If you've upgraded to FF, do you now think it was a "smart choice"?

[sk66]

I'm not asking if you think it was a "justifiable expense" or if you would do it again...that's way more subjective. I want to know if you think the gains you received by upgrading were "cost effective".

My personal experience is unquestionably "NO". The main things I got were better handling and better high ISO performance. The handling is just a personal "comfort" thing...I can adapt to any camera with a little time. The high ISO performance is nice, but I don't usually need it and I seldom "want" to use it. The total cost for this? Over $14k retail. Because of what I shoot and how I work it meant upgrading almost all of my lenses to much more expensive versions. I could have just gotten the body and maybe one or two lenses for it and saved some. I could have bought a less expensive FF body and lesser lenses... I probably should have just stayed with DX and upgraded bodies as they became more capable. I had excellent quality DX lenses and they are much more cost effective than the FF equivalent.

The overall quality and creativity of my work has not changed since I first started in digital ~5yrs ago with a D200 (I've owned 4 different "upgraded" digital bodies since then, I started with film in the '70s).

I'm not complaining and I will buy another FF soon (where's my D4 dammit!?). But I don't mind "wasting money" on this hobby I enjoy so much, it's justifiable to me.

I just wanted to share my experience, and to have you share your experience so that others might make better informed choices.

Maybe my experience/opinion is unique (but I doubt it). I'd like to know.

[Rentham]

For me it was absolutely worth it. I went from a Rebel 450D to a 5D Mark II. I had planned to go FF from the beginning so I never bought any EF-S lenses after my initial purchase of the Rebel. I bought and used L lenses with my Rebel until an upgraded body was critical. I'd say the total cost of the gear made obsolete by my upgrade is well under $1000. If you include the Rebel as a viable last resort back up body, then the cost of my upgrade is negligible.

[SwissJon]

Just linking to this thread to see the answers.

[ajax_andy]

Originally Posted by Rentham

For me it was absolutely worth it. I went from a Rebel 450D to a 5D Mark II. I had planned to go FF from the beginning so I never bought any EF-S lenses after my initial purchase of the Rebel. I bought and used L lenses with my Rebel until an upgraded body was critical. I'd say the total cost of the gear made obsolete by my upgrade is well under $1000. If you include the Rebel as a viable last resort back up body, then the cost of my upgrade is negligible.

I have a 450d at the moment, plan to upgrade to a 7d at some point and use the 450d as a back up... like you I see this as a suitable way of doing things and not too costly in the grand scheme of things

[Jim Poor]

Absolutely. For indoor dog sports, I stay in the ISO 12,800 range quite a bit and the ability to turn out good prints at that level without spending time in post on NR saves me hours every week.

Some of the DX models are starting to rival the D3 in high ISO performance. Not quite caught up to the D3S yet though.

[Tzetsin]

Abso F'n lutely it was a justafiable expense.

Having a DX and a FF camera is just smart as far as i'm concerned. As Rentham said, I never wasted any money buying EFs lenses, so there was no equipment loss when i got the 5D.

The reason i say its smart to do is because of the multiplier. I ALLLLLWAYS have both cameras with me. Even when i'm hiking or shooting indoors. ALWAYS. You just get used to having the extra camera and then its nothing to have it. But having a wide and long lens on you really helps because you dont have to screw around swapping out lenses.

the 1.6 and FF also allow your lenses to pull double duty. For example if i put the 70-200 on the FF i get a resonably wide and long focal length, but if i need a bit more reach, i can put it on the 1.6x and get it. This is REALLY compounded when i throw on a 2x teleconverter. The FF pulls off 140-400mm while the 1.6 pulls off an amazing 224-640mm

One of the main reasons for buying the 24-105 over the 24-70 is that the 105 is a great walk around lens, but suffers for having only F4 aperture. If you know your going on a walk and will likely need more than 70mm, throw the 24-70 on your DX camera and you'll get 38-112mm. So if you get the 24-70, you'll have both the benefits of the 105 and the 70 without having to buy both.

