Navywife66 Loc: NC

Hi everyone its been a awhile since I’ve posted! Ok so here is my dilemma. I currently have a Canon 70D and a few lenses for it! I understand that most will not work on a FF. I own a canon 17-55, 85 1.8, 60 macro, 100 macro, 70-200L f.4 and a Tokina 11-16 which is one of my favorites. I also understand that a FF is more expensive. I though am struggling with selling most of it and then buying a used 6d Markii. This is the thing, I do a lot of fine art photography and some sports photography. I just purchased a semi expensive, or to me anyways, variable ND 10 stop filter as I am in love with long exposure work. Is it worth making the jump into this newer FF camera? I’m really liking the features on it being it hits all the boxes including swivel touch screen Bluetooth and WiFi. Will I have the sharper crisper photos that I can have printed and framed? Here are some samples of what I love.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

The full frame is tougher(physically) and has better low light capability (by a tiny bit) and has features like "Sound like a machine gun...."
Perhaps someone can tell you what you'd gain for a lot of money......

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

One undebatable advantage a full frame camera will give you is more wide angle coverage with FX lenses. There may be others, but as technology has advanced, some of them have lessened to some extent. And...most full frame cameras have a mode that will allow you to continue to use your DX lenses until you are able to sell or trade them. You won't be realizing all of the full frame benefits, but you won't be dead in the water, either.

I shoot both formats, although my DX bodies are older. So when I bought my full frame body to do night sky photography, I got improved low light performance (mostly) because it was a lot newer, and I got the ability to frame significantly wider shots.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

Sounds like you don't have any really pressing reasons to go FF. I have a 70D and it does a really good job. I'd wait until you have a whole lot of extra money you don't need for anything else.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You will certainly appreciate moving to an FX format. The photos you posted here are quite good.

FX cameras give you more image with which to work. Less issues with higher ISO settings. Oddly, most of what you mentioned you like in features of your camera aren't photographically oriented features. Nice, but in reality one only needs Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO settings.
--Bob

ELNikkor

I recently went FF and have noticed better low-light performance, the increased weight makes the camera feel more "heavy duty", but doesn't detract at all from my shooting ability. If I was you, I'd go for it, since you want to make images that may be improved or more marketable, the FF may end up paying for itself.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

"One undebatable advantage a full frame camera will give you is more wide angle coverage with FX lenses"
If you put a 15mm lens on a FF and a 10mm lens on a crop-sensor you will get the same wide angle coverage..

Vietnam Vet

I have canon 1d bodies. Full frame and crop. You just can't go wrong with full frame.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

By looking at your photos I'd say you are doing very well with what you have.

Zeitguy Loc: Bloomington Mn

Here is some limited technical info you can mix in to your decision.

The important qualitative difference between ff and crop used to be a matter of the size of the photosites which correspond to single pixels on the sensor. Ff formats gave more room for bigger photosites, given the same resolution, which translates into more absolute information acquired from the scene. Smaller photosites capture fewer photons and that determines the limits on the software ability to interpolate tone gradation, reduce noise without interpolation, distinguish subtleties in hue, and all the good things artists care about.

The answer to your question 8 years ago would be an easy "yes" to the full frame. At that time the pixel count peaked at around 12 million and in the Nikon world, that translated into around 70 square micron photosites in the FX D700 compared to 35 square micron photosites on the crop (dx) D90. Your ff Canon only has about 35 square micron sites, while your 70D struggles along with fewer than 20 square microns!

These numbers still matter in landscape and portrait photography - areas where subtle gradations in values and hues count as much as detail.

By that measure, today's full frame cameras with 24-36 megapixels can't compete for image quality with the 2010-2012 versions, and forget crop sensors with 4 micron photosites packed 24 million into their crowdwd matrices.

This web site will give you an idea of the difference in light-gathering area of the Canon ff vs an older Nikon FX.
https://www.digicamdb.com/compare/canon_eos-6d-mark-ii-vs-nikon_d700/

Unfortunately it is more complicated than absolute size. Especially now the sampling strategies and reconstruction algorithms can sometimes overcome the advantages of absolute size. Some newer cameras oversample photosites 5x and dither the samples fractional widths of the site, which effectively doubles or triples the absolute amount of actual photon information acquired despite the low capacity of the site

Probably there is no substitute for trying a camera for as long as you can borrow or rent it, and see how you like it. What else will matter as much in the long run?

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

As a general rule, photographers spend more money on FF cameras and lenses because FF has advantages, and in most situations produces better results.
Crop has its place, but if you want every advantage to creating the best images possible--where is the dilemma?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Actually, a number of your lenses are FF and will work fine, including the 85 f1.8, 70-200L and the 100 macro. I note that a number of your photos are in a low light/high ISO setting, and this is where the FF will perform noticably better. And if you like the 11-16 Tokina, move to a EF 17-40L or EF 16-35L, and you will have less distortion and a wider range with L class quality at a reasonable cost.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Actually, a number of your lenses are FF and will work fine, including the 85 f1.8, 70-200L and the 100 macro, which are all excellent “glass”. I note that a number of your photos are in a low light/high ISO setting, and this is where the FF will perform noticably better. And if you like the 11-16 Tokina, move to a EF 17-40L or EF 16-35L, and you will have less distortion and a wider range with L class quality at a reasonable cost. There’s a reason most pros shoot FF, and a 6D2 is a good way to up your game.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

For you, I'd suggest the new EOS R FF mirrorless with the adapter for your existing lenses. Start using it and when you can afford it, move to FF lenses.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, FF will be better for you - but I suggest you wait awhile for a used EOS R mirrorless and forget the mirror-flopping 6D. You can use all your lenses with adapter.

..