Thinking about a full-frame DSLR, is this a bad idea?

In My Humble Opinion
1

After years of great photos, my Rebel XTI (400D) is starting to look a bit long in the tooth. I’m considering replacing it with a 6D, but I’m on the fence because I think it might be more than I need.

The main reason to upgrade to full frame is better high ISO performance. Currently, I try to use ISO 200 or less because 400 looks kind of grainy and 800 looks downright bad. Since I’m often in dark-ish conditions: overcast, forests, shadows, etc., I end up with the hobson’s choice of underexposed vs. blurry. The larger, newer sensor should give better (less noisy) results at higher ISO, right?

This is strictly a hobby and the camera is used almost exclusively while on vacation. Light weight and small size are important, because I hike it around all day; hence the 6D instead of the 5D mk3, which would undoubtably be overkill anyway. The photos are nearly all landscape, wildlife, bugs & flowers (macro), with occassional indoor museum stuff. No studio, sports, events, or portraits; just the odd friend or family in the foreground.

The other problem is that if I would have to change most of the lenses, currently an EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS, EFS 60 2.8 Macro, and EF 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO.

The 17-55 is used most often and there is no direct equivalent EF mount lens. The new 24-70 f4 IS looks like a good substitute, with the new and improved IS compensating for the smaller max aperture. Also, the macro mode may be good enough for the occasional cool bug picture, so I could forego buying a dedicated macro lens to replace the 60 Macro.

To make up for the loss of the 1.6 crop factor, I’m considering trading the 70-300 for a 100-400 f4.5-5.6 which is the longest non-astronomically-priced telephoto zoom available. Perhaps with a 1.4x teleconverter. Is the push-pull zoom hard to use?

Does this make sense or am I going overboard? Since most of the lenses would have to go, should I look at other brands? Thanks.

2

Full-frame cameras are awfully pricey. The only reason to move up to them is if you need that jump in quality and the extended lower range on lenses.

I also don’t know of a full frame digital camera smaller than my 5D, which is a hefty handful by today’s vacation/casual camera standards.

Since it’s just a hobby, I’d put the money elsewhere - on a highly rated body in the $1k range and another good lens or two - move up to L series lenses, if you haven’t; they are worth the money more than just about any other step you could take. I’d say the other characteristics greatly outweigh the small advantages you’d see from a full-frame body.

3

I’ve been using a T2i (550?), which I think is a model or two newer than yours. I have been VERY impressed by its high-ISO performance. As I recall, DPReview also praised its quality on high ISO values.

4

My understandng is that the 6D is the smallest full-frame camera available, smaller than the 7D and marginally bigger than the 60D, both of which are crop-sensor. It would be bigger than the Rebel, so it would take some careful in person comparison to see if it would be bothersomely large. Also, the two lenses I mentioned buying to replace my current ones are both L-series, does that mean you think I’m on the right track in that regard?

5

I think you’ll find the high ISO performance in the newest crop-sensor DSLRs is markedly better than your old Rebel. If getting better high ISO performance is what’s driving you to upgrade, going to full-frame rather than just a newer model APC-sized sensor camera will be total overkill.

6

I hardly ever use any lenses other than my 24-70 and 17-40, both L series. I use a 70-200 L sometimes, and my 100 macro very infrequently. I’d say the 24-70 will serve about 95% of your needs. You might wish for a longer throw on some shots, but I don’t know if it’s worth carrying a long, heavy lens on vacation jaunts.

7

I vote for overkill as well. Spending two grand for a body, unless you have money to burn, seems excessive to me for your needs. As artemis mentioned, you’ll likely be pleasantly surprised by the newer models’ capabilities.

Also, the 6D weighs 50% more than your 400D (770 g vs. 510 g); that is a huge difference if you’re going to be totin’ it on a hike. The t4i, by comparison, weights 520 g (and is half the price of the 6D).

Or, maybe I’m just jealous. :slight_smile:
mmm

8

I loves my 60D. High ISO, lower priced. Buy that and buy a nice lens to go with it.

9

The other thing to consider is that pros consider camera bodies disposable - if you lose a camera shooting a $25k commission, it’s an oh-well. Most amateurs regard them as something to grab ahead of the baby and the passport.

You might be a little more comfortable carrying and taking innovative (= risky) shots with a less expensive camera. Trying to guard a $3k 5D/lens combo might inhibit you.

10

For the non-professional who is not interested in a metal body that could be used to kill a bear, is there any advantage to a 6D over a T4i or 60D? It sounds like a resounding “No” so far.

I thought that the 70-300 would be next to useless, but got outvoted. In practice, it has been invaluable in taking pictures of sea creatures, birds, the interiors of volcanic calderas, etc. that were impossible or unsafe to get any closer to. If anything, I wish it were longer, hence the desire for the 100-400 and a teleconverter.

11

Furious_Marmot, my previous Canon was a 20D. When it came time to replace it, I considered the choices to be (at the time):

  • one 50D at $1500ish

  • a T2i now (at $800ish), and Txi 2-4 years down the road at a similar price, allowing me to have fairly-current cameras for the next 6 years for roughly the cost of one “D” model

I chose route 2, and frankly still don’t see a compelling reason to spend the second-half of my allocated bucks (the T2i is still a better camera than I am a photographer).

