Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 22, 2013, 5:40 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

does she know what she will be carrying around
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2013, 7:13 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

This sure sounds like someone that thinks making the change from APS-C to 'Full Frame' will solve everything that's wrong with their photography.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2013, 8:25 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

OK - back on track here.
The biggest difference between the cameras for the type of photographer in question is AF. The 6d has really one useful focus point. And it has less sophisticated tracking. So as long as she's a center-point-only type of person she's OK. There are other differences, but they're really not going to matter to her.

But, the 100-400 is not a tiny lens to travel with. I know, I've done it. It's a great lens but it's a bit on the large side. Does she own it or is just wanting to get it? That lens screams wildlife

But, in canon's lineup there's no question that IQ of the 2 cameras is much better than the aps-c offerings. And, having gone through several canon DSLRs, I'm fully on-board with the angle-of-view of full frame given the lenses. Actually having 24mm FOV with the 24-105 is fantastic. That lens is the perfect kit lens for full frame.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2013, 6:04 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,907
Default

Okay fellas ...

then in lieu of the 100-400 what would you suggest for a 2nd lens
what can I pass onto her ?

Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2013, 7:43 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

If you need 400mm on a 'Full Frame' body, the Canon 100-400 is about as good as it gets.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2013, 7:45 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

A more portable alternative might be an APS-C kit.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2013, 10:05 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Phil - it really depends on what she wants to use a second lens for. I take the 100-400 only when I plan on shooting wildlife. Otherwise I take my 24-105L and 17-40L and external flash.

By the way - the notion that aps-c is "more portable" really isn't that true. In canon and nikon land, most of the high quality lenses are designed for full frame. So, no savings there. If portability is desired, aps-c is a poor solution - you really want m4/3.

But seeing as your friend did not state portability is the primary objective, that's a wasted line of thought. Find out what she needs the second lens for and we can suggest a suitable lens. The 70-300L is smaller and fantastic image quality and quick focusing.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 3:44 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
A more portable alternative might be an APS-C kit.
not really. the difference in weight between, say, a 7D and a 5D/6D is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and lenses aren't any smaller or lighter, except for maybe a few of the EF-S lenses, which then cannot be used on a FF body. you could sub a 7D with a 70-300 in lieu of the 6D and 100-400 to save some weight on the lens, and on a crop body, that'd be as effective as a 400 on a full-frame camera, but you might not get the same IQ.

crop bodies and FF bodies both have their places, and as someone who owns a 5D2 and a 7D, if i were traveling to someplace to shoot scenery, the 5D and a 24-105 would win hands down. if i were going to Africa, it'd be the 7D and the 100-400 in a heartbeat.
__________________
Rocky

Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering...
~ Three Dog Night

www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 5:34 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squirl033 View Post
not really. the difference in weight between, say, a 7D and a 5D/6D is negligible in the grand scheme of things, and lenses aren't any smaller or lighter, except for maybe a few of the EF-S lenses, which then cannot be used on a FF body. you could sub a 7D with a 70-300 in lieu of the 6D and 100-400 to save some weight on the lens, and on a crop body, that'd be as effective as a 400 on a full-frame camera, but you might not get the same IQ.

crop bodies and FF bodies both have their places, and as someone who owns a 5D2 and a 7D, if i were traveling to someplace to shoot scenery, the 5D and a 24-105 would win hands down. if i were going to Africa, it'd be the 7D and the 100-400 in a heartbeat.
The difference in the size and weight between a 'Full Frame' body and an APS-C body are not insignificant, but nothing to get excited about. The real difference comes in the size and weight of the lenses, when you consider comparable angles of view.

The Canon 100-400 is 3.6" x 7.4", 3.1 lbs. and sells for $1,399, while the Canon 70-300 is 3.0" x 5.6", 22.2 oz. and sells for $649, and the Canon 55-250 is 2.8" x 4.3", 13.8 oz. and sells for $299. The Canon 24-70/2.8 is 3.5" x 4.4", 28.4 oz. and sells for $2,299, while the Canon 17-55/2.8 is 3.3" x 4.4", 22.8 oz. and sells for $1,059 , and the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is 2.9" x 3.2", 15.2 oz., and sells for $499.

The difference in the size, weight and cost of a "Full Frame" body versus an APS-C body are nothing to scoff at, but the difference in the size, weight and cost of "Full Frame" lenses versus APS-C lenses should give one pause.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2013, 9:00 AM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Tcav - in Nikon and Canon land, the vast majority of quality lenses are full-frame lenses. The 55-250 is a nice lens but not the quality of the 100-400. It's amusing that you keep putting down full-frame cameras when you haven't used one. But, those of us who use both full frame, aps-c (and aps-h in my case) can't possibly know what we're talking about. There is more to a lens than FOV that determines quality. The 55-250 is a great consumer lens but talk to anyone that has used a 70-200 f4 IS as well and it's no comparison. Whether on full frame or aps-c the "bigger" lens is just better. There are a couple aps-c lenses in Canon that are high quality - no doubt about it. But, the vast majority are built for full-frame. And aps-c users happily use those lenses and enjoy the quality they provide.

Again, if size/weight is a factor it makes sense to skip aps-c altogether and just go m4/3.

But - this continues to go off topic. The OP has a friend interested in 2 specific cameras - both very good cameras. And nothing in the requirements stated indicates full-frame is a "bad" choice. Plenty of people that actually use full-frame cameras enjoy them. For certain, they are not the end-all-be-all. But neither is APS-c or mirrorless or 4/3 or digicam. But if a person wants to buy a m4/3 and their stated requirements can be met by m4/3 that's great for them. Same here. If you're not interested in 5d vs 6d discussion and lenses for those cameras there's no need to participate in this discussion. If you'd like to start a thread in the general forum discussing the merits of aps-c vs. full-frame I'm sure that would be an interesting thread and we'd get a lot of interesting input.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:03 AM.