Been out of scene for a while, and intending to expand my gear range now. My gears are listed in my signature.
I intend to permanently mate my 40D to my 17-55IS, for "general purpose" I think that can't be beaten. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The way I see it, is that I should get another flash for staged stuffs. And another body for my primes to do some more refined stuffs. Thoughts?
So for this additional body, is it worth going full frame, which would render the very fine 17-55IS useless?
I was initially looking at 30D/40D/50D, but thinking that for a little more I could get a used 5D, but the extra money would only be worth it for me if FF actually does "magic" that a cropped body won't.
I say "magic" because I don't really need the extra performance in noise control (which I imagine would be marginal), nor the lesser DOF (may be I'd appreciate, but I'm not entirely positive if I will). So it seems that I am not looking for something on the paper that is tangible, I wonder if I'd be disappointed?
Edit: Some seems to take issue with me using the term "magic" on a camera. To be fair I intentionally put the word is in quote, which would imply that I do not mean it literally, which I also explained in the original post. I do not disagree at all that a camera is a piece of gadget and has no spiritual nor artistic property. It was meant to vague as I have no idea what this property that is often touted really is. You are all welcome to suggest me a better noun and I apologise for my limited grasp of the English language. I edited the title if it would make everyone happier.
Daan B wrote:
Cameras don't deliver "magic"... If you want "magic", focus on your vision, subject and lighting... and use a cam + lens to capture that
That wasn't my point at all. It would be idiotic to think giving a monkey a 1DsIII with 800mm prime would make gallery exhibit (or may be it would, anything is on display nowadays). I was asking about if FF do something that a cropped body won't apart from what is written on the paper, in other words, if the FF hype is true. Simple yes or no stuffs.
Other than lower noise and more control over depth of field (ie less for a given aperture and framing) I'm not sure what difference you're expecting ? A 5D or 1Ds isn't going to auto-frame and only take photos of good subjects, or make you breakfast in the morning, it merely gives you more options for each photo you take, and it's your skill that either make that advantage sing or sink.
Navyblue wrote:
I was asking about if FF do something that a cropped body won't apart from what is written on the paper.
Yes, it'll give you more control over DoF and (probably) lower noise. What other differences are there? With a 5D you can probably expect photos which appear sharper in the centre because they're putting less demand on the rendering capabilities of the lens. I'm struggling to understand what you think an FF may be able to do that a cropped camera can't, there's absolutely no differences between the 2 types of camera whatsoever other than the size of the circle of light that gets captured.
What they said. And a 40D plus 17-55 IS is quite a capable combo, but far from "can't be beaten". In fact an older-model 5D with a 24-105L would cover more focal range and do at least as well in low light, probably better.
Magic? No. Its nice though, especially with fast lenses. I like our 5d, but I don't find that we were that limited in our studio with our 20/30d. The extra resolution/cropping ability is nice, but the nicest thing is the lower DOF/subject isolation that the larger sensor provides...
In fact, when we first tried digital (as a complement to our hassies) we started by using a freaking nikon coolpix 5700. We've still got a really 20x24 in our gallery from that 5700.
The important thing to remember is that, if you can't get a great image out of a 10d/20d/30d/300d etc...You aren't going to get a great image out of the 5d.
Yup, it'll do something that wasn't written in the papers. It'll vignette like hell wide open. As a matter of fact, I like that in most images. And for the rest: it's indeed about added DOF and better noise. That most certainly is worth the hype...
I have 5D and 40D, and almost always grab the 5D now. For walk around and portrait type work, I just feel more comfortable. Maybe its because I started with film, but it just feels like the framing, DOF, etc are a lot more natural.
I do still reach for the 40D for telephoto work though. I enjoy the 'reach' provided by the crop factor.
I'm hoping that I'm not coming across as an elitist jerk here, but I kind of think that if you don't know why you need full frame, then you don't need it. The Canon XXD cameras are all, without exception (and although I've not personally used a 10D I've either owned or extensively used all the others) incredible cameras which are more than sufficient for 99% of people 99% of the time, if you don't know why you need to upgrade, you don't need to, spend the extra money on another flash and get into off camera lighting "strobist" style or something
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I'm struggling to understand what you think an FF may be able to do that a cropped camera can't,
I am struggling too.
Some people call it the "pop" (there isn't an official definition that I am aware of). Some people think that it has to do with perspective difference. Or may be it's the rendering of tonality. I really don't know.
From my extremely limited experience with 5DII while playing in the shop, frankly I don't feel any difference other than it has a bigger viewfinder and a tiny tad bigger. But it is implied that that FF is a whole different world than APS-C and life is never the same again that sort of stuffs.
