.

[juststu82]

So, I got a mk II quite cheap and jumped on it. I sold some old hobby stuff that I never used (modeling) and my cheap crop frame sigma lens. I feel it wasn't too impulse buy as I have been in the hobby for ages, I spent a long time contemplating it, I was willing to sell things that I have hoarded for years and I am really enjoying photography this time round so all up, this felt right. Plus, like many, I started on 35mm so this is a return to my roots sort of. I have three lenses that will be my next goal purchases and then I will feel like I have a nice kit complete for me.

[Steve Axford]

Well .. err, yes and no.

Technically, you get no difference in DOF no matter what lens, focal length or format is used once you get into macro photography!

The DOF for a macro image shot at 35mm will be the same as for that same macro shot used with a 200mm lens!

DOF at a specific magnification level will be the same no matter what camera, format or lens is used.

(at it's simplest explanation) the longer focal lengths will simply give you greater working distances(which can be an advantage, or not).

If you just want to 'get closer' with less cropping, then what WW describes can be useful(using a smaller format at close range for deeper DOF).


Personally, I found that the move to the larger 135mm format(from D300 to D800) has been a better experience for doing macro photography.
I can get more of the subject in the frame and/or higher magnifications than you can with a smaller format sensor.

This is not strictly true Arthur.
Firstly, you do get more effective magnification with an APSC camera. A 1:1 macro will fill a 36mm frame with a FF camera and fill a 24mm frame with an APSC camera. This would be the same as for bird photography where some people prefer APSC cameras for exactly the same reason.
Secondly, while it is often said that the DOF is solely dependant on magnification in macro, this is not the whole truth. The way the image fades into blur is effected by lens/camera type. Longer lenses and larger formats make the transition to blur more rapid and also change the ratio of forward dof to back dof. This may sound trivial, but if you take macro a lot it starts to become important. If I want maximum dof, particularly behind the focus point, I will use a wide lens. It makes a difference. There is a little about this here http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
Of course, I use a full frame camera in spite of some advantages of the smaller format. 35mm also has some very significant advantages.

[dacar]

All good points. I think the main thing I got from this is it is better to save the extra six hundred or so and get the mk II. I'm using exclusive the 50mm prime at present with a view to get an 80mm 1.8 and a 70-200 f4L when I can, later on I will also look at getting a "cheaper" wider L lens. My focus is on lenses at the moment but the thought came up about also going full frame as I started in film and Zack Arias in particular worded it perfectly for me in that a cropped sensor always feels too tight in some way. I still stand where I normally would with my 50mm on film and then have to step backwards four or so steps to get the shot in frame, I have never gotten used to a crop sensor internally.
Might be cheaper and easier to buy a 35mm lens for the 50D, or something like my 18-200 Nikkor.

[arthurking83]

This is not strictly true Arthur......

Yep, point taken .. circle of confusion and and diffraction all make a difference.
Lens rendering is of course important too, and I agree that they all have subtle differences relative to each other.

It should be pointed out tho, that the advantages of some formats over others(in this instance I'll use the smaller format higher maginfication 'advantage') is only a current advantage, that (theoretically) one day will cease to exist.
While it's possible to have unlimited numbers of pixels on a given sensor area, technology can only be pushed so far .. and probably to a point where it could become unusable.

That is, in your example of birding photographers favouring APSC, while this is true, it's only true because of pixel density on the format.
If manufacturers were to amortize their manufacturing systems and create derivatives of specific sensor types, it could well become the standard that every sensor will one day have the same pixel pitch.

That is, the current 24Mp APS-C sensor could be a derivative of a 56Mp sensor(just scaled down to APS-C for cost purposes).
(note that rumours abounded a short while ago of an impending 54Mp sensor Sony was creating. Of course it hadn't transpired into a product .. yet!)

So, one day when pixel density gets to a point where almost all lenses could become unusable(due to being diffraction limited) .. the advantage of the smaller format becomes null.

So if all sensors large and small had the same pixel pitch, they all have the same COC and diffraction properties(for all intents and purposes).

Currently tho, I agree that an appropriate APS-C camera could give the impression of better magnified detail(eg, a 24Mp APS-C sensor) compared to a 36Mp sensor 135 format sensor.
When the 36Mp 135 format sensor is cropped down to APS-C size, it only renders about 15Mp or so .. so in terms of detail, the 24Mp sensor will give an advantage.

I remember watching a video of a speech given by one of the original creators of the bayer type sensor.
He said that all current phone cameras were diffraction limited. Pixel pitch(or density) was so high, that the lenses needed to be something in the order of f/1.2 or something .. of which most phones have f/2 lens types or something like that. And that speech was made years before the current crop of 15-20Mp phone cams!
I think Pentax recently introduced a new firmware for their cameras with a diffraction correction feature for use on jpgs.
It seems that pixel densities are getting close to a saturation point. They can really only put so many per sq millimeter before it causes more harm than good.

So an eventual advantage of the common easily attainable 135 format camera is .. that it can serve as three different formats if desired.
if my prediction that manufacturers will simply derive sensors from the same technology(ie. 56Mp full frame ->24Mp APSC-> 16Mp m4/3rds) .. then a Full frame camera will have all the benefits of the smaller formats(but also the disadvantages of equal diffraction properties and light gathering ability)
It will have the ability to be cropped to the same level as the smaller formats, but also allow much wider scene renderings all in the one body.
That truly super zoom all in one lens that's been asked for since the dawn of time could become a reality!

That is, you have a 10-100mm f/2.8 zoom lens used as per normal on a 135mm format .. you crop it to APS-C which apparently gives you a 15mm FOV now .. and if you want crop it again to m4/3rds and it gives you a 200mm FOV .. ie. you have a 10-200mm f/2.8 lens.

Why you'd want a 10mm FOV is beyond me tho .. 12mm on full frame is hard enough(but this is what people ask for! :D)

ps. I've always wanted a 50mm macro lens myself. My shortest macro(capable) lens is currently 75mm(I kind'a borked the 50mm I have tho).
One day, I'll have a play with the lenses I do have and see how 'differently' they do render tho in macro.
You got me curious now.