Gtalley Loc: Stafford, VA

I currently use a crop 40d Canon and was thinking should I upgrade to a newer crop or go full frame? Trying to create a pros cons list to both. I do this for fun not profit. Thoughts?

Greg

Hunter Lou 1947 Loc: Minnesota

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

What do you like to photograph and do you have a budget?

DocJohn Loc: Asheboro, NC

Hi Greg – I do this for fun as well. When I moved up from a T1i, I went with another crop sensor, the 70D. I love this camera. My decision to stay with a crop frame rather than go to a 5D Mark III was cost. I invested in Canon L lenses rather than in the camera body. The major factors favoring the full frame camera over the 70D are more rugged professional construction, better weatherproofing, the ability to make very large prints, and the ability to do more extreme cropping. I am 72 years old and don’t need the outdoor weatherproofing as I once did and I am not usually printing large images. The 70D is fine up to 16x20 and can go larger if there isn’t much cropping involved. It really all depends on your budget for the body versus the lenses and what kind of photography you are doing - John

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

the big boys make quality models in both formats. are you a pro?? do you make big prints??? most of us will do well with a crop sensor. only you can decide if you need to go the extra mile.

RRRoger Loc: Monterey Bay, California

Look at your lens collection.
If it is junk, it will not matter much.
If you are buying wider, then go with FullFrame
If you are buying longer, then go with Crop Sensor

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

It's not so much as which you can afford. For the most part the full frame bodies are pro level cameras, and the crop sensor cameras are not. (all though the 7dmk11 and the soon to be realeased d7200, can be regarded as pro level) My 2 cents, others will certainly disagree. My first sentence should have read- It's not so much as which is better but which you can afford. I should proof read my reply BEFORE posting not after.

Gtalley Loc: Stafford, VA

I shoot pictures of family and pets. Also at sporting events (although the Redskins have not been worth taking pictures of the last several years). I like to take pictures of wild life as well. I use a 70-200 F2.8 L IS II most of the time and waiting for the 24 - 70 IS to come out. Thanks

Budget for a new body is $2500 top end but if the full frame was that much better a decision I would up that a bit.

Also I would like to get into having some big prints made of good shots.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I'm not sure I can give you a good answer but here goes.

I'm an old film buff, 35mm. I shot film for over thirty years. When I went digital to my first crop sensor I was really frustrated. Every time I reached for a lens I had to do arithmetic to understand what it would do. Getting wide angle views was also frustrating forcing me into panoramas. But I did love the reach, telephotos suddenly ended up a lot longer. Later I also learned that the size of your pixels is a contributing factor to image Quality.

Ultimately I went full frame just as soon as Nikon offered it in a D3. I've been a lot happier since. My images are a much higher quality now and when I look at the focal length of a lens I actually know intuitively what it can do. I did lose that lovely reach but I made up for it with a longer telephoto so I didn't really lose anything other than a lot of cash. And who knows, that might have been good too, the wallet was kind of fat at the time keeping me a bit off balance. Now it's so slim I hardly know it's there.

The debate in the past was always the same when it came to size. When 35 mm came out the cry was that it would never produce quality and yet it did eventually. At the same time when APS-C came around there was the same complaint. That format didn't survive long enough to eventually catch up to 35 mm but it was on its way.

Curiously, in the midst of all that debate medium format continued to exist and get used as did the modern day view cameras. They didn't go away because those two formats provided even more amazing quality.

I think it's the same today. There's still medium format now in digital and it's still being used despite horrific cost to buy into it.

It's what you're used to I think and how much quality you demand to be happy. I'm happy with full frame just as I was with 35 mm. So I stopped there but I have to admit that sometimes medium format is still appealing.

On the positive side, Nikon's D800 (now D810) with 36 megapixels, approximates that format admirably as I've come to discover this past two years but I bet a medium format sensor of the same resolution would still produce a higher quality image.

If you don't have a 35 mm legacy APS-C could well make you happy. I do have one such camera yet, the old D200 and it does create amazing images despite its size and today both Canon and Nikon have high end APS-C cameras that compete reasonably well against full frame.

But now if you want the ultimate in quality, skip full frame and go to medium format instead. Just be prepared to mortgage your house and buy a truck to carry the gear to your shoot.

I think 35 mm remains the compromise for most of us in terms of capital costs and quality just as it did in the film days. Anything less is a toy and anything more is just too expensive to justify unless you're earning money with that format.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

If you are a long time film SLR shooter, going to FX will feel like going home to familiar country. Suddenly a 35mm lens will give a 35mm angle of view and things will look familiar. And you will become less dependent on zoom lenses to get control of the angle of view of your shots. Once again you will be able to look at a scene and just know what prime lens to use. If you started photography with digital DX or smaller, the operative factors will be image quality and cost. In my experience FX produces better IQ, but that may be my opinion because I went from D200 to D700; from an OK DX camera to arguably the best IQ from any digital FX camera. The cost factor will depend partly on what lenses you have now. If you are into photography for fun not profit, and you have budget limitations I would advise against going to medium format due to the horrendous cost. In the days of film you could venture into medium format fairly cheaply compared to today's digital MF cameras. AC330 cost less than an F1.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Ok You have top quality glass, you might as well go FF and nget the 5dmk111. You can get larger prints and better low light peformance.

Gtalley Loc: Stafford, VA

Thanks to all. I really appreciate the input.

Greg

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Greg,

Man, can we get into a discussion on this if we try! Both cameras have their place, and some just prefer one type of camera over the other.

As a general rule crop sensor cameras are used for wildlife or sports. Full frame cameras are used for portrait or landscape. Once again this is just general! I have seen some beautiful photos of wildlife including BIF taken with full frame cameras if the right lenses are on the camera! Depending on the distances I am shooting I often use a full frame now for BIF and wildlife with good results. Another advantage to full frame is they are often weather sealed much better, and are considered a professional grade camera. Then along came the 7D2!

Jim D

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Lots of people swear by full frame cameras and technically I'm sure the sensors are better. But I believe you can do just as much, as a hobbyist, with a crop sensor. No the technical quality isn't quite as good but are you selling to magazines or building posters? If not, to me, the investment simply isn't worth it for a hobbyist.

Good luck

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I did this comparison some time ago:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-198407-1.html

Scroll down to the overlay and you will see the physical difference between the 2 formats. Full frame, in general, has better low light/high ISO performance then cropped, if that a factor in your decision. Color rendition is claimed to be better with FF, but if you look at the 2 photos I posted and can spot any difference then your eyes are better then mine. I prefer FF for landscapes, portraits and typical "tourist" shots, but for sports and wildlife, well, all I can say is that I will probably be ordering a 7DII pretty soon to complement my 6D.