So what I'm trying to say is that going FF and KEEPING the DX will give you a treasure trove of new focal length options without having to buy more equipment.

One other thing a FF can do that a DX cannot is ultra wides. so if you have any interest in that, and if you dont you should, you'll need that FF.

[ceremus]

Originally Posted by Tzetsin

the 1.6 and FF also allow your lenses to pull double duty. For example if i put the 70-200 on the FF i get a resonably wide and long focal length, but if i need a bit more reach, i can put it on the 1.6x and get it. This is REALLY compounded when i throw on a 2x teleconverter. The FF pulls off 140-400mm while the 1.6 pulls off an amazing 224-640mm .

I've actually heard this argument from two different sides. One as the above, that at 1.6x camera gives you some telephoto advantage.

The other argument said that using a 1.6x body only gives you a perceived telephoto advantage, in the same way that digital zoom gives the perception of extra magnification, when really you're just seeing the exact same magnification from the lens, just on a tighter crop so it seems enlarged. Only the field of view is different, it does not provide any more "reach".

I've seen this as an example:

Full Frame vs 1.6 crop by Steve Kay, on Flickr

What do you guys think?
I'm more inclined toward the latter, since changing the body does not alter the focal length or other physical properties of the lens. The one difference I could see is if you were comparing an APS-C camera with a fairly high MP sensor with a full frame sensor that had less pixels on its sensor in that same APS-C region. That could perhaps be considered more "magnification" when comparing the level of detail given the total resolution. I don't see any advantage in that whatsoever when comparing an older Rebel to a 5D, although perhaps more comparable to the sensors in the T2i/T3i/60D/7D.

[Tzetsin]

You know.... I made that argument once, here i believe... but in "proving" myself right, I actually proved myself wrong. There is a noticable reach improvement between them. Forget internet articles and try it yourself, you'll see.

[inkista]

The digital zoom argument falls down when you realize that a crop sensor might be the same resolution as the full-frame. Pixel counts still... er... count.

There's a reason I kept my 50D for birding.

5Dii? Absolutely worth it for me. But it (and my 50D) won't ever be "cost-effective", given that I'm not a pro and never see a "return on investment" for my money. I just judge by how much I love using my gear vs. how much I paid for it. And in those amateur (in the literal "for the love of it") terms, the 5Dii comes up roses. It made me love the lenses I own that much more. It makes me love taking pictures that much more. And I only had one EF-S lens (my 60 macro), but since I kept my 50D, that's a moot point, too. I can still use it when I need to.

Is crop "good enough"? Hellz yeah. Preferred for some types of shooting, even. But that doesn't mean full frame is a bunch of empty promises or hogwash. Repeat: my 5D was utterly utterly worth it for me. For all the reasons they say: the wider field of view, the tonal smoothness, ability to achieve thinner DoF, the high iso performance, added dynamic range, higher resolution: the entire enchilada. Everything said is true. But how much it matters to you is personal, and depends a lot on how much spare cash you've got lying around.

I mean, for a lot of people simply buying a dSLR isn't "cost-effective." Neither is buying a Leica M9. Or a Fujifilm X100. But you can still find Leica groups of M9 shooters who utterly love and think their cameras were worth it. And ditto all the pros who are grabbing an X100 as their go-anywhere little cam. Why should it matter what another person finds useful or worth blowing cash on to them? Surely all that matters, and the only thing you can really be an accurate judge of, is what works for you.

[RichardTaylor]

I didn't upgrade from a crop camera, it was an addition.

The main reason was that I wanted a good general purpose travel camera + lens combination and for a Canon shooter a 5D + 24-105mm lens was the best combination at the time. A very versatile set up with a good image stabilised lens and good high ISO performance.
It also makes for a good hand held low light camera when used with fast lenses.

However it is not my most used camera - the 40D is that mainly because of a lot of the shooting I do (birds & motor sport).

Cost effective doesn't come into it for a hobbyst.