There is still a pretty significant difference in between the price of a cropped sensor camera and the price of full frame camera.

But is the difference really worth the money?

If you do not not make a living out of your photos actually.

And even if you do.

I went, I saw, I bought

Canon 5D MKII FF

Well, at a reasonable price Vulcan, we're not professional photographers...

I own a Canon 40D purchased about 2 years ago. Cropped sensor, 10Mp

I am very happy with it.

My photography is casual, mainly travel related.

In most cases the 18-85mm lens is sufficient, though I do have wider and longer available.

Having a builtin flash is a useful feature to me

If I were buying today I think I would go with the Canon 7D.

Full sensor is nice, with the more natural focal lengths and the depth of field that goes with it.

So much depends on what you use the camera for.

I bought a Nikon D300s, recently.

I can't imagine outgrowing this camera in the next few years, its probably far more advanced than I will ever be. Having said all of that, I seem to have an expensive taste in Camera Lenses and some of these lenses I am not getting full advantage of with this camera because its not full frame sensor, so one day when I have a few more of these magic lenses I will probably lunge out and buy a second camera body ......in the meantime I will keep learning on the 300s.

Geez, this forum caters only to rich people...

Edited February 12, 201016 yr by eurasianthai

If I were buying today I think I would go with the Canon 7D.

And well, I'll go with Astral.

Not cheap but far cheaper than what has been recommended so far...

Buy good lenses, go for a cropped sensor and spend a bit extra on the lenses.

Geez, this forum caters only to rich people...

Nope.

A couple of weeks ago I've bought my first DSLR. It's a Nikon D90 with a 18-105 kit lens.

D3s would be my weapon of choice. But first a 70-200 2.8

There is still a pretty significant difference in between the price of a cropped sensor camera and the price of full frame camera.

But is the difference really worth the money?

Well, not worth the money IMO till Canon 5D and Nikon D700 came into the market and the price gas has since been narrowing with the release of 5D Mk2 and 7D.

I have never owned a cropped sensor camera and never thought of owning one as I already had lens asset from pre-digital days, all of which were of course designed for 35mm film and therefore of little use for cropped sensor cameras. Besides, availability of interchangeable lenses is part of why anyone would go for SLR, digital or film. And manufacturers like Canon and Nikon provides a vast range of lens line up for one to choose from, most of which were designed for and are in optimal focal length for 35mm film cameras (and full frames alike) especially the professional lenses, so why limit yourself to EF-S or DX lenses or compromise with an expensive lens and crop out half its image circle when it might yield a sweet spot larger than your sensor size.

Well, at a reasonable price Vulcan, we're not professional photographers... rolleyes.gif biggrin.gif

I actually find 5D Mk2 to be a very reasonably priced camera, if not a bargain. And I'm sure majority of its user base is high amateurs, not professionals, although many professionals alike also use it (like Vulcan). You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot Chinese tourists in organized packaged tour these days carrying top end models like EOS 1Ds Mk3 or Nikon D3X. Anyway to answer your question I'd buy Nikon D3S or D700 if I'm buying an SLR system from the scratch now.

Edited February 12, 201016 yr by Nordlys

Personally, I would buy one of the micro 4/3rds cameras over a dslr. The bulky mirror/prism arrangement worked on film cameras as it gave move flexibility than a rangefinder, but seems out of place and of limited future on digital. Samsung have their own version and it's a matter of time until the big guns like Canon and Nikon bring out their own system.

I have a Canon 50D and 40D backup. I have given some thought to the 7D, but -- and I know this marks me as a mere amateur -- I often really like the handy little A-DEP feature that the 7D doesn't have. There are rumors galore about a soon-to-come 60D. I'll wait a bit to see if that comes out and what it has...as well as for the price to come down on the 7D...which is still running at over $2000 (kit) here in Thailand at "reputable" shops.

I have never owned a cropped sensor camera and never thought of owning one as I already had lens asset from pre-digital days,

all of which were of course designed for 35mm film and therefore of little use for cropped sensor cameras.

I am not sure what you mean by that statement????????

In fact you seem to cotradict yourself in the next part of your post.

....manufacturers like Canon and Nikon provides a vast range of lens line up for one to choose from, most of which were designed for and are in optimal focal length for 35mm film cameras (and full frames alike) especially the professional lenses, so why limit yourself to EF-S or DX lenses or compromise with an expensive lens and crop out half its image circle when it might yield a sweet spot larger than your sensor size.

The EF-S lenses are generally smaller than the EF-L versions.

Cheaper too. It was probably easier to design the lens for the smaller format?

However the EF-L versions are better quality.

The EF-L lenses work well on a cropped format body. I see no reason why older, pre-digital versions

should not do the same, as long as mount is compatible.

