Full frame or not?

Cornflake

This will sort of echo TheKGAdventure's thread. I use a Canon 80D. Terrific camera. I've never had a full-frame camera but at times I've wondered what I'm missing. I was reading about the 6D Mark II and it sounds like an 80D with a full-frame sensor. Does anyone have a view as to whether the difference between the two would prompt you to spend $1300?

kdog

Hi Don,

I do have an 80D, a 7DMKII plus several full-frame bodies and I use them all. The only advantage I can see for a crop body is the crop magnification factor. But that's actually a big deal for wildlife, events and any other long-lens situation. For example I shoot Bar Mitzvahs from the back of the sanctuary with a full-frame body and a 100-400 zoom on a tripod. But I also have an 80D plus a 70-200 f/2.8 at my side that I'll grab for alternative angle shots. That combo gives you 320mm @f/2.8 which is just so incredibly useful for that purpose.

The full-frame is better for shallow depth of field shots and better high ISO performance. So for low-light landscapes, starscapes, indoor event lighting, etc, you will get cleaner shots. Shallow DOF is useful in artistic portraits. Otherwise in good light I claim you won't see a difference between the 80D and the 6DMKII.

So for me, I need both. If you must choose only one, then knowing your love for landscapes, I'd picture you as more of a full-frame guy.

Joel

Cornflake

Thanks, Joel. That's quite helpful.

pathfinder

I just spent 12 days in Newfoundland with an 80D and a 5D MK IV. - I like both cameras a great deal. As kdog, says the crop factor of the 80D can be quite helpful. I also REALLY like its tiltable rotatable LCD display, which makes it very easy for an older fellow too shoot at absolute ground level - a tough trick with a viewfinder these days, at least for me. I think the AF in the 80D is pretty good, but not quite up to that of the 7 D MK II or the 5D Mk4 - a bit slower to grab focus and offers fewer choices of groups of AF points relative to the 7D MK II or the 5D Mk IV. - this difference is really probably only significant for shooting birds in flight, I had no issues with wildlife shooting.

I spent some time shooting birds in flight with the 5D MK IV and found its high frame rate to be a bit slow for BIFS, and the buffer fills quickly with the full size RAW files it offers. Once I switched the images capture size to Medium Raw files much of my buffer waits disappeared, and the images are still large enough to edit very nicely.. I did not experience buffer waits with the 80D shooting in HFR with Large RAW files, but maybe I didn't try hard enough either since I didn't use the 80D for BIFS.

The 24Mpxl image size of the 80D files is very nice, and I found I could shoot even at ISO 6400 with it and capture creditable images - not noise free images, but very nice ones just the same.

My images from Newfoundland can be found here - https://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Travel/St-Johns-Newfoundland-Muench-WS-June-2019/

I shot foxes on two different days - one day in bright afternoon sunlight with a 5D Mk IV, and one day near sunset in the fog, with the the 80D with the same exact EOS 100-400 v2 lens for both settings. I chose the 80D body the second day for its greater reach with the crop factor. A number of those 80D shots are at ISOs equal to, or greater than 3200. I never expected to shoot at ISO 6400 with crop bodies. My images on Smugmug have been edited, and noise quenched in Lightroom, but no other noise editing was done. You can see the exif data on my smugmug page for each image.

I have a brief thread on the Wildlife forum here on dgrin, with some of the fox images, as well. -- https://dgrin.com/discussion/265268/a-few-foxes-and-gannets-from-newfoundland-june-2019#latest

I think I am in the same camp as kdog, I use and like both bodies - I like the smaller, lighter 80D for lots of walk around snap shooting, and in good light, I suspect, at modest image sizes it is hard to tell which body shot which image. I would NOT choose a crop body for star shots, Milky Way Images, images destined for extreme enlargement, or needing more shallow DOF.

An 80D wearing a Tamron 16-300mm f3.5-6.3. DI II VC PZD lens has been a walk around favorite of mine for several years - not the best or sharpest for all tasks, but very light, and competent when used well and edited in LR with the lens profiles -> no chromatic aberration 😊. I carry this combination with me almost all of the time. Jay Maisel says always have a camera with you, and I try to remember to do that. Now, I own and use both a 1DX Mk II and a 5D MK IV for many tasks, but carrying either with me all the time is unlikely to happen.

A good craftsman needs to choose his tools for the task he/she is about to perform. Which tool is best for a task, can only be decided after defining what the task requires. One requirement is how much weight does one wish to carry.

