1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

First full frame ?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by SAW, Oct 27, 2019.

  1. SAW

    SAW Active Member

    Hi,

    I'm looking to buy my first full frame, I currently use an old modded 600D for astrophotography. I like a full frame to still use for astro stuff but it won't be getting modified also it's going to be used for general photography especially some long exposure landscape stuff as I've been looking at the LEE stuff. I know I can't really get a camera that's going to be good for everything I want. I did have a M50 which was ok but found it too basic and not full frame so sold it. I've been looking at the 6D Mark ii or the EOS RP. I'd love to go A7iii but I'm used to Canon and cost ! Currently got the 70-200 f/4, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8 so I do also need a wide angle lens or two.

    Any suggestions ?
     
  2. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    The cheapest good buy I can think of is a 1Ds II. It's a bulky old thing but it is 16MP and built like the proverbial tank. You should be able to find a decent one for around £400. Some shots from the one I used to own...

    Canon 1Ds II 7936.JPG

    Canon Eos 1Ds II 8GB 10 12CL8905.JPG

    Canon Eos 1Ds II 8GB 10 12CL8768.JPG
     
    SAW likes this.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The inherent advantage of full frame is that you get a wider angle of view for a given focal length of lens. That's about it really. The noise control on modern sensors is very good so I think the "noise" advantage has diminished. I use FF because it is continuity with 35 mm film. If I pick up a 200 mm lens I know what I'll see and I much prefer the look of a wide-angle on FF compared to a super-wide on APS-C when the fields of view are equivalent.

    For general purpose photography I'd be pushed to see a difference between my FF Canon pictures and my APS-C Fuji pictures.

    For choosing a FF camera the old advice holds - go for one that feels right in the hand and to the eye. As you have EF lenses then a Canon would probably suit. The 6D is the least expensive and has good reviews. I'd pair a 24-105 and a 16-35 with it if you want wide angle to short tele for general use.
     
    SAW likes this.
  4. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I do not have the broad experience of some but have had a 6D for seven years and it does the job. Highly recommended in my book although now helped out by a PEN-F for more casual work
     
  5. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Why? Genuine question, what do you expect to get as a result that you don't get now?
     
  6. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    I'm vaguely thinking about getting a "compact" Canon full frame with the GPS module installed - i.e. a 6D.
    Basically so that when I'm using my Canon TS-E 45 F/2.8 for shooting tall buildings, I have the GPS data for my records etc. Currently, I have a 5D MkII and a 7D MkII, and only the 7D II has the GPS. But, on the 7D II I'd need to use my TS-E 24 f/3.5 MkII to get reasonable coverage, and the heavier 24mm TS-E in my opinion, is not really for casual use. I'm happy using the 45 TS-E on my 5D MkII, but that doesn't have GPS. Hope this makes sense...
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  7. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I find all in-camera GPS to be a faff. I just use a GPS tracker on my phone (instantly works, very accurate), and then use Lightroom to sync with the images afterwards. It also means I have a GPS record of every single walk I've done while carrying the camera (I don't know what I'll do with that, but maybe something in the future).
     
  8. SAW

    SAW Active Member

    My 600D is modded for astro so pretty poor for normal daytime stuff so I'd like another dslr anyway and full frame seems to be the way to go, larger sensor better low light performance ?

    I have been looking at the 6D Mark 1 as this seems to have better low light performance than the newer mark ii, would I miss anything when using this for general photography compared to the mark ii ?
     
  9. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I think that the mark 2 is slightly better for video but apart from that,,.........
     
    SAW likes this.
  10. SAW

    SAW Active Member

    I won't do any video.
     
  11. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    One could argue you won't miss low light performance at all when doing 'general photography'. Anyway, my second-hand 6D is lovely. I was shooting at 12800 ISO last night and the images will be useable. But I'd still replace it with a Canon 5D IV given half a chance (obviously, I can't actually afford to do that). Needing 12800 ISO is a rare occurrence unless all you do is shoot gigs in dark locations. If you want general purpose, then choose a true 'all rounder'. I just want to make sure (I'm sure we've had this chat before) that the full frame gives you want you want for the price.