My 28-70mm is 20 years old and came with my first film Canon EOS back in 1990.

I have never owned a cropped sensor camera and never thought of owning one as I already had lens asset from pre-digital days,

all of which were of course designed for 35mm film and therefore of little use for cropped sensor cameras.

I am not sure what you mean by that statement????????

Not sure what's not clear about that statement.... I never said they can't be used or shouldn't be used on cropped sensor camera. Nothing wrong about your old 28-70. I'm sure it's still a good lens although 24-70 probably excels it. But if I have to invest in an lens like 24-70, I probably want to use it as 24-70, not as 38-112. Rather unpractical focal length for expensive and heavy a lens. In another word if I have to bear the cost and weight of an L lens I'd like to use it for what it was designed for. If all existing lenses were good enough for cropped sensor cameras to begin with I don't think they came up with line ups of EF-S and DX lenses in the first place.

Edited February 13, 201016 yr by Nordlys

I have a Canon 50D and 40D backup. I have given some thought to the 7D, but -- and I know this marks me as a mere amateur -- I often really like the handy little A-DEP feature that the 7D doesn't have.

Are you sure about that? It is on the Canon 450D, so they probably kept it on the other models?

Canon is a Japanese company, they do not like to change too much...

Edited February 14, 201016 yr by eurasianthai

I have a Canon 50D and 40D backup. I have given some thought to the 7D, but -- and I know this marks me as a mere amateur -- I often really like the handy little A-DEP feature that the 7D doesn't have.

Are you sure about that? It is on the Canon 450D, so they probably kept it on the other models?

Canon is a Japanese company, they do not like to change too much...

Yes, I am sure of that.

Well, I guess people using high-end cameras do not need this feature...

But if I have to invest in an lens like 24-70, I probably want to use it as 24-70, not as 38-112.

But that is true of all lenses on the cropped sensor body?

My 17-85mm is in fact 28-135mm if it could be mounted on a full frame body.

If all existing lenses were good enough for cropped sensor cameras to begin with I don't think they came up with line ups of EF-S and DX lenses in the first place.

Full frame lenses are good enough for cropped sensors.

The cropped sensor gives the lens designer more freedom to design a smaller, lighter and cheaper lens.

Why not take advantage of it?

Unless you want to spend money with the chiropractor getting you back or shoulder fixed.

Well, I guess people using high-end cameras do not need this feature...

Their attitude seems to be that using an auto feature like that is "beneath" them.

But that is true of all lenses on the cropped sensor body?

My 17-85mm is in fact 28-135mm if it could be mounted on a full frame body.

Well doesn't that support my point? I don't think it's any coincidence if you multiply 1.6 factor to 17 - 85 it matches the focal length of the already existing EF28-135 (which I had some 15 years ago, way before Canon released its first dSLR D30). They came up with EF-S lenses BECAUSE existing EF or EF-L lenses weren't of exactly practical focal length (or field of view should I say) for cropped sensor body.

The cropped sensor gives the lens designer more freedom to design a smaller, lighter and cheaper lens.

Why not take advantage of it?

Unless you want to spend money with the chiropractor getting you back or shoulder fixed.

Of course EF-S lenses are lighter, smaller and cheaper in general than EF lenses, or at least EF-L lenses. So my point is why bother using heavy, bulky and expensive EF or EF-L lenses if you already have them on cropped sensor body when more than half its image circle will be cropped off (or limit yourself to EF-S lenses when Canon or Nikon provides vast range of line ups for full-sensor or film body?)? Isn't this why Olympus and other makes joined a camp to launch 4/3 system to design SLR system (both the body and lenses) that they thought was most optimal for digital photography from the scratch when Olympus already had well-established SLR system (film)? And yes 4/3 did give a lot of freedom for designers when they designed the new standard from the scratch. Why didn't you take advantage of the 4/3 so you didn't have to spend money on chiropractors?

Edited February 15, 201016 yr by Nordlys

But that is true of all lenses on the cropped sensor body?

My 17-85mm is in fact 28-135mm if it could be mounted on a full frame body.

Well doesn't that support my point? I don't think it's any coincidence if you multiply 1.6 factor to 17 - 85 it matches the focal length of the already existing EF28-135 (which I had some 15 years ago, way before Canon released its first dSLR D30). They came up with EF-S lenses BECAUSE existing EF or EF-L lenses weren't of exactly practical focal length (or field of view should I say) for cropped sensor body.

I don't think that the practical focal length was the reason for Canon to introduce their EF-S series.

Lets have a look at some Canon EF (L and non-L) lenses and their approximative equivalent in crop:

First the zooms:

16-35 and 17-40 --> 28-60 WA to Normal Zooms, equivalent to 24-70 or 28-70

24-70 --> 38 - 105, ok, a bit of a strange breed here.

