full frame or not

We have a Canon EOS-1D Mark 2 in the shop now and I have been wanting a full frame sensor, or at least I think I do. Here’s my background. I have been shooting models a little but I mainly do automotive and landscape/cityscape. I like to blow pictures up, a lot. I have been shooting Olympus for 8 years now, first digital camera set-up. I would sell all my Olympus stuff including the OM-stuff and make a complete system change to Canon. For my style of shooting do I really need a full frame camera and is this camera really worth leaving what I know and changing systems?

If you can afford it, why not? That is a great camera. If I had the spare cash I would move to a full frame myself.

If you don't mind giving up a compact 4/3 Olympus for a much larger full frame system, then definitely go for it. The larger sensor will give much better IQ all around, and allows for very wide angle shots for your cityscapes and landscapes.

Go full frame. You'll find that you'll get better results on prints due to having to enlarge a little less due to a larger negative (I'm a film user, okay? ). If I had no choice but to go digital, I wouldn't think twice of going full frame in either 35mm or medium formats. For my styles of photography, it would be worth the cost.

If you go full frame you will never look back. I've got a canon 50D, and 7D. 6 months ago picked up a used 5D on a whim and have not shot with the crop cameras since. I miss some of the features on the newer cameras, but the IQ out of the full frame 5D is just amazing. I shoot mostly portraits and I don't think you can beat a full frame sensor for that type of photography.

If you're going full frame and you are doing landscape/architecture, get a tilt-shift lens. It corrects the focus plane, and also allows you to open up more, and still retain focus.

5d mark II if you're going to blow up often.

Scotty wrote: If you're going full frame and you are doing landscape/architecture, get a tilt-shift lens. It corrects the focus plane, and also allows you to open up more, and still retain focus.

5d mark II if you're going to blow up often.

LOL I was gonna say this exactly.

I have the 50D and 5DII.....the 50d with my 150-500 sigma lens is great for wildlife - the two are never apart now! But the 5DII is in a different league...especially with respect to IQ and low light performance..it is ASTONISHINGLY good at high ISO. Get one. Dont look back.

I just made the jump this morning from a Olympus to a Canon 60D. I'm still afraid my drool is going to drown this new camera before I have mastered it. I still have my two Olympus cameras but only as backup now. I vote go for it!

Go all the way....full frame. If I could afford too, I would.

KVRNut wrote: Go full frame. You'll find that you'll get better results on prints due to having to enlarge a little less due to a larger negative (I'm a film user, okay? ). If I had no choice but to go digital, I wouldn't think twice of going full frame in either 35mm or medium formats. For my styles of photography, it would be worth the cost.

Larger negative?! That's not the way it works with digital. FF or crop doesn't matter, the sensor size doesn't make the "negative" bigger. It's the MP that makes a bigger negative (so to speak).

The advantages of FF are:
It covers more of the lens circle, so any given focal length will be wider on FF than on a crop.
They generally give more details
The apparent DOF is shallower
For a given MP/ISO amount they usually have lower noise and more uniform noise

The disadvantages of FF are:
Less "reach"
They show more of the corners of the lens (usually the least sharp part)
Greater possibility of vignetting.
The apparent DOF is shallower (you sometimes want more DOF ).

Full-frame is where you want to be for portraits. The larger sensors on these cameras capture more light, and you'll generally find that per-pixel IQ is better than a crop-sensor camera.

Take a look at the relative sizes of DSLR sensors to see what we're talking about.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

KVRNut wrote: Go full frame. You'll find that you'll get better results on prints due to having to enlarge a little less due to a larger negative (I'm a film user, okay? ). If I had no choice but to go digital, I wouldn't think twice of going full frame in either 35mm or medium formats. For my styles of photography, it would be worth the cost.

Larger negative?! That's not the way it works with digital. FF or crop doesn't matter, the sensor size doesn't make the "negative" bigger. It's the MP that makes a bigger negative (so to speak).

The advantages of FF are:
It covers more of the lens circle, so any given focal length will be wider on FF than on a crop.
They generally give more details
The apparent DOF is shallower
For a given MP/ISO amount they usually have lower noise and more uniform noise

The disadvantages of FF are:
Less "reach"
They show more of the corners of the lens (usually the least sharp part)
Greater possibility of vignetting.
The apparent DOF is shallower (you sometimes want more DOF ).

Excellent summary of the salient points.

I actually think you had already answered your own question, sounds like it is what you want to do, in which case go for it.