Justify a full frame

I suppose this has been asked and answered a hundred times, so I suppose this will be #101. I've been using a Canon 40D for 5 yrs, with good lenses, and have taken some winning shots, with detail, color about as good as one could see. Not to brag here, but to ask opinions of just what benefits you have seen with a full frame. Don't know if I really need one, but I kinda hate to live my life never having used one. Thanks

I just switched from a crop sensor to a full frame and the best answer that I can give you is this: A 24mm lens, is truly 24mm on a full frame camera. Now that is great if you are taking pictures on the wide angle end of the spectrum, maybe not so good if you're shooting wildlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trailguy

..and have taken some winning shots, with detail, color about as good as one could see...

---

Congratulations. It sounds like you have been getting the most of out your 40D.

BUT with full-frame - it will be better. There is added clarity and beauty in the picture, the tones are smoother and better defined. It looks sort of relaxed and effortless.

Sometimes the effect is slight but usually you can tell immediately that it's full-frame. I went from a Nikon D300 (about the same age as your 40D) to a D800. I was a little skeptical at first but after 3 months I didn't want to shoot anything but full-frame.

I've been looking/reading about canon 6D and Nikon D600. It seems like the D600 has more to offer. I don't think I need to go to a D800.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franglais

Congratulations. It sounds like you have been getting the most of out your 40D.

BUT with full-frame - it will be better. There is added clarity and beauty in the picture, the tones are smoother and better defined. It looks sort of relaxed and effortless.

Sometimes the effect is slight but usually you can tell immediately that it's full-frame. I went from a Nikon D300 (about the same age as your 40D) to a D800. I was a little skeptical at first but after 3 months I didn't want to shoot anything but full-frame.

---

Trailguy, there are so many of us that continue to struggle with the same question. The only drawback that I can see by going to full frame is the issue of a bit more weight and less reach for wildlife shots. Please follow up with your thoughts if you end up getting the d600.

I think I often sound like the anti-FF guy. That's because I advocate for the practical upgrade, not the "best" or most "glamorous." It's easy enough to rationalize replacing an EOS 40D with a full-frame body. Even an original EOS 5D has better image quality than your 40D. And the latest full-frame cameras are really amazing, with useable ISO all the way up to 6400. On the other hand, An EOS Rebel T4i / 650D will give you better image quality than your 40D, too. And the new Nikon D7100 also has useable ISO 6400. So you don't *need* to buy a full-frame camera to get much better image quality.

The question is - will a full-frame camera really be the best way for you to invest your money? If you've got unlimited funds, by all means, do it. If you are on a budget, then think about what it is you really need. What kinds of subjects do you shoot? What kinds of problems do you run into with your 40D?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trailguy

I've been looking/reading about canon 6D and Nikon D600. It seems like the D600 has more to offer. I don't think I need to go to a D800.

---

If you have good Canon lenses (L type) - then I would stick with Canon. If you have EF-S lenses that don't work with full-frame - then you have a choice..

I chose the D800 because it works the same way as the D300, which then became my stand-in camera for risky things like holidays (in fact I have the D300 with me right now on holiday).

I'm listening to what Photo-John says about the smaller format. A D7100 holiday kit would weigh half a kilo less than a D800 holiday kit, which is quite a lot when you have to carry it around for several weeks (I just had a back problem and I'm starting to pay attention to this stuff).

I'll echo the above post. If your lenses are not going to work with a full-frame, then you'll be buying glass, too, so you're wide open for a move to Nikon if you so desire.

If you don't have the coin for new glass (I know I don't!) then staying with Canon makes sense, and if your lenses are EF-S, then staying crop-factor makes sense. Photo-John is correct in saying a current camera, even crop-factor, is going to be a step up on the 40D.

The thing with full-frame sensors is not only are they better at gathering light, the price of them puts them in generally better cameras, so it's more than likely a 2-stage improvement.

If you shoot long lenses primarily, then realize that the full frame camera is going to cost you some reach. For my racing shots, I'd have my 70-300 around 100 to 150mm most of the time. Put it on a full-frame, I'd be up to 150-200 most of the time. No penalty. Out in the woods, though, shooting at 300mm, I'd not be able to get that shot with a full-frame, since I don't have any 400mm+ glass on hand.

