The Cost of Switching to Full Frame

[joefish]

So this thread is more of a discussion about switching to full frame rather than "I have a question about X" (and I hope I've put the thread in the right place).

I've been considering the switch to full frame for a while, but have realised that apart from the obvious cost of a full frame camera itself, the actual cost for me will be much higher. Here's why:

My current gear:
40D with battery pack
18-55 Kit lens (leftover from 350D)
50mm 1.8
70-200L 2.8 IS

If I go full frame (or to any camera that doesn't support EF-S), then I'll immediately have a useless 18-55. Now, it isn't the best lens, and I've been wanting to replace it for a while anyway...

And, while if I switched to full frame I'd probably keep my 50mm 1.8 (it was relatively cheap), it will probably need to be replaced with an 85mm 1.8 to achieve a similar focal length for portraits.

And then of course, my 70-200 won't give me anywhere near the same long-range I get from it on my 40D. (112-320mm).

And here are the costings for lens replacements (in USD):
24-70mm 2.8 = $1139 (yeah, not quite the same class as the 18-55mm, but I'd like the 2.8)
85mm 1.8 = $385
300mm 2.8 = $3,899

All of this on top of the cost for a full frame body!

A 1.3CF body is an option, but still relatively expensive and I would want at least some new lenses.

How have other people handled the transition to full frame? Is it really worth it? Bearing in mind that I mostly do event photography for the charity I work for (and so don't get paid extra for it), it's probably true that I don't have a need for full frame gear, but more a want...

(For the record, in case anyone thinks I'm rich - I don't have anywhere near the money needed to do this anyway, so this is simply a mental exercise for the moment).

[jdepould]

I don't think getting rid of the 70-200 would be a good idea, it was popular before crop sensor came along, and it'll be popular forever.

The 1D (and Ds) also don't support EF-S lenses, which are designed for a 1.6 crop, so you'd still need new glass in the normal range.

A lot of it comes down to what you shoot. Full frame has a number of advantages in image quality and noise characteristics, because the surface area of the sensor is larger. For a sports shooter, the crop factor is a good thing and outweighs the IQ and noise benefits. It's really a matter of what you shoot and how you shoot it.

[Saralonde]

Perhaps if you're thinking about moving to a full frame camera at some later date, you could start by slowly adding to your equipment lenses that will work on either camera. You can use them now on your 40D - an excellent camera, BTW - and when you finally make the jump to full frame, you'll be ready. Besides by then they'll have an even better full frame camera out!
Bodies change far more rapidly than a good lens.

[jblaschke]

Originally Posted by joefish

My current gear:
40D with battery pack
18-55 Kit lens (leftover from 350D)
50mm 1.8
70-200L 2.8 IS

And here are the costings for lens replacements (in USD):
24-70mm 2.8 = $1139 (yeah, not quite the same class as the 18-55mm, but I'd like the 2.8)
85mm 1.8 = $385
300mm 2.8 = $3,899

Settle down, buckaroo. I think you've got one full lens to buy, the rest you can work around. Secondhand EF 28-135mm IS USM lenses can be had for around $400. It's a nice lens--not an L of course, but better than your 18-55. On a full-frame, you don't give up any frame on the wide-angle end. Bonus.

I wouldn't replace the 50 with the 85 until you've had a chance to try it out on the FF body for a while. You might actually prefer the new framing. The difference between the two is significant, but not huge. That's one I'd hold off on.

As for the 70-200L, yeah, you lose a good bit of reach, but that's a really nice lens. A lot of people love it for FF bodies. Instead of replacing it outright, the first thing I'd do is look into getting one of Canon's extenders--they make the EF 2x II and also the EF 1.4x II, either of which might well satisfy your needs. Buying a 1.4x would almost give you the same reach as you had before, whereas the 2x would give you more. If you don't like them, you could sell them second-hand and get most of your money back. Either way, it's a whole lot cheaper than rushing out and buying that 300L.

[Farkled]

One other thing to consider in the the move to FF is computer horsepower. If your RAW file sizes double or triple, you'll be wanting at least duo-core and probably quad-core processors with beaucoup RAM running at high clock rates. Disk space requirements will shoot up.

I just did an 8 shot (all RAW) pano stitch in CS3 on my P4 @ 2.6ghz with 1 GB RAM - took it a couple hours. The resulting PSD file was 756 MB in size.

[joefish]

Originally Posted by jdepould

I don't think getting rid of the 70-200 would be a good idea, it was popular before crop sensor came along, and it'll be popular forever...It's really a matter of what you shoot and how you shoot it.

Oops, I didn't mean I would get rid of this lens, just that I would want something to give me that extra bit of range! The 70-200 is fantastic, and it's advantages outweigh any disadvantages this lens has, for sure. Whether or not full frame is the right thing to be aiming for in the long term does depend on what one shoots, you're right about this. In a lot of ways that's why I started this thread, to help me figure this out somewhat.

Originally Posted by Saralonde

Perhaps if you're thinking about moving to a full frame camera at some later date, you could start by slowly adding to your equipment lenses that will work on either camera. You can use them now on your 40D - an excellent camera, BTW - and when you finally make the jump to full frame, you'll be ready. Besides by then they'll have an even better full frame camera out!
Bodies change far more rapidly than a good lens.

This is true. As I said at the end of my first post, there's no way I have the money for any of this at the moment, and so the only way this will happen is one lens at the time. The question will become "which lens next"; the body will not doubt be the last thing.

