[Reinier]

Hello All,

 

The lost couple of weeks I have been using a Canon 600D. And I must say, I was pleasantly surprised by this camera in comparing to my good old Canon 5D (I). As some of you might recall I was saving money for a Canon 5D II or perhaphs a 6D. But they are still quite expensive. And it's hard to find a good second hand 5D II which is for sale close to my home.

 

But now while using the 600D I started to question if I needed a Full-Frame camera after all. The image quality of the lower end camera's is so good nowadays, that I wonder if one can spot the difference, even with enlargements.

 

Another thing I really enjoyed was the articulated screen on the 600D. Because I have a serious back (and neck) problem it is hard for me to bend. So, with my 5D I was very limited in which compositions I good make, but with the articulated screen a whole new world opened up for me, which is great!

 

So, now I am in doubt if I should stay with FF or change plans and go for an APSC camera with articulated screen, like the 60D, 70D or maybe skip to another brand.

 

I would love to hear your opinion.

 

Kind regards,

 

Reinier

 

P.S. The only thing is I have to buy a new standard zoom. I have a EF 28-105 II on my 5D.

[JJ_SO]

If you like Canon and are used to the menus, stick with it. If you want to use shallow depth of field and are willing to pay the price for fast lenses (otherwise there's not much of a point except high ISO and high end FF) I don't see a way around FF. If I'd start these days with looking for DSLR I would go for 70D - I never used it but it felt great and I think in APS C it's very high value. In summary with the whole system and I would love to have an articulated touchscreen together with an onboard WIFi to use an iPad / iPod / iPhone or the like in Android world. There's just so many things you can do more with it.

 

As for new standard zoom, how about the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 C? 18-35/1.8 ist fast and performing great on Canon's AF but a different price region and not as versatile with the very narrow FL range. It's just as sharp as any prime.

[Brightcolours]

Hello All,

 

The lost couple of weeks I have been using a Canon 600D. And I must say, I was pleasantly surprised by this camera in comparing to my good old Canon 5D (I). As some of you might recall I was saving money for a Canon 5D II or perhaphs a 6D. But they are still quite expensive. And it's hard to find a good second hand 5D II which is for sale close to my home.

I see good condition 2nd hand 5D mkII's going at around 800 euros in the netherlands, even with lens. Don't know where in the Netherlands you live, of course... But I had a 2nd hand 500mm f8 Tamron be sent to me via mail, so closeness is not always needed. If you want any info on 800 euro or so 5D mk II's, give me a private message.

But now while using the 600D I started to question if I needed a Full-Frame camera after all. The image quality of the lower end camera's is so good nowadays, that I wonder if one can spot the difference, even with enlargements.

A FF camera has a slight advantage in tonality. The biggest advantage of FF is the possible shallower DOF (depending on lenses). One can make nice photos with APS-C (like that 600D) too, obviously.

Another thing I really enjoyed was the articulated screen on the 600D. Because I have a serious back (and neck) problem it is hard for me to bend.

That is a very good reason to look at a 600D/650D/700D/60D/70D over a 5D mk II.

So, with my 5D I was very limited in which compositions I good make, but with the articulated screen a whole new world opened up for me, which is great!

 

So, now I am in doubt if I should stay with FF or change plans and go for an APSC camera with articulated screen, like the 60D, 70D or maybe skip to another brand.

Not sure what skipping brand will bring you. The Canon DSLRs have a pretty good live view implementation, with the right lenses you get attractive results, and the UI is well thought out.

I would love to hear your opinion.

 

Kind regards,

 

Reinier

 

P.S. The only thing is I have to buy a new standard zoom. I have a EF 28-105 II on my 5D.

The 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II is an ok lens which renders nicely (but is not overly sharp). With its range of 17.5-66mm (APS-C equivalent) a number of lenses can take its place:

• Cheap and cheerful EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM. Nice optics for the price, very lightweight, great AF.
  
