Full frame or not

I’ve got a T5i. I’ve been using it verses an older XTI. I am shooting 90% landscape and nature. Video doesn’t matter. 
ive been eyeballing all the Canon 5d Mark ll cameras on mph site. Missed a few with 30,000 shutter counts. I’ve used a friends 70d a few times and really like it but wondering how much better the 90d might be. I’ve used the original Mark 5 once or twice but would like to go full frame. I’ve got some decent ef lenses that would fit both but have more efs which will not fit the full frame. Which would you go with for outdoor photography. I did notice that the older 5d with my canon macro does way better on flowers and color seems richer than the 70d. I’m asking the experts.  I’d like to have both but extra money could go toward lenses. 

Go FF… what ever the make.
Good lenses are always the better investments.

That was what I was thinking. I know the newer asp have more focal points and features than my older T5i but the full frame has always seemed richer in color. If I didn’t have all these lenses I’d consider the Nikon 

When digital entered the scene at the end of the F4 era,
Most my colleagues switched to canon… but not me.

Happy I did not follow the then trend… as always.

If you can buy both, buy them. However, the EOS 90D has a 32.5MP APS-C sensor that yields lenses 1.6x the telephoto limit they would have on a full-frame camera.

I totally disagree with your post, Naheed.

Sorry but suggesting to invest in two systems is not a very
good proposition… specially based on an untrue statement.

A crop sensor will NEVER yield a 1.6x that you suggest can
be gained in focal length, it just pre-crops the capture thus
reducing the AoV — angle of view.

That thing with the gain in focal length must have been a sa-
les pitch that stuck over time.

Nikon Shooter wrote: A crop sensor will NEVER yield a 1.6x that you suggest can
be gained in focal length, it just pre-crops the capture thus
reducing the AoV — angle of view.

That thing with the gain in focal length must have been a sa-
les pitch that stuck over time.

This.

And most full frame cameras will have an APS-C mode anyway that allows you to punch in. Useful for video, but with photos you might as well use the whole sensor and just crop afterwards.

2guns wrote: I know the newer asp have more focal points…

You mean focus points?
I never use more than one… I don't get the fuss!

I was going to buy the 6D Mark ll but wound up going with the RP and adapter and my ef lenses with exception of the 18+135 kit lens that came with it. Really like the evf with older eyes. So far I’m more than satisfied. You are correct that no matter how many focal points I usually use just one but do expand if shooting sports sometimes. 
The T5i and the 80D served me well but I do like the full frame. I still keep the old Canon XTI with me most times just in case in bad situation if it gets damaged I’m not out much.  I still prefer the 80D for sports photography. 

'Full Frame' bodies really have only a few advantages over 'APS-C' bodies, and they're not that significant.

A larger image sensor provides a more shallow Depth of Field for images with the same perspective. For instance, a 'Full Frame' body with a 105mm lens and an 'APS-C' body with a 70mm lens, will produce almost identical images with almost identical perspectives. But with an aperture of f/2.8 and a subject distance of 10 feet, the 'Full Frame' body will get a total DoF of 0.45 feet while the 'APS-C' body will get a total DoF of 0.69 feet, which is about what the 'Full Frame' body would get with an aperture of f/4.0. If the 'Full Frame' body was using a 24-70/2.8 lens and the 'APS-C' body was using a 17-50/2.8 lens, they would both be capable of almost identical images, but with an aperture of f/2.8 and a subject distance of 7 feet, the 'Full Frame' body would have a DoF of 0.5 feet and the 'APS-C' body would have a DoF of 0.66 feet, about what the 'Full Frame' body would get with an aperture of f/4.0. And if the 'Full Frame' body was using a 70-300 lens and the 'APS-C' body was using a 55-200 lens, they could both produce nearly identical images, but at f/5.6 and a subject distance of 100 feet, the 'Full Frame' body produces a DoF of 11.4 feet, while the 'APS-C' body produces a DoF of 17.3 feet, about what the 'Full Frame' body would get using an aperture of f/8.0. So the difference in Depth of Field is only about a single stop.

A larger sensor performs better than a smaller one, but few attempts have been made to quantify the difference. DxOMark.com performs a series of measurements on many cameras, and publishes the results on its website in such a way that the results from different cameras can be compared. It publishes a lot of "scores" and other values that seem to be actual measurements, but the only two that are direct measurements are for SNR 18% (signal to noise ratio) and Dynamic Range (the luminance range, from brightest to dimmest.)

The results show that, for instance, the level of image noise of Canon's 'APS-C' 7D Mk II is 35.5 dB at an ISO setting of 400, while the 'Full Frame' 6D scores 36.2 dB at ISO 800 and 33.4 dB at ISO 1600. That works out to the 'Full Frame' 6D having about a 1-1/3 stop advantage over the 7D Mk II with respect to noise. Similarly, the dynamic range of the 7D Mk II at ISO 400 is 11.39 Ev, while the 6D scores 11.55 Ev at ISO 800 and 11.12 Ev at ISO 1600, giving a 1-1/2 stop advantage over the 7D Mk II . (See Canon EOS 7D Mark II versus Canon EOS 6D)

Nikon's 'APS-C' D7200 scores a SNR 18% of 33.7 dB and a dynamic range of 11.89 Ev at ISO 800, which gives Nikon's 'Full Frame' D610 a little over a one stop advantage in noise and about 1/3 stop advantage in dynamic range. (See Nikon D7200 versus Nikon D610) In addition, Sony's 'APS-C' A77 Mk II scores 35.6 dB and 11.52 Ev at ISO 400, roughly 1 stop behind Sony's 'Full Frame' A99, in both measurements. (See Sony SLT Alpha 77 II versus Sony SLT Alpha 99) So there is certainly a promise of improved image quality with larger image sensors.

One of the advantages of 'APS-C' bodies over 'Full Frame' bodies, though, is the abundance of lenses, both 'Full Frame' and 'APS-C only' ('EF-S', 'DX', 'DT', 'DA', 'DC', 'Di-II'), and one of the disadvantages 'Full Frame' bodies have, when compared to 'APS-C' bodies, is that many 'Full Frame' lenses exhibit additional vignetting, distortion, transverse chromatic aberration and/or field curvature that don't appear when those same lenses are mounted on 'APS-C' bodies.

So while a 'Full Frame' body may be capable of better image quality, the lenses may have trouble delivering it.

It's your call, of course, but the advantages are not nearly as great as I've heard some say, and I think you should know exactly what you'd be getting yourself into. If you need the slightly more shallow DoF, the slightly lower noise, and/or the slightly greater dynamic range, and you can find an appropriate lens or lenses from the limited selection, to give you the results you want, I hope it works out well for you.

But there's very little you can't do with a smaller, lighter, cheaper 'APS-C' kit.