Looking into full frame

[Noka]

Good Evening Everyone

I'm new to the Canon world and very excited to be apart of the Canon community.

I started out with a Nikon D90 and decided to upgrade to a full-frame camera.

I hope I don't come across as an obnoxious newbie, but I figured the best place to get answers was straight from the source!

I'm looking into purchasing a new camera, however I keep going back and fourth on save up and purchase the DM4 or save some money and purchase DM3 and put the extra coin towards glass, or should I consider another body?

I know I have a wide array of photo interest cause I really haven't locked down what I like to focus on.

I do know I not interested in
1. Portraits
2. Sports
3. Weddings

My photo interest include,

1. Travel my wife and I travel allot (the occasional street life, historical architecture and landscape)

2. Landscape/and possibly astro-photography

Any guidance on this dunce would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all.

Noka!

[RobertTheFat]

---

Noka wrote:
Ebiggs

I assume you saying to take a longer look at crop before going ff.

I guess my thought about jumping to ff was the lens selection would be better.

If you suggesting crop what you roccomend. I believe right now I'm seriously considering the 6D2, mostly due to price ( I can get a lense and the body for the price I the 5D) and it's newer.

What ya thoughts

---

I'm not Ernie. But I'm just as opinionated as he is, so I'll answer anyway.

Full-frame lens selection is better, in this sense: While EF (full-frame) lenses will work on a crop camera, their focal lengths tend to be more appropriate for full-frame.

Also, Canon's full-frame cameras are better in low light than their crop cameras are. This may be true of all manufacturers, but it's certainly true of Canon.

I'm a 5D3 owner, so I probably tend to be biased in favor of the 5D line. But in deciding between a 5D3 and a 6D2, the fact that the 6D2 is newer could be a consideration. Canon doesn't support their products, even their expensive ones, forever. This means that buying a camera nearer the beginning of its product life is arguably advantageous. The 6D2 is fairly new, while the 5D3 has been supplanted by the 5D4 for a year or two already.

[ebiggs1]

"While EF (full-frame) lenses will work on a crop camera, their focal lengths tend to be more appropriate for full-frame."

This is a problem that is web manufactured.  If a person thinks of AOV (angle of view) in favor of focal length, this is a moot point.  The sole point where it can be a factor is the WA side.  But that is not difficult to overcome anymore.  

If you consider the advantage on the tele end it is pretty much a wash.  Isn't it?

This only exists and is valid for people that shot 35mm film anyway.  We are reaching a point where new comers never shot film so they don't care. 

"Canon's full-frame cameras are better in low light than their crop cameras are."

The issue here is the 6D Mk II vs the 7D Mk II not Canon's FF line as a whole.   I doubt, real world, you can really see any low light advantage from the 6D Mk II over the 7D Mk II.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"While EF (full-frame) lenses will work on a crop camera, their focal lengths tend to be more appropriate for full-frame."

This is a problem that is web manufactured.  If a person thinks of AOV (angle of view) in favor of focal length, this is a moot point.  The sole point where it can be a factor is the WA side.  But that is not difficult to overcome anymore.  

If you consider the advantage on the tele end it is pretty much a wash.  Isn't it?

This only exists and is valid for people that shot 35mm film anyway.  We are reaching a point where new comers never shot film so they don't care.

...

---

That's a curvature of history, so to speak. The standard lens on a 35mm camera was 50mm because its field of view, given the camera's frame size of 24x36 mm, approximated that of the human eye. That tradition was carried on in FF DSLRs, whose frame size is about the same as that of a 35mm camera. That's why the standard FF "walkaround" zoom lens is 24-70mm; it has about the same reach on each side of 50mm. The 16-35mm wide angle, and the 70-200mm telephoto have evolved as good matches on each side of the standard lens.

But on an APS-C ("crop frame") camera, the human eye's field of view is approximated by a lens of about 29mm, and the standard walkaround zoom is therefore around 17-55mm. This has resulted in corresponding wide-angle and telephoto zooms of about 11-16 and 50-150 mm, respectively.

This all makes perfect sense and is in no way "web manufactured". And it means that we're confronted with two series of lenses, one optimized for FF cameras and the other for crop cameras. But Canon's best lenses, their "L" lenses, all fit into the FF series and are therefore sub-optimal on a crop-frame camera. They work as intended and take great pictures, but they're just not the focal lengths that most users would really prefer. Additionally, Canon doesn't even make some of the lenses that you'd probably want on a crop camera, so you have to look to a 3rd-party manufacturer if you can find them at all.

So, no it isn't pretty much a wash.

BTW, just to avoid possible confusion among those who weren't around in the film era: The "35mm" used to characterize a particular type of film camera has nothing to do with either focal length or frame size. It refers to the width (including provision for sprocket holes) of the film those cameras used.

[ebiggs1]

"This all makes perfect sense and is in no way "web manufactured"."

It certainly does to an old guy, like Robert, that can't let the 35mm film format go.  Not so much to those of us that have moved on.  The entire term 'crop camera' is "web manufactured".  It is not a trade name and certainly not a Canon name.

I would concede some small credence to you thoughts in the WA, I thought I mentioned that earlier, but in no way to the tele side of focal length. If anything all the 'best' Canon L lenses are better on a 'crop camera'.

"Canon doesn't even make some of the lenses that you'd probably want on a crop camera, ..."