• Sigma 17-70mm DC OS HSM "C"
  
• Sigma 17-50mm EX DC f2.8 OS HSM
  
• Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM. Nice for its STM and good optics
  
• Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (big, heavy)
  

Which one appeals to you is for you to determine.

The STM lenses will focus best with live view and contrast detection (and fine with PD-AF).

[Rainer]

If the 600D does the job for you, and if you additionally find the

usage of the 600D more convenient, I would say, you have

an answer to your question.

 

Just my 2cts ... Rainer

[toni-a]

Who defined what full frame is ?? why should 24X 36 considered as full frame  ???

why isn't it a crop of the 39X50.7 medium format ???

forget about this talk

 

As Rainer already said: if the camera does the job for you go for it 

Do you really really need shallow depth of field ? or just the opposite ? if you are shooting macro most of the time then with APS-C  you have  more depth of field you badly need, you have more distance to your subject with the same lens.

When good quality wide angles for APS-C were rare we had issues now all is solved.

If you don't feel you  need medium format then surely you don't need full frame

[Brightcolours]

Who defined what full frame is ?? why should 24X 36 considered as full frame  ???

Full frame just means: full 135 format frame, as opposed to APS-C and APS-H which are just partly the frame of 135 format but use the same lenses and same lens mounts. Not too hard to understand

why isn't it a crop of the 39X50.7 medium format ???

The full frame of MF is 6 x 9 cm,  4x5 is a cropped format too, like APS-C  

forget about this talk

 

As Rainer already said: if the camera does the job for you go for it 

Do you really really need shallow depth of field ? or just the opposite ? if you are shooting macro most of the time then with APS-C  you have  more depth of field you badly need, you have more distance to your subject with the same lens.

When good quality wide angles for APS-C were rare we had issues now all is solved.

If you don't feel you  need medium format then surely you don't need full frame

That is of course not true. FF gives more shallow DOF when needed than APS-C, or MFT, or compact digital cameras, or phone cameras. Sure, 6x9 gives even more shallow DOF possibilities if one has the right lens for it, and large formats even more (again: with the right lens). But FF certainly has its space, and is way more portable than large format or most MF cameras.

 

So, if one feels the need for FF for more shallow DOF, it is a smart choice. If one does not need the more shallow DOF, APS-C is fine.

[JJ_SO]

Ever thought about those film-codes? Just an idea:

 

I know of 110, 126, 127, 135, 120, 220, but there are much more

 

First guess: It's just the length of the whole piece of film in cm. (36mm + 1.5mm) × 36 exposures = 1350mm = 135cm. Fine, but how about 120/220? I could guess, together with the longer paperstripe onto which the film itself was glued by a tape it could be 120cm.

 

As for 135, I read today about 235, 335 and 435 for daylight loading film cassettes Didn't know that bit. I did know, though, there are 24 × 65 mm negative sizes for little Panorama-single-shot cameras and larger ones for the Seitz rotating cameras.

 

Why is the length important? Don't know for sure. Before Oscar Barnack created with the first Leica this type of negative size, this type of film was used for cinematographic purposes, aka movies. It was cheap, easy to transport and to use and there were already labs which were able to develop those stripes. I wonder, how they did it? Filmrolls were very long and became very precious after they were exposed - actors, staff, locations. Failure in development usually was a financial catastrophe.

 

Either way, there must have been a failsafe procedure, long before internet. When I started to develop my films I had already black drums with one or more spirals to develop film. But for the large size cameras, there were tanks with filmholders (wireframes with clamps), one holder for each filmsheet. For those tanks, therer were also holders which were huge enough to wrap a complete 135 film around, or also 120. Those tanks were used in small professional labs.

 

Anyway, after a quick research I didn't find it but there were 135 camera types to switch from full frame to half frame. Because they used 135 film (which is 35mm width) and Oscar Barnack's chosen 24 × 36mm format, the half-format was 18 × 24mm. Lateron in the 60s, the half format was quite popular in Olympus PEN cameras, but there were much more - I even found a Leica prototype.

 

I never heard about half format on Medium format films, the description of medium format was 127 film type until 220 (which allowed double amount of frames of 120).