Cornflake

Pathfinder, I very much enjoyed looking at your Newfoundland images. Thanks also for your thoughts on this question. I've pretty much concluded that the advantages of a full-frame camera would be pretty marginal for me.

ziggy53

For seascapes, landscapes, scenics and vistas, I suggest that in the Canon ecosystem of FF bodies the EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS R mirrorless are the cameras to target for single-frame images. The reason is that when you shoot in bright conditions and expose-to-the-right, as is generally recommended, those 2 bodies have a much improved base ISO 100 in terms of dynamic range, versus the 6D Mark II. This yields better shadow detail and more recoverable shadows in post-production.

From the DXOMark Sensor Database, and adjusted for printing characteristics (as opposed to pixel measurements), Measurements, Dynamic Range tabs:

https://dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-R___1106_1170_1262

Cornflake

Interesting, ziggy. Thanks.

double_entendre

I'm shooting a crop sensor right now (D7000), but will eventually migrate to a full frame sensor, but with significantly higher megapixels. If I'm doing my math right, even going to a full frame 850, the quality of the final image--even cropped--has more pixel density than my D7000.

Which shouldn't be much of a surprise. It's a decade or more newer.

Brett1000

@double_entendre said:
I'm shooting a crop sensor right now (D7000), but will eventually migrate to a full frame sensor, but with significantly higher megapixels. If I'm doing my math right, even going to a full frame 850, the quality of the final image--even cropped--has more pixel density than my D7000.

Which shouldn't be much of a surprise. It's a decade or more newer.

yes, but the camera industry is quickly transitioning to mirrorless and mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses
that DSLR may be in a museum !

double_entendre

@Brett1000 said:
yes, but the camera industry is quickly transitioning to mirrorless and mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses
that DSLR may be in a museum !

True, true. And I may go that direction instead. BH Photo has refurbished ones at a fair price and I can get the DTZ adapter for $200-$250.

I've heard mixed reviews about the DTZ adapter and focus speed. Most of my shooting of late has been with the 200-500 and I can sell that for about what I paid for it and the same lens in a Z mount is only a few hundred more.

Dammit. Now I'm thinking.

Brett1000

@double_entendre said:

@Brett1000 said:
yes, but the camera industry is quickly transitioning to mirrorless and mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses
that DSLR may be in a museum !

True, true. And I may go that direction instead. BH Photo has refurbished ones at a fair price and I can get the DTZ adapter for $200-$250.

I've heard mixed reviews about the DTZ adapter and focus speed. Most of my shooting of late has been with the 200-500 and I can sell that for about what I paid for it and the same lens in a Z mount is only a few hundred more.

Dammit. Now I'm thinking.

I don't know what a "DTZ" adapter is but for some mirrorless cameras the adapter for DSLR lens is just a metal ring with contacts - only $25 on ebay
flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

double_entendre

@Brett1000 said:

@double_entendre said:

@Brett1000 said:
yes, but the camera industry is quickly transitioning to mirrorless and mirrorless cameras can easily use DSLR lenses
that DSLR may be in a museum !

True, true. And I may go that direction instead. BH Photo has refurbished ones at a fair price and I can get the DTZ adapter for $200-$250.

I've heard mixed reviews about the DTZ adapter and focus speed. Most of my shooting of late has been with the 200-500 and I can sell that for about what I paid for it and the same lens in a Z mount is only a few hundred more.

Dammit. Now I'm thinking.

I don't know what a "DTZ" adapter is but for some mirrorless cameras the adapter for DSLR lens is just a metal ring with contacts - only $25 on ebay
flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Ah rot. It's me being fat fingered is what it is.

FTZ. F-mount to Z-mount.

Linky.

e6filmuser

Nothing to do with canon, just on FF vs crop.

I use m4/3 for most of my photography, mainly macro. From time to time I use a variety of manual legacy lenses.

I used to use a lot of wide angle and ultra wideangle ( down to 17mm) lenses on 35mm film bodies. I can now use those, and others (e.g Nikor AI legacy or Laowa down to 10mm) on my A7r body.

All thing being equal, and I shoot only RAW images, the m4/3 files take up half the computer space of FF. So it's almost a binary sytem, WA for FF and the rest on m4/3.

Harold

RalphMoon

I'm new to Dgrin, which has made me late to the "Full frame or not?" discussion, but I'd like to add my two cents. For me it comes down to cost. I mostly shoot with a Canon 7d Mark II, and if I were to exchange it for full frame Canon, I'd lose the use of three EF-S lenses, including my workhorse 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS (27-88 mm full frame equivalent). Replacements would add a lot to the cost of the upgrade. So despite drooling over big prints made from a buddy's full frame Nikon, as a hobbyist who almost never prints larger than 13 x 19 inches, I can't yet justify the expense.