I hope that helps…

12

As long as the memory card is safe, I don’t worry much about the camera. My threshold of self-preservation is considerably lower than anything that would damage it.

13

Given your shooting interests, I’d suggest looking for a new model that’s lightweight and (if you can find it) weathersealed. Most full-frame cameras a quite heavy, which makes them less than ideal as hiking cameras unless you are REALLY dedicated to your photography.

14

Since the 6D is looking less and less like a good idea, are there any non-Canon cameras worth looking at?

15

The Pentax K-5 and K-5II are highly regarded for their high ISO performance (see dxomark test results)…compact, solid build quality (weather sealed) with plenty of direct controls as well.

16

Just a consideration:

I have a Canon EOS 20D. It’s a great camera. For travel it is miserable. It’s heavy, difficult to carry and is too “out there”. It’s not comfortable even when it is hanging from the neck strap.

I got a Sony NEX 5. I love it for travel. It’s light, versatile and easy to use. It is very comfortable to carry in one hand (with a wrist strap) so it is always ready. The way you describe yourself, it might fit your needs.

Also, if it lost or stolen you lose less than $1,000 rather than $2,000+.

17

Yeah, I was hesistant to post lest people start thinking I’m a pentax shill around here, but it really does sound like a good match. The K5/K5-II have the best low iso performance of any crop camera sensor, and they would be way ahead of a Rebel. I get shots that are fine for small prints at 12800 iso (search flickr for “k5 high iso” or "k5 12800) and even usable stuff up to 51200.

They’re also the most compact of DSLRs and yet have a professional-level weather sealing, and a magnesium shell on a steel chassis that’s like a tank. They’re pretty much the ideal outdoors/hiker cameras.

Plus they’re just great cameras pretty much all around. I wouldn’t trade mine for anything short of a D800, and even then I’d have to think about it.

18

How do Pentax and Sony lenses compare to Canon?

19

Pentax lenses are smaller and cheaper than the equivelant Canon lenses. Pentax does shake reduction with the camera sensor rather than the lens, so you don’t need to add stabilizing glass to every lens, which saves on size, cost, and complexity. It also means that all lenses, not only those that have image stabilizing built into the lens, are stabilized. For their smaller lenses, they also use a motor inside the camera body, which also has cost/size savings, but also means that focusing can be audible.

They’re known for their range of prime lenses. The “limited” series in particular is well regarded - they’re all metal, hand made, great build quality, great optics - and pretty affordable compared to L glass or the nikon equivelants. Affordability isn’t quite the selling point it used to be - they recently started enforcing a low price policy to keep online retailers from undercutting B&M retailers in an effort to get the brand out there. But they’ve been running some rebates on lenses sometimes, and their base price is often still a pretty good value.

Another benefit is that they’ve always valued backward compatability, and Pentax has been a leader in SLR lenses of the last 60 years or so. They were a big name in SLRs, but were slow to adapt to digital which explains their current market share. Their lens coatings in particular were ahead of their time, and still are probably the best. And you can use any of those old lenses on their cameras - they’ll use all the features the lenses are capable of (old lenses are manual focus of course), and you’ll get them stabilized too. This is actually a pretty cool benefit - optics haven’t changed that much in 100 years so there are a lot of awesome old lenses you can grab for cheap.

Not all their lenses are weather sealed, but they have the most affordable weather sealed ones out of all the manufacturers.

Tamron and Sigma also make most of their lenses in a Pentax mount.

They have less fast telephoto glass, the sort of stuff that runs $2000+, but everything else is pretty well covered.

20

I forgot to add that a lot of their newer lenses are designed for a crop sensor camera. Canon and Nikon try to get you to “upgrade” to a full frame camera, as if that’s always everyone’s goal. They feature-cripple a lot of their lower end models to try to shoot you into a higher one, and they make a lot of their lenses full frame capable - which isn’t bad, but it does come with a size/cost penalty. Pentax has a lot of full frame capable lenses (all the legacy ones, and still a few new manufactured ones), but they they largely design lenses for the APS-C format. Since the K5 (well, now the K5II and K5IIs) is their flagship product, nothing is feature crippled to try to upsell you, and their lenses are designed from the ground up to work best with APS-C format, so they can be smaller and lighter for the same effect.

They do lack a basic 70-200 2.8 type lens for this reason - one of their top tier zooms is a 50-135 2.8 lens, which is designed to replicate the same field of view of 70-200 on full frame. But if you need the extra reach, Tamron and Sigma both offer good models in that range.

The their 55-300 4-5.8 is regarded as the best lens in the consumer zoom range and it’s my primary lens. I can’t afford anything fancy at the moment. Their 35mm 2.4 is amongst the sharpest lenses available, and only $180 or so. Even the kit lens can get quite good results (example).

People will steer you away from Pentax claiming that Nikon and Canon have many more lenses - which is true, I think Canon produces about twice as many lenses as Pentax does currently, ignoring legacy lenses - but most of the extra ones are fairly niche, expensive lenses. Everyone does the basic 16-50mm, 50-300, 10-20 35/50/85/200/300 prime, 70-200 2.8 (well, not quite, as noted above), type lenses.