Full frame DSLR - worth it?

[Gromit]

Question for the Trixtertographers...

I'm getting more and more convinced to try a full frame camera. At the moment I'm using a 40D with a 17-40F4L which is a lovely combination, but having tried a friend's 70-200F4L on the 40D yesterday - and found it too long at its widest setting - I'm feeling that this lens on a full frame body would be perfect for my needs. Then, with the 17-40 taking up its full-frame wide angle postion it would be a good overall package, possibly adding a 50/1.8 prime.

I've had the 40D for a few years now, it's in almost perfect condition, and I really like using it but this is an itch I'd like to scratch. Question is, would going to a 5D Mk1 (I've seen a very nice one for sale) be something of a sideways step bearing in mind it's an older design? I don't really do much if any action photography these days, most of the stuff is pics of the children/holidays/buildings/countryside & landscapes etc.

Thanks all.

[eyore]

Dont ask me...........................I still use a Box Brownie

[Merecat]

A better step would be a 5DmkII if you could get one at the right price.
Still quite a fresh camera despite being superseded by the MkIII.
The 17-40 L is an ideal kit lens, for a crop, but may come up a bit short on full frame
Just one thing to watch, the very fast 50mm prime lenses tend to be a bit of a beast to control the DOF on full frame cameras. I have the f1.8 with my 7D. It makes a cracking portrait lens.

Best advice is take your camera and lens to a good camera shop and play with a 5DIII and compare and contrast.

Happy shopping!!

Mick

[Gromit]

Thanks for the advice Mick - and also for the link you sent me on Facebook.

I toyed with going for a 7D, especially as its low light performance is said to be stunning, and it would seem the cropped cameras work better than the FF's for action photos, although I seldom do that kind of stuff now.

The 70-200 is a lovely lens (this was a non-IS) and I can get hold of a nigh on mint one for only 340 quid which could be a good buy? It's just that it's a tad long for the majority of what I do. Your suggestion of the 50/1.8 tallies neatly with what a few folk of told me (including a couple of pro photographers) and I see they can be bought, new, for under 70 quid. This would fill the gap quite neatly between the 17-40 and the 70-200, and it's small & light enough to go in my pocket.

Maybe a good time to re-visit the 7D idea (which was the plan to start with until I got the 5D thing going in my head!) and prices may soften slightly when the Mk2 comes out.

Box Brownie? I dunno....

[f90x]

As someone who recently sold all of his digi slr gear as it hadn't been used for two years (all medium format film these days) I would go 5d mk1 or 2. Last year I shot a friends wedding with one and even as a dyed in the wool Nikon man I would have to say that it's awesome. Nikon for me has the better handling but the 5d in my opinion just renders pictures better. Don't forget full frame is just like shooting 35mm film and you also get to see much more in the viewfinder. Also as I'm sure you are aware Richard, a 50mm comes up as a75mm on DX cameras so your 70-200 is the equivelant of a 105-300 in full frame 35mm parlance. In addition DOF is as it should be on FF cameras because of that larger sensor.

HTH a bit
Steve

[Gromit]

HTH a bit
Steve

It does Steve - thanks.

I'm very tempted I must admit - the Canon crop is 1.6:1 so that 70-200 would be even longer. It's a lovely lens but I'm not sure I'd get that much use from it - too long for portrait certainly. A FF would turn it into a really useful lens.

5D Mk2's are going for about £1k which is a little bit more than I'd want to pay, but decent Mk1's are 450-500 which is fine as long as I can shift my 40D on. The only downside of going FF is that my 17-40 F4L wouldn't be the nice walk-around lens anymore.

Decisions x2...

[f90x]

Ah now, I think 17-40 would make a nice walk around. My two MF cameras have a 65mm and 80mm lens and in 35mm parlance that equates to roughly 40 and 50mm. My replacement little digital just recently acquired used is a Lumix GF1 with a fixed 20mm that equates to 40mm. My rule of thumb is if my subject is too far way 'get closer' and if I can't get it all in the frame 'step backwards' . TBH I'm so indecisive that zooms just don't work for me as I can never decide where to stop. A fixed lens dictates the frame. If you think the 70-200 would become redundant, keep the 17-40 and perhaps get a 35-70 or similar.
Steve

[Gromit]

Hi Steve - sorry I'm late in replying

I'd tend to agree re using prime lenses, they certainly encourage careful framing. I'd also say that the best photos I've taken (or the least worst!) were on my old Nikon F3 with an AI mount Nikkor 50mm/f1.4. A glorious lens on a wonderful camera - it was pin sharp even when wide open.

Deciding that I do need a long lens (and for getting non-staged photos of our kids it's v useful) I popped in to see the ever-helpful guys at LCE in Lincoln yesterday. Took my 40D with me and the MacBook so we could do some instant comparisons. They were...

Sigma 50-150 f2.8 (used)
Canon 70-200 F4L
Canon 70-300 IS USM
Tamron 70-300 VC

I ended up with the Tamron - it ran the Canon L-Series glass very close (when stopped down there was hardly any difference) and it was a lot cheaper too. Got home and fired off a few shots around the house...

[f90x]

They look good Richard. Nice and sharp and the DOF is works well to, nice bit of bokeh on the piano. Those 40D's are a great camera. I think you've made the right decision. Use it to death and 'then' change it.

[Gromit]

Those 40D's are a great camera. I think you've made the right decision. Use it to death and 'then' change it.

I think that's got to be the best plan, Steve. It had a new shutter fitted 18 months ago (I was getting the dreaded 'Error 99' message) which isn't an uncommon problem on some EOS D models. Good thing though (despite it costing over 250 quid to fix) is that the actuations count was zero'd, the camera being only on approx 1600 shots now so good as new. It was fully serviced and re-calibrated too.

I really like the 40D anyway - sure it's not cutting edge in digital terms now but it's extremely solid, large (good as I have large hands) and just darn nice to use. Doesn't have video or any of that cr*p on it either. Talking to those 'in the know' it would appear Canon hit a sweet spot with the 40D which makes it all the better. With the 60D Canon have gone for a plastic shell (as opposed to the magnesium of the 40D) which is a bit cheapskate if you ask me.

[f90x]

I wouldn't worry about cutting edge if I were you, It's all nonsense. Megapixels is marketing, that's all. True, the really expensive stuff is taking on a more natural, film look these days but the fact of the matter is one can achieve that to a certain degree in photoshop anyway, and if you want to talk cutting edge, my favourite camera is 36 years old and doesn't have a meter!
Enjoy the new lens.

Steve

[buzzz90]

Hi Grommit,

Until last year, I have had a 20D (for 5 years).
In october 2012, I have been looking for a 5Dmk1 as a birthday gift.
I have finally bought an absolute bargain 50D.

Impressive tool, but not what I was looking for...
Long story short, I have sold the 50D in december and have finally found a mint 5Dmk1.

After a few months, I wouldn't go back.
Of course, it's slower than the 50D, but it has never disturbed me.