Ralph
Smugmug site: https://ralphmoon.com

ziggy53

Hey Ralph, I agree that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a great lens, and the lens formula is strikingly similar to other Canon "L", standard zooms for FF. Great contrast and color, fast and accurate AF, it's just a consistently enabling optic.

You might also consider adding a Canon EOS 90D to host that lens, for landscapes (especially vista landscapes) and citiscapes, it might give you a bit more detail and/or crop options, when you don't need the faster AF of the 7D Mark II.

RalphMoon

Ziggy,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at the 90D. I enjoy using the 7D, but I'll admit I don't really make good use of some of its pluses, like burst speed and fast AF. Happy Holidays to you and yours,

--Ralph

willard3

I select cameras and bodies for their weight as I travel a lot.
When the EOS R (full frame) came out, I thought this would be a winner, but it weighs a lot, same with the 6D
I stick to the EOS M6 because the body weighs about 1/2 lb and less than 1/2 the weight of the R or 6D.
With native EOS M lenses, the total weight is way less than either of the full frame cameras that do similar things.

I find that if a camera is too heavy, I leave it home
The EOS M6 II is my next equipment purchase; still very light but with good features that fit my style.

pathfinder

The EOS M6 Mk II is very small and light - I like mine also. I think it has the same sensor as the 90D, a new 32.5 Mpxl APS-C sensor. I was stunned to realize it cn actually be shot at ISO 6400 with credible results - whoever would have thought that ISO 6400 with an APS-C sensor was here?

IT is available as a body only for $849 bucks ( now ) and shoots 14 fps. What's not to like if you're a Canon shooter who already owns Canon glass.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m6-ii-review/8

Justiceiro

So I jumped the Canon (and thus full frame) ship about three months and have been using a Fuji X-T3 since then. I spent about 11 years shooting a full frame DSLR prior to that (my 5D mkii), having switched up from the 20D.

Here are my thoughts having gone back "down" to APS-C.

A few caveats. I don't really shoot wildlife, I'm mostly a street/doc-ish style travel photography and landscape shooter. Super narrow depth of fields are not that important to me, although I do on occasion shoot portraits of my friends and family and I like a relatively shallow DOF to isolate the subject now and again.

I think that there are two main disadvantages of APS-C .

1- for the same number of megapixels, a larger sensor dissipates heat more efficiently, and thus should have less problems with noise. Is this critical? I don't know. I grew up shooting film, so I still think of ISO 800 as recklessly fast. My Fuji does great at 3200. I don't usually shoot above 1600, and I upgraded to the XT3 from a Canon 5d mkii, so I'm swooning over the Fuji low light performance. I'm probably not the one to ask on this.

2- the DOF is a bit less shallow at the same focal length. This is true, and definitely something people don't like to talk about when advocating for APS-C. But the effect is slight, and changing your distance to the subject makes it fixable. I get nicely isolated subjects with good DOF (and decent Bokeh) from the Fuji's kit lens, when I take the trouble.

The crop factor isn't an issue for me, at least not with Fuji, because their line of APS-C lenses (all that they make) hit the same focal lengths, more or less, that my canon lenses did.

The advantages are 2 as well.

1-Weight. the 18-55 is waaaay smaller, on a smaller body, than my 24-70 was on my 5d mkii. Granted, it isn't f2.8, but I ordered the 16-55 f2.8 and I think it's smaller and lighter as well. the XF 50-200 is definitely smaller than my EF 70-200 was, and resolves really, really well.

2-cost. Holy cow here's the big difference, and ultimately what led me to switch to Fuji. I figure my holy trinity of lenses is a 24-70, 70-200, and 100-400. I had those in EF. I'd need $4800 to buy just the RF 24-70 2.8 and the RF 70-200. I'm guessing the RF 100-500 will be at least $3000, but even if it's the same as the 70-200 that's still $7500. you can buy the XF 16-55, XF 50-140, and the XF 100-400 for $4800- All Red Badge (the equivalent of "L" in he Canonosphere). That's the price of just 2 of those RF lenses, and the total focal length spread you get with the XF Line is 24mm-600mm. That's not too shabby.

At the end of the day, I don't really miss the full frame. There are plenty of things about Fuji that annoy me, but sensor size ain't one.

willard3

@pathfinder said:
The EOS M6 Mk II is very small and light - I like mine also. I think it has the same sensor as the 90D, a new 32.5 Mpxl APS-C sensor. I was stunned to realize it can actually be shot at ISO 6400 with credible results - whoever would have thought that ISO 6400 with an APS-C sensor was here?

Both the M6 and M6 mark 2 will do a credible job at iso 6400

pathfinder

Good to know.