70-200 --> 100 - 300 a fine mid to far tele lens. There is no such lens on the market with 2.8 for FF!

Primes:

24 --> 35

35 --> 50

50 --> 85

85 --> 135

135 --> 200

So the whole classic prime lens series just shiting into the tele range.

Crop brings advantages to the tele end, with faster equivalents than available on FF; or have you seen a 1.2 (or even a 1.8) 135 mm lens?

The problems are the Wide Angle, and a good balance in midrange.

And here the EF-S Series shine with a 10-22 which is on par in quality with the 17-40 L, and especially the 17-55 2.8 IS, a lens which equivalent is simply not available for Full Format, no matter what the price is. (The 24-70 L lacks Image Stabilisation, and the 24-105 lacks speed)

So, a crop lens setup should comprise of two EF-S lenses, the 10-22 and the 17-55, plus one of the four 70-200 L lenses. Add whatever Macro and Prime lenses you need, and you have a magnificient setup.

I see absolutely no reason why EF-S Tele lenses should be missed. Lots of full format lenses are getting blurry on the corners, and therefore most likely stay sharp to the corners of the crop

I myself have cropped bodies (7D and 40D), plus the two fine EF-S lenses, 10-22 and 7-55), and the 70-200 4 IS, plus 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0. Looking into the purchase of the 24 1.4 L, and the 300 4.0 L to complement, and maybe one day a Macro Lens again.

In case I ever go FF, I would miss my fantastic 17-55 2.8 IS, and I am not certain that the existing FF WA zooms bring the same Quality as my beloved 10-22. Plus, I would need to think (and most likely buy) again on the long end.

A bit old now but a fairly good and unbiased comparison Here

Lots of full format lenses are getting blurry on the corners, and therefore most likely stay sharp to the corners of the crop

Perhaps. But not so apparent (if at all) after I changed all my EF and Sigma lenses to EF-L. And if that's the reason why anyone should use cropped sensor body then that person really shouldn't be using EF-S lenses.

In case I ever go FF, I would miss my fantastic 17-55 2.8 IS, and I am not certain that the existing FF WA zooms bring the same Quality as my beloved 10-22.

I mentioned in another thread that I see "fall outs" at corners in eurasianthai's shot of Suvarnabhumi with 10-22 that I never saw in my 17-40L with 5D. You really should try EF16-35F2.8L II on 1Ds Mk3 or 5D Mk2

A bit old now but a fairly good and unbiased comparison Here

Very informative website, Vulcan, thank you.

In short, choosing a cropped body or a full frame seems to be a question of taste, and money

I built up the system of my choice considering price. I had a Nikon d80, a short range telephoto and a long range telephoto. Because I kept on bang the long lenses against objects I bought a fixed 50mm as my standard lens - very compact. However i still too often wanted of the the other lenses and it seems I was spending a lot of time searching clean places to change lenses. Too much work and effort to lug the equipment around. In short I gave the whole mess to my daughter who is getting serious about her photography.

Eurasianthai, I'm one of the few members. of modest means. the next camera will be the canon s90 or possibly the G 11. Both are affordable and easy to carry around. The s 90 can easily fit in my pants pocket and i expect to hear the girls say" is that an s90 in your pants or are you happy to see me"?

Good bye DSLR's - Hello freedom. I already miss you but its better this way.

Good bye DSLR's - Hello freedom.

Well, going from 500g-800g to 200g is not freedom, it is laziness...

Good bye DSLR's - Hello freedom.

Well, going from 500g-800g to 200g is not freedom, it is laziness...

Photography isn't about endurance contest. Just because one doesn't have heavy and expensive equipment doesn't mean s/he doesn't have passion for photography. So many times I've felt like throwing my SLR when I was on 2 months backpacking. So many times I missed great shot because I just couldn't bear hanging my camera from my neck or shoulder for so long (or too tired even just to grab my camera out of the bag). Why I bought a compact with an SLR size sensor (SIGMA DP1) but was hardly a substitute for an SLR. Carrying a light compact is better than no picture. "Horses for courses" like Vulcan wrote in another thread would be the right approach but I can't afford so many different types of equipment unfortunately.

How about Panasonic GF-1 or Olympus EP-1 with a pancake, or Sigma DP1/2, jukapot?

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Nordlys

Carrying a light compact is better than no picture

Indeed.

This one was taken by my wife with a light compact

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by eurasianthai

Nice pic, but it would have been better if the boy in light color clothing (and light complexion) could be treated with "burning", if you have a software for it that is. BTW I never liked walking through this gate. A war weapon like .50 caliber machine gun and assault rifles should have no place in a Buddhist temple, let alone pointing at tourists. Good to know it's no longer pointed at people.