 

I think it's a quite weak definition to create the word "full frame" and mean 24 × 36mm, just because there are so much more full frame* types and sizes - but it is without doubt the most spread negative size, there a billions of pictures on this world made with 135 film. So, the word creation might be stupid but most phototech people know a bout the meaning.

 

*okay, those days most FF-DSLR allow to reduce the frame size to APS-C to save diskspace, give higher fps or just let adapt APS-C lenses to a FF body. But in the film days, the frame was in 85% of the camera bodies fixed - changing the cameraback of Medium format made it possible to use 135 film on 120 6 × 7 cameras.

 

It's even more strange to call "bigger than full frame" cameras immediately "medium format" - to me, and although I mentioned 127 film type (40 × 40mm), medium format is everything on a 120 roll which means one length of the negative has to have 56mm (6 × 6 cm was inaccurate) - the new Pentax 645Z is just 80% of that which to me is more a pimped FF than a real MF, but never mind: my definitions have the right to be as stupid as others 

 

MF is just eating from he same lens menu which already existed from the film days. The concept of the cubic bodies of the Reflex-types is nothing new. Those bodies are a 45 years or more development in camera history.

[Reinier]

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks so much for your replies. I tend to overcomplicate my decision, as you might have noticed.

 

I am contend with Canon, but a friend of mine is always so enthusiastic about his Nikon stuff, that I was thinking just to broaden my horizon a bit. Which doesn't mean I would go for Nikon, but I like to do some compare the two brands(or maybe take a look at Sony as well?).

 

I bought the Canon 5D about 4 or 5 years ago, because back then it was better then the 40D, which was the latest model back then. I first had the 40D, but I wasn't overly happy with it. But nowadays the image quality of a 60D or 70D is better than my 5D, so now APSC is an option too. I don't really need a shallow DOP often, I photograph nature in it's broadest sense and some other things as historic buildings. I do take macro shots, but not that often.

 

 

I received a new in box Zigview S2 from a friend of mine(because he doesn't use it), but as the 5D I doe'sn't have a liveview, I can't use it. So, if the Zigview or similair systems are easy to work with, then a 5D II might also be an option. Does any of you use a seperate screen like the Zigview or another brand?

 

Brightcolours, how can I give you a private message? I live in a village in Westland, which lies between the Hook of Holland and The Hague.

 

Kind regards,



Reinier

[Brightcolours]

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks so much for your replies. I tend to overcomplicate my decision, as you might have noticed.

 

I am contend with Canon, but a friend of mine is always so enthusiastic about his Nikon stuff, that I was thinking just to broaden my horizon a bit. Which doesn't mean I would go for Nikon, but I like to do some compare the two brands(or maybe take a look at Sony as well?).

 

I bought the Canon 5D about 4 or 5 years ago, because back then it was better then the 40D, which was the latest model back then. I first had the 40D, but I wasn't overly happy with it. But nowadays the image quality of a 60D or 70D is better than my 5D, so now APSC is an option too. I don't really need a shallow DOP often, I photograph nature in it's broadest sense and some other things as historic buildings. I do take macro shots, but not that often.

 

 

I received a new in box Zigview S2 from a friend of mine(because he doesn't use it), but as the 5D I doe'sn't have a liveview, I can't use it.

That is not true? The Zigview is a video camera which records the image from the view finder.... It creates its own live view.

So, if the Zigview or similair systems are easy to work with, then a 5D II might also be an option. Does any of you use a seperate screen like the Zigview or another brand?

I have the EOS 6D, which via WiFi gives remote live view to my iPhone with the pretty nice EOS Remote app (for iOS and Android).

Brightcolours, how can I give you a private message? I live in a village in Westland, which lies between the Hook of Holland and The Hague.

Of course you can

[JJ_SO]

He was asking "How?", BC 

 

Reinier, just click on BC's empty avatar picture on the left side of his post.

In the next view you should see a button "send a message" - that's the one you need to click