If I might add a couple of things. If you go full frame realize that if you want to shoot wildlife the zooms are very expensive. I basically bought a OMD E-M5 and a 75-300mm (150-600mm equivalent) just for wild life and it probably cost less than full frame zoom lens with enough reach.
Cropped sensor cameras certainly have good enough image quality but one thing I don't see mentioned much is the added dynamic range on a full frame. It is way easier to shoot a landscape in difficult light and more detail in the shadows and highlights can be recovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trailguy

I suppose this has been asked and answered a hundred times, so I suppose this will be #101. I've been using a Canon 40D for 5 yrs, with good lenses, and have taken some winning shots, with detail, color about as good as one could see. Not to brag here, but to ask opinions of just what benefits you have seen with a full frame. Don't know if I really need one, but I kinda hate to live my life never having used one. Thanks

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

If I might add a couple of things. If you go full frame realize that if you want to shoot wildlife the zooms are very expensive. I basically bought a OMD E-M5 and a 75-300mm (150-600mm equivalent) just for wild life and it probably cost less than full frame zoom lens with enough reach.
Cropped sensor cameras certainly have good enough image quality but one thing I don't see mentioned much is the added dynamic range on a full frame. It is way easier to shoot a landscape in difficult light and more detail in the shadows and highlights can be recovered.

---

Hi Greg:

+1

I agree with all points made..

:)

Ed

If you have to justify it to yourself, you don't need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gryphonslair99

If you have to justify it to yourself, you don't need it.

---

Well unless one makes money with a camera it's a luxury and most everyone would have to justify one. I think a better thought would be what do I want to do and which suits my needs for the task. Street and candid, sports, wildlife, ect and how much money will my budget allow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

Well unless one makes money with a camera it's a luxury and most everyone would have to justify one. I think a better thought would be what do I want to do and which suits my needs for the task. Street and candid, sports, wildlife, ect and how much money will my budget allow?

---

Well put Greg.

Well I do lots of things for my friends (weddings, fashion shoots, events, books..) and I still want to give them the best I can.

But as they are friends - and the tax rules in France are rather complex - I never make any money out of my photos.

I don't feel full frame is a luxury. It's the standard around here. I don't feel I'm taking trade from hard-pressed professionals. I do invest in companies drilling for clean drinking water in India. My conscience is clean.

I was recently listening on the radio, and heard an old Jerry Clower skit I'd not heard in a lot of years.

"Just recently I had the privilege of doing a show at Samford University in Birmingham.
Some of the young people there said, 'Mr. Clower what's right and wrong.'
Well you ask a pretty good question.

Tell us, we're young people, tell us what's right and wrong.

So I worked me up a rule of thumb I'd like to recommend to my own children, and to young people.

If youre fixin' to make a decision about what's right and what's wrong in your life, do you ask other people's opinion about it? That's a pretty good indication your fixin' to mess up. I was getting ready for a date one night when I was a little ole boy. And I walked into the side room and I said mommy is my shirt dirty. She said, 'son if your in doubt it's dirty, pull it off and getcha another. So if your fixin' to do something, and you want to know if it's right or not, number one: do you ask other people's opinion about it.

Number two: do you argue with yourself. Man I have spent a million mile on the highway arguing with Jerry about I oughta do a certain thing and I knew in my heart, I was lying. So if your arguin' with yourself, pretty good indication you should not do it.

Number three: do you feel uneasy when you do it. Had ya just as soon for somebody not see you doin' what it is you'd done decided is alright for you to do.

And Number four: Can you give thanks and say 'Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me.' Alright you'd done make up your mind your gonna do it. The Bible says, give thanks for all things. So when you do it, can ya say 'Lord, thank ya for providing this for me. And I some kinda thank ya, for fixin' it where I can commit to what it is I'm doin.'

What is right or wrong?, Do you ask other people?, Do you aruge with yourself?, Do you feel uneasy when you do it?, Can ya give thanks and say 'Lord, I thank ya for providing this for me'?. If you can't, you better watch out, cuz You're fixin' to mess up."

<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I do want a full frame, and have enough in a photo savings acct to get a camera and good lens. Having read the arguments and reviews, it sounds like the D600 can make better quality pictures. However, would going from a 40D to a Canon 6D, show such an improvement that I wouldn't miss anything offered by the D600?
I take mostly landscapes, sports, and outdoor flowers.

Thanks

To properly answer your question you need someone who has actually shot for a period of time with the 40D, the 6D and the D600. I don't think there is anyone around here who has actually done that.

So it's back to guesswork based on reviews and our guess is probably as good as yours...

From what I can make out the image quality on the on the 6D is about the same as that of the 5D Mk3 and everybody seems delighted with it. A couple of weeks ago I met a professional tourist magazine photographer who had both round his neck and he was delighted with the 6D - because of the built-in GPS.

I think that the D600 has more dynamic range and more focus points than the 6D which are useful for your subjects but if I had a heavy investment in Canon that wouldn't be enough to make me jump ship.

BTW since we started this conversation the Canon 70D has been released, which is the equivalent of the Nikon D7100. And I've seen a number of people say that it's very difficult to tell the difference between an image on a D7100 (half frame) and a D600 (full frame). Might be worth waiting for a little longer for the 70D reviews