I have a Canon 70D ... I use mostly the new 100-400 lens with a Kenko 1.4 .
I shoot everything, but mostly birds, dragonflies, flowers, butterflies, & close ups and some landscapes. I'm wondering if I should upgrade to a full frame camera...why should or shouldn't i . And what would be a great improvement with best bang for my buck. I take fantastic images with my setup, but spend ALL my time in Lightroom!!! I shoot all RAW.
Recommendations and why, please.
Posted by Keith Bauer on December 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM
Lucy:
Based on your description of photographic interests: birds, dragonflies, flowers, butterflies, etc. (and some landscapes), I don't see a full frame camera helping you. Your 70D is a 1.6x crop sensor. Your effective field of view is 1.6x times that of a full frame with the same lens on the camera. For birds, etc. where it is hard to get close, a crop sensor provides benefit. For landscapes, a full frame is probably a better choice. You say you spend ALL your time in LightRoom. Switching to a full frame camera is not going to have any affect on the time in LightRoom. Sounds like you are spending a lot of time in the Develop module working your images?? Is that correct? A full frame isn't going to change that. The only thing that will reduce the time in LightRoom is capturing the absolute best image possible in the camera, then do minor adjustments in LightRoom.
Posted by John Reed on December 3, 2016 at 8:32 PM
Unless you want to spend $6000 for the 1Dx Mark II, stay with what you have or perhaps upgrade to 80D. As Keith said, going to full frame in and of itself will not grant you huge improvements UNLESS you part with the big bucks. I finally did and must say the 1Dx Mark II is beyond awesome for my wildlife and bird shooting. Look on my FB page. That said, most folks aren't blessed with that kind of disposable income. (I'm not either but I just turned 68 so screw it. I'm spending the money). If you want to upgrade from the 70D the 7D is also an awesome beast. It put my 1D Mark IV on the shelf and it's still crop factor. I do not own an 80D but from what I've read, it does have many enhancements that may make it worth your while to consider it.
Long ramble, short answer - unless you have $6000, stay with what you have.
JR
Posted by Keith Bauer on December 3, 2016 at 9:10 PM
Wanted to add that there are other much more affordable choices in full frame other than the 1DX Mark II. The 5D Mark IV is an excellent choice. Unless you need 14 frames per second, the 5D IV has one and a half times the resolution of the 1DX Mark II. The 6D is another full frame option for a lot less.
I still don't think a full frame is going to answer your needs based on the words you provided in your question.
Posted by Larry Leach on December 4, 2016 at 4:38 PM
I own a Rebel Xti, 40D, 50D, 80D, 6D, and 1DX Mark II. I took the full frame plunge with the 6D (which, sigh, was right after I bought the 80D). I was so amazed at the jump in quality that I bought the 1DX Mark II. I do bird photography and landscapes. The wider field for landscapes (6D) is fantastic. But the main reason I became sold on full frame (I used to convince myself I was 'getting something extra' with the crop factor) was the amazing quality - and especially at higher ISO. For birds, you usually want the fastest shutter speed you can get (especially with 1.4x or 2.0x adapters, where you are loosing additional stops of light). With the 40/50/80 D cameras, even an ISO of 800 starts having noticeable noise - and I generally consider 400 as the max ISO for high quality (and I use all L-glass). With the 6D - that's not true at all! I've taken photos with ISO in the thousands that basically have no noise at all. The 80D has lots of gimmicky features that casual users would enjoy (and to be fair, some nice features too). The 6D is only slightly more expensive than the 80D but the $$ go into image quality, not gimmicks. If you keep your 70D, then getting the 80D is a relatively small incremental change. Getting the 6D is a glimpse of a new world. However ... this is of course all based on my preferences. If possible, I'd suggest renting a body for a weekend of shooting.
+1 for Larry's opinions. I am not a Canon guy and I know nothing about Canon models, but I am of the opinion that the following applies to any brand:
- Invest in image quality, not in bells and whistles that have nothing to do with photography. Let the iPhone/selfie crowd pay for those.
- The difference in image quality, in terms of resolution, noise and, crucially, dynamic range, between full frame and APS-C sensors is huge and far outweighs any potential advantages from the crop factor,
- The reason, as Scotty would have said, is that you can't bend the laws of physics. Noise is a function of pixel temperature. Signal is a function of number of photons hitting the pixel. There are certainly second order factors derived from material properties, design , etc., but, to first order: bigger pixels = better signal to noise ratio.
I hope this helps.
Posted by John Reed on December 8, 2016 at 7:32 AM
Regarding 5D Mark IV, I just got that also to replace the 5D Mark III and while it is an awesome body also, the extra megapixels do NOT in and of themselves produce higher quality images. It is still a step up from crop factor body as far as POTENTIAL to deliver a higher quality image but the 7D Mark II and I'll wager the 80D can and will deliver also when skillfully used. While it's a fact that larger pixels have better noise,S/N ratio, etc performance, I do not agree that the difference is HUGE. If it's huge, it's more likely the photographer than the camera and I don't just mean skill level. I mean also trying to make images in situations beyond the capability of the camera.