Really?  You have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous there my friend.  What about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens? I will grant you build is not up to a "L" but not optical.  What about the newer STM line?   And you say I can't get excellent results form an L lens like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens on a cropper?  Ridiculous, yes!

Now if we want to mention the prime L lens line up your argument really falls apart.  Choose it by AOV and not focal length.  Simple, simple, simple.

[RobertTheFat]

---

ebiggs1 wrote:

"This all makes perfect sense and is in no way "web manufactured"."

It certainly does to an old guy, like Robert, that can't let the 35mm film format go.  Not so much to those of us that have moved on.  The entire term 'crop camera' is "web manufactured".  It is not a trade name and certainly not a Canon name.

I would concede some small credence to you thoughts in the WA, I thought I mentioned that earlier, but in no way to the tele side of focal length. If anything all the 'best' Canon L lenses are better on a 'crop camera'.

"Canon doesn't even make some of the lenses that you'd probably want on a crop camera, ..."

Really?  You have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous there my friend.  What about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens? I will grant you build is not up to a "L" but not optical.  What about the newer STM line?   And you say I can't get excellent results form an L lens like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens on a cropper?  Ridiculous, yes!

Now if we want to mention the prime L lens line up your argument really falls apart.  Choose it by AOV and not focal length.  Simple, simple, simple.

---

I was going to try to answer Ernie's jabs, but have decided instead to rely on the ability of anyone who's interested to read and understand what I actually wrote. There are only 24 hours in a day.

[ebiggs1]

"There are only 24 hours in a day."

Maybe if there were 25 hour days that extra hour would help pull you from the 35mm film days.  They are over Robert.

There are people out there that buy a new Rebel with the kit lens and believe it or not, they never consider how that kit lens would look on a 35mm camera.  Then along comes old guys or inner web jocks that keep or start the confusion all over.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"There are only 24 hours in a day."

Maybe if there were 25 hour days that extra hour would help pull you from the 35mm film days.  They are over Robert.

There are people out there that buy a new Rebel with the kit lens and believe it or not, they never consider how that kit lens would look on a 35mm camera.  Then along comes old guys or inner web jocks that keep or start the confusion all over.

---

How old do you think I am, Ernie? And how much difference does it make anyway? The time I almost died, I was considerably younger than you are now.

The fact is that I had pretty much opted out of photography in the film days, because taking and processing pictures was such an expensive, time-consuming hassle. I got back in, early in the digital age, in order to be able to photograph my grandchildren. My wife and I had been Nikon users, but bought Canon P&Ses on the recommendation of our daughter (a very good child photographer who probably should have turned pro). Etc. (The full story of my photographic life is boring, even to me. Suffice it to say that when I retired last year, I had spent several years as the semi-official photographer of a fairly significant city government and had absorbed some understanding of digital photography.)

But here I am; and, like it or not, I still remember that some of the conventions of digital photography (such as what "full frame" means) were carried over from the film days. You obviously remember it too, since your experience is about an order of magnitude (you know what that means, right?) greater than mine. So why do you resent that connection being pointed out? I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just trying, as best I can, to help the next generation understand what's going on and avoid at least some of my many mistakes.

[ebiggs1]

Robert,

"I'm just trying, as best I can, to help the next generation understand what's going on..."

My friend I have no doubt of your sincerity. The point I am trying to make, perhaps poorly, is young ones coming into photography now never used film.  They don't know there was a silly conversion comparison factor involved.  They get a 17-55mm lens and it is a 17-55mm lens.  They don't think now what would this look like on a 35mm FF camera.  It doesn't matter.  

If old guys like us would stop saying, oh, well that would be a 27-53mm if you had a FF camera.  Like they did something wrong.

BTW, I still have and use Nikon cameras!  It is just I like my Canon's better.  There are points on the Nikon that are better than Canon. There are points in which the Canon is better.  But overall plus the lens selection, Canon is a no brainer.  It is too bad you can't pull certain things from each and create your own perfect camera.

[ebiggs1]

"Ebiggs
I assume you saying to take a longer look at crop before going ff.
If you suggesting crop what you roccomend. I believe right now I'm seriously considering the 6D2, mostly due to price 

What ya thoughts"

First I thought you were considering the 6D Mk II as your choice?  If that is correct I would opt for the 7D Mk II.

Price wise?  7D Mk II is $1500 vs 6D Mk II at $2000.  Last time I checked.

You can look at the specs of each for yourself.  The 7D Mk II bets the 6D Mk II is several of them. Remember at $500 less dollars.

"I guess my thought about jumping to ff was the lens selection would be better."

The 7D Mk II can use more lenses then the 6D Mk II can.  Not fewer!  It can use any lens the 6D Mk II can plus the full EF-S line.  Again remember price as the EF-S line is cheaper.  The STM models being very good indeed.

I have never been a fan of the 6D or even the newer 6D Mk II. It seems like a solution to a problem we didn't have.  BTW, even if you were to ask 7D Mk II vs 5D Mk III, I still would opt for the 7D Mk II.  There is nothing either of those FF cameras can do that the 7D Mk II can't.

[Davoud]

Travel? Landscape? You will want to consider weight. I use a 5D Mark IV and a 6D Mark II. I rarely take the 5D out of the house. I would recommend the 6D or the 6D Mark II. It's true the camera has drawn some criticism, but the great majority of it comes from people who have not owned the camera.