Originally Posted by jblaschke

Settle down, buckaroo. I think you've got one full lens to buy, the rest you can work around. Secondhand EF 28-135mm IS USM lenses can be had for around $400. It's a nice lens--not an L of course, but better than your 18-55. On a full-frame, you don't give up any frame on the wide-angle end. Bonus.

I wouldn't replace the 50 with the 85 until you've had a chance to try it out on the FF body for a while. You might actually prefer the new framing. The difference between the two is significant, but not huge. That's one I'd hold off on.

As for the 70-200L, yeah, you lose a good bit of reach, but that's a really nice lens. A lot of people love it for FF bodies. Instead of replacing it outright, the first thing I'd do is look into getting one of Canon's extenders--they make the EF 2x II and also the EF 1.4x II, either of which might well satisfy your needs. Buying a 1.4x would almost give you the same reach as you had before, whereas the 2x would give you more. If you don't like them, you could sell them second-hand and get most of your money back. Either way, it's a whole lot cheaper than rushing out and buying that 300L.

Ooh, there's a lot to reply to here. I have to shoot off to work in just a moment, so running out of time to craft my reply. Will definitely come back to all of these comments (extender, 50mm, 28-135) as soon as I can!

Originally Posted by Farkled

One other thing to consider in the the move to FF is computer horsepower. If your RAW file sizes double or triple, you'll be wanting at least duo-core and probably quad-core processors with beaucoup RAM running at high clock rates. Disk space requirements will shoot up.

I just did an 8 shot (all RAW) pano stitch in CS3 on my P4 @ 2.6ghz with 1 GB RAM - took it a couple hours. The resulting PSD file was 756 MB in size.

Ouch! Yeah, I do have a low-end dual core already. To be honest I don't do tons of post-processing stuff. I use Bibble for a few things, but as I shoot mostly events (which means lots of photos), heavy post-processing on individual photos isn't an option usually for reasons of time.

Thanks for your replies everyone, I've got a few more thoughts to add when I have some time

[smc1377]

It just needs to be said that I think there is some confusion between a crop factor and a focal length multiplier. Using a 70-200 lens on a 40D yields the exact same amount of "zoom" as it does on a 5D. You aren't actually any closer with a 40D. All you're doing with a 40D is cropping down your image to get a sense that you're closer.

Think of it in terms of digital zoom. The optical zoom on your lens doesn't actually change at all. It's just that on the 40D, it's cropping down on the image and making it *appear* as if you were closer to the subject.

[joefish]

Originally Posted by smc1377

It just needs to be said that I think there is some confusion between a crop factor and a focal length multiplier. Using a 70-200 lens on a 40D yields the exact same amount of "zoom" as it does on a 5D. You aren't actually any closer with a 40D. All you're doing with a 40D is cropping down your image to get a sense that you're closer

Yes, that's true. But that "perceived extra zoom" is still a factor for consideration.

[joefish]

Originally Posted by jblaschke

Settle down, buckaroo. I think you've got one full lens to buy, the rest you can work around. Secondhand EF 28-135mm IS USM lenses can be had for around $400. It's a nice lens--not an L of course, but better than your 18-55. On a full-frame, you don't give up any frame on the wide-angle end. Bonus.

I took some time to do a bit of research on this lens today (since I had never even considered it before). It does seem like it might do the trick, which is nice. I would really like to move to something at f2.8, but then again, If I've survived this long without it, I can probably survive a little longer...

I wouldn't replace the 50 with the 85 until you've had a chance to try it out on the FF body for a while. You might actually prefer the new framing. The difference between the two is significant, but not huge. That's one I'd hold off on.

What can I say. You're right :P

... the first thing I'd do is look into getting one of Canon's extenders--they make the EF 2x II and also the EF 1.4x II, either of which might well satisfy your needs. Buying a 1.4x would almost give you the same reach as you had before, whereas the 2x would give you more. If you don't like them, you could sell them second-hand and get most of your money back. Either way, it's a whole lot cheaper than rushing out and buying that 300L.

Yeah. I've actually considered getting an extender for a while now. The reason I would want a 300L over an extender is the fast aperture. Nothing more.

One thing that may make a difference to me is that I have recently replaced my 420EX flash with the 580 II, and this is a lot more powerful. I'm hoping I'll find that this makes more of a difference with some of the indoor stuff that I do

[JAHphoto]

I didn't actually transition, went straight from film to 5D, but I did get a 30D later.
It really depends on what kind of photographer you are. For me, I like to do all sorts of stuff, but a lot of wildlife and landscapes.. so I like the extremes, long and wide.
Kinda poses an issues, but I decided to go the 5D route.
At the time my justification was "Well, the 20D is 8MP, so I could just crop anything from my 5D and have similar quality"
True at the time, but with that 40D, at 10.1MP, a crop from your 5D is less quality.

But when I put my 17-40 on my 5D, its all worth it. You can get a fisheye, whatever, it cant compare to a great quality wide angle on a full frame.
So for me, its worth it.

In this scenario, would you be selling your 40D? If you're not, maybe just start with a 5D and a 17-40, and keep the 40D for using the 70-200 and such.
But it really depends on what you do. If you shoot sports (which I do, but I get a D200 with 2.8's to do that with) then you need that 70-200, and a 5D really isnt well suited to that. It will do the trick, but not as well as 40D.
For my artistic stuff, I don't need fast lenses, so I have my 100-400 to compensate for the lack of sensor crop when I'm using my 5D (and the wonderful 160-840mm on the 30D)