I see that you have both FF and cropped body and I because of that I do value your opinion.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Yup, it'll do something that wasn't written in the papers. It'll vignette like hell wide open. As a matter of fact, I like that in most images. And for the rest: it's indeed about added DOF and better noise. That most certainly is worth the hype...
, this is the off-the-paper stuffs that I wanted to hear.
Navyblue wrote:
That wasn't my point at all. It would be idiotic to think giving a monkey a 1DsIII with 800mm prime would make gallery exhibit (or may be it would, anything is on display nowadays). I was asking about if FF do something that a cropped body won't apart from what is written on the paper, in other words, if the FF hype is true. Simple yes or no stuffs.
Alrighty then... WTF do you mean by "magic"
Your words:
I was initially looking at 30D/40D/50D, but thinking that for a little more I could get a used 5D, but the extra money would only be worth it for me if FF actually does "magic" that a cropped body won't.
I say "magic" because I don't really need the extra performance in noise control (which I imagine would be marginal), nor the lesser DOF (may be I'd appreciate, but I'm not entirely positive if I will). So it seems that I am not looking for something on the paper that is tangible, I wonder if I'd be disappointed?
And you want a simple yes or no? Maybe you should have made your point more clearly in the 1st place
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I'm hoping that I'm not coming across as an elitist jerk here, but I kind of think that if you don't know why you need full frame, then you don't need it. The Canon XXD cameras are all, without exception (and although I've not personally used a 10D I've either owned or extensively used all the others) incredible cameras which are more than sufficient for 99% of people 99% of the time, if you don't know why you need to upgrade, you don't need to, spend the extra money on another flash and get into off camera lighting "strobist" style or something ...Show more →
I did own the 10D, and I don't think it is to different from my 40D in performance, apart from the slow write speed.
I don't really "need" to upgrade. I was looking at stuffs down to 30D, but I want another body.
Navyblue wrote:
Some people call it the "pop" (there isn't an official definition that I am aware of). Some people think that it has to do with perspective difference. Or may be it's the rendering of tonality. I really don't know.
"Pop" can mean a few things, sometimes it's vibrant colours that make an image stand out, but more often than not it's a way of less technically minded people saying "the limited depth of field in that shot really isolates the subject from that background"
That kind of pop is much easier to achieve with a full frame camera, basically because to get the same framing as you do with a cropped camera (assuming you're using a prime lens) you have to move closer to the subject, which lessens the depth of field in the image, if you're using a zoom then it's essentially the same thing, for the same image you'll zoom in more, increasing the focal length, and again lessening the depth of field. This makes it easier to make to isolate a subject from a background, and often makes it "pop" out of the frame, or appear 3D, or many other ways of saying "it has less dof"
Navyblue wrote:
I don't really "need" to upgrade. I was looking at stuffs down to 30D, but I want another body.
If you don't feel the need to upgrade, get a cheap cropped body and either buy yourself something nice (sports cars are very cheap with the global economy going down the pan ;-) (although I seem to remember from my "far-Eastern" travels that the tax on cars in Singapore is about 200% of the car's value, is that still correct?)) or some extra camera equipment.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
"Pop" can mean a few things, sometimes it's vibrant colours that make an image stand out, but more often than not it's a way of less technically minded people saying "the limited depth of field in that shot really isolates the subject from that background"
That kind of pop is much easier to achieve with a full frame camera, basically because to get the same framing as you do with a cropped camera (assuming you're using a prime lens) you have to move closer to the subject, which lessens the depth of field in the image, if you're using a zoom then it's essentially the same thing, for the same image you'll zoom in more, increasing the focal length, and again lessening the depth of field. This makes it easier to make to isolate a subject from a background, and often makes it "pop" out of the frame, or appear 3D, or many other ways of saying "it has less dof"
As mentioned I am not sure if I want a lesser DOF, I thought I already have thinner DOF than I wanted. But I do want the 3D factor. May be I don't know what really thin DOF can do. May be I should try it, or may be I should save my money for elsewhere as you suggested.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
(although I seem to remember from my "far-Eastern" travels that the tax on cars in Singapore is about 200% of the car's value, is that still correct?)
Yes that is correct and unfortunately remains so.
In comparative to UK I guess electronics are quite a bit cheaper here but cars cost quite a bit more. I might be able to buy a Chinese car if I decide against a 1DsIII and a 800L.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I'm hoping that I'm not coming across as an elitist jerk here, but I kind of think that if you don't know why you need full frame, then you don't need it. [...] if you don't know why you need to upgrade, you don't need to, spend the extra money on another flash and get into off camera lighting "strobist" style or something
, this is the off-the-paper stuffs that I wanted to hear. 