    Of course, you can pick up a 6D for about £450, and it's a LOT of camera for that price.
     
    RogerMac likes this.
  12. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I have got to say I looked seriously at upgrading to the mk 2 and decided against it. There may be an advantage i in frame rate but if that was a problem I would have gone for a 7D.
     
  13. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    There is also the consideration of f stop. Conventionally, with full frame, diffraction sets in at about f:16, but with APS-C it is about f:11. Also, with around ± 25mPix, to keep the airy disk within a single Bayer matrix, you lose another stop, down to f:11 for full frame or f:8 for APS-C. If you are planning any large prints, it does make a difference.
     
  14. SAW

    SAW Active Member

    I'm tempted to go with a used low shutter count original 6D it's a big saving over the Mark ii. Would I be happy with the 6D, is it a good all rounder ? and good first full frame ?
     
  15. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I'm still using my elderly Sony a900 dSLR and providing I don't mess with high ISO it's just fine. Gives tremendous close-up detail and colours and all those wonderful old Minolta AF lenses work with it.
     
  16. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    What do you do with your pictures?
    If the answer is big prints then a camera body with a larger sensor may give better image quality for this purpose.
    If you don't want big prints, I don't see the need to get a full-frame body.

    If you want to get a decent wide angle lens, for example 15 mm on a full frame or 10 mm on an APS-C body, the one for the full frame body will probably be much larger and heavier. Also, if you go full-frame you will lose the cropped-sensor 'magnification' effect you have when using a telephoto lens made for full-frame on an APS-C body.

    I would think carefully before spending money without deciding what you want to do with the images you get.
     
  17. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    No clue. I still don't understand what you can't achieve with a non-full frame camera.

    It's of an age. It won't do you well in fast action sports, tracking birds, stuff where you need a lot of focal points. It only has one card slot. It doesn't have a very big buffer.

    Every camera is a compromise.

    I still don't know why you want full frame, so I can't comment.

    For example, why not buy a 70D, excellent camera.
     
  18. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Just crop the larger FF image down to APS size and you have the same.
     
  19. SAW

    SAW Active Member

    I doubt I'll want to print anything big out. I'll be using for astro stuff mainly so wide angle milky way but also maybe 200mm or 300mm lens on a tracking mount and also long exposure landscape, that is going to be the main use for it but I also want to just snap away with it on a holiday etc.
     
  20. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    If you want full frame then why not? However you are a Canon user so any lenses you have for cropped sensor won't fit the full frame body so you may be into buying lenses as well.
    I moved to a Nikon FX body back in 2011 moving from a cropped sensor (DX) body however, the FX (full frame) body used the same battery as the DX body and I had only one DX lens, all my other lenses were FX so no expense there either. Additionally Nikon had produced their top of the range pro DX body with a full sized mirror so the DX and FX bodies were almost exactly the same size. Things have changed in the last eight years and you can get cropped sensor bodies that do everything a full frame one can and the former are often smaller, particularly Canon bodies where the smaller sensor translates to a smaller mirror as well.

    I wouldn't go back to a smaller sensor but that is because Nikon don't seem to have taken them seriously and fast zooms are all FX, with the exception of the 17-55, so there is little weight advantage. Going full frame for the sake of it doesn't make as much sense as it once did, when the larger sensor didn't mean more pixels (my FX and DX bodies were both 12MP) and there was a real high ISO advantage.in switching. If buying new, and I can only speak for Nikon you'll need to do the research for Canon, a new top of the range DX body is around 1/4 the price of the similarly specified FX body (D500 and D5) if I didn't already have three FX bodies I would be giving very serious consideration to the D500. In fact it looks very attractive for travelling as I still have that 17-55 lens. With your requirement to use 200 or 300 mm lenses a cropped sensor makes a lot of sense and, if my experience anything to go by, a really wide lens really doesn't get a great deal of use, more often than not 24mm (16mm on a DX body) is wide enough.
     
    SAW likes this.

Share This Page