The biggest upgrade of any of the cameras mentioned (1Dx2, 5D4, 7D2, 80D) is in the focusing system. All are outstanding and that is huge for subjects such as birds or similar. I have never upgraded simply for megapixels. My experience has been that once you get to around 18 megapixels, that's plenty. Again, it's all in the hands of the user. I have sold hundreds of images in the 20x30 to 24x48 size range, and even larger taken with all manner of crop factor bodies over the years.
Go to dpphotoreview.com and read their reviews for additional information.
Posted by Dennis Plank on December 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM
Hi Lucy. Glenn Bartley, who used to post here, had a note in his latest newsletter comparing the 7D mark II with the 5D mark IV for bird photography in the tropics. His conclusion after processing the images and cropping them to the same size was that there was little or no discernable difference in final image quality. He decided the 5D didn't make sense for his uses. I'm not sure if he has the article on his website or not. http://www.glennbartley.com
Posted by Nate Chappell on December 10, 2016 at 10:37 PM
Hi Lucy, I would generally agree with Larry Leach's take on the full frame versus cropped sensor camera although I use a 1DX II and a 5D3 rather than a 6D.. I also have a 7D2 and 7D. The image quality of the full frame cameras both in my opinion and how they are rated in terms of iso performance, dynamic range etc by camera testing systems are far superior with the full frame cameras. But you do lose a lot of length that can be valuable for bird photography. I haven't used it but the 5D4 rates out as the highest quality Canon camera on http://www.dxomark.com. It's overall score for image quality is 91, versus the 7D II scoring a 70. With 30 megapixels for the 5D4 as opposed to 20 for the 7D2 to some extent that makes up for the lost focal length of not having a crop factor. So if I were going to buy another camera that would be the one I would look at currently in terms of value considering it costs about $3,500.
It's largely personal preference but I greatly prefer the image quality of the full frame cameras and would generally prefer to have to crop more and use a full frame camera than use a cropped sensor camera. In good sunlight the cropped sensor cameras are fine or if you are using a fair bit of flash to keep your iso down. But if you want to shoot at medium or high iso's to either get more speed or because you are shooting in low light, the full frame cameras greatly outperform the cropped sensor cameras. I personally don't like the image quality of the 7D II very much at iso 800 or higher.
Thanks for posting your question, Lucy! You guys have pretty much convinced me to go with a full frame box. While my Nikon D7100 has done a pretty good job, I can sure see the advantages of the larger sensor. Now, all I have to do is win the lotto to afford a D-810 and some new glass!
--P
Discussion
9 repliesI shoot everything, but mostly birds, dragonflies, flowers, butterflies, & close ups and some landscapes. I'm wondering if I should upgrade to a full frame camera...why should or shouldn't i . And what would be a great improvement with best bang for my buck. I take fantastic images with my setup, but spend ALL my time in Lightroom!!! I shoot all RAW.
Recommendations and why, please.
Based on your description of photographic interests: birds, dragonflies, flowers, butterflies, etc. (and some landscapes), I don't see a full frame camera helping you. Your 70D is a 1.6x crop sensor. Your effective field of view is 1.6x times that of a full frame with the same lens on the camera. For birds, etc. where it is hard to get close, a crop sensor provides benefit. For landscapes, a full frame is probably a better choice. You say you spend ALL your time in LightRoom. Switching to a full frame camera is not going to have any affect on the time in LightRoom. Sounds like you are spending a lot of time in the Develop module working your images?? Is that correct? A full frame isn't going to change that. The only thing that will reduce the time in LightRoom is capturing the absolute best image possible in the camera, then do minor adjustments in LightRoom.
Long ramble, short answer - unless you have $6000, stay with what you have.
JR
I still don't think a full frame is going to answer your needs based on the words you provided in your question.
- Invest in image quality, not in bells and whistles that have nothing to do with photography. Let the iPhone/selfie crowd pay for those.
- The difference in image quality, in terms of resolution, noise and, crucially, dynamic range, between full frame and APS-C sensors is huge and far outweighs any potential advantages from the crop factor,
- The reason, as Scotty would have said, is that you can't bend the laws of physics. Noise is a function of pixel temperature. Signal is a function of number of photons hitting the pixel. There are certainly second order factors derived from material properties, design , etc., but, to first order: bigger pixels = better signal to noise ratio.
I hope this helps.
The biggest upgrade of any of the cameras mentioned (1Dx2, 5D4, 7D2, 80D) is in the focusing system. All are outstanding and that is huge for subjects such as birds or similar. I have never upgraded simply for megapixels. My experience has been that once you get to around 18 megapixels, that's plenty. Again, it's all in the hands of the user. I have sold hundreds of images in the 20x30 to 24x48 size range, and even larger taken with all manner of crop factor bodies over the years.
Go to dpphotoreview.com and read their reviews for additional information.
It's largely personal preference but I greatly prefer the image quality of the full frame cameras and would generally prefer to have to crop more and use a full frame camera than use a cropped sensor camera. In good sunlight the cropped sensor cameras are fine or if you are using a fair bit of flash to keep your iso down. But if you want to shoot at medium or high iso's to either get more speed or because you are shooting in low light, the full frame cameras greatly outperform the cropped sensor cameras. I personally don't like the image quality of the 7D II very much at iso 800 or higher.
--P