Full Frame or Crop Sensor ! !`

[Tysonator]

Hi,

I have been waiting for over a year now to buy the latest Canon EOS DSLR, the EOS 7D !
This camera is an amazing piece of kit and is getting some great reviews.
How ever, I was at the NEC Bike show a few weeks back and my Canon EOS 400D struggled in low light compared to my friends Nikon D300 !
I know the Nikon is abetter beast than mine, how ever I just struggled to take the same shot as him on the same ISO setting !
At one point I was ISO 400 he was just on 280 which same aperture and shutter speed. Now the D300 is a 1.5 crop factor and my EOX 400D is 1.6, so he has a slightly bigger sensor than mine.
Surely that does not give him just a better low light capability!
Now he is talking about a D700 full frame camera !
So I am now thinking I really should buy a full frame, and Canons offering is the EOS 5D Mk II, which is a horrific amount of money !

Is it worth saving up and getting the EOS 5D MkII, or go Nikon D700 route !
As I am sure spending £1300 odd on the EOS 7D might be the best way to up grade ! !
What do you think ! ?

[Mark]

1.5 vs 1.6 on its own won't make much difference. Certainly not that much. What will make a much bigger difference is the body itself (credit to SCM for covering for my lack of attention - see below) and the glass you put on the front. If you were using the kit 18-55 and he was using a top-end Nikkor lens (don't know enough about the range to say more) then that would account for the difference, and then some. With equivalent lenses, the D300 will still win as it's a better body to start with.

Don't make the mistake of getting a camera just to "keep up with the Jones's" though. Though a newer/better body will help (maybe help a lot in the case of the 5D/7D), think about upgrading the lens first (especially if you're using a kit lens).

[SCM]

The 400D was the basic entry level Canon range a few years back to DSLR setup whereas the D300 is a higher end which will explain the difference in handling high ISO shooting. The sensor on the D300 is a lot more advanced compared to the older 400Ds which accounts for the difference in ISO setting and if you were comparing one of the newer 5D or 7Ds to the D300 then it would be more of a direct comparison and probably similar ISO settings.

For the majority of us users full frame isn't that much of a loss but is more of a professional level for a photographer who is making a living from his/hers work. So looking at the 7D for a purchase as an upgrade is a good route to go.

[Mondo]

What photographs do you take, do you need that ISO limit?

The 7D is great at low light actually, it's only about a stop difference between that and the 5D2. As for price, its not a millions miles away from the 5D2 from the 7D...it is from the 400D though.

Another thing, once you get a body like that, you'll be spending more on glass. Putting a kit lens on the 7D or 5D2 will really show up bad lenses. The high pixel count of the 7D and 5Dii will show up bad glass so £1.5k on a body...it doesn't stop there, soon enough it'll "force" you to spend money on L-Glass...that's when they big bucks comes in. :p

[Tysonator]

Mt glass is, a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, which is great little lens. This is the one I use at the NEC Bike show. To be fair my m8 also had a Nikon 50mm F1.4 full frame lens for some of the day, so he did have a faster lens. Still does not explain the complete difference in ISO rates between us !
My other lens is a Canon 70-300mm IS HSM, which is a good telephoto lens !

I do like taking Land Scape and architecture alot, plus some sports when I get chance.
As for low light, well gigs, V festival, alot of indood shooting when i am in London or on holiday.

[Mondo]

When you get something like the 7D, you'll see the difference !

I know people who find the 7D is pushing their 100-400L to the limit in terms of resolution and considering getting a 300mm prime to replace it instead. 18mp on a crop sensor is INSANE !

[Mark]

There's a few people on here who do indoor shooting at gigs, so they'd be good people to ask. Can't remember who offhand though and don't want to blame the wrong people.

[SidewinderINC]

I do gigs, Use the 400D quite happily.

Ideally I'd want a better camera but I don't have any issues with using the 400D.

Lense wise I mostly just use the 50mm 1.8, but am looking to get the 50mm 1.4 and a 30mm 1.4 for even smaller gigs.

I hired the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens for a few gigs and didn't get on with it, I think that also goes with the fact I'd never shot at the venue before and was struggling with a few other factors too that I won't go into.

Are you allowed into V-festival arena with an SLR? Unless you've done it before I doubt you'll get past security. You'll need a press accreditation, and they can be an arse to get unless you've got somebody that can get them for you.

[Matblack]

I'd like a 7D but I wouldn't buy one unless I had all L glass or the 17-55 2.8 IS to back it up

MB

[Mark]

Totally agree - looks like a fantastic camera body but it needs good glass (which mostly means L).

I'd like one too, but I'm not good enough to justify it, and nor am I likely to be. I wouldn't say no if someone gave me one of course. ;)

[Toby]

I was in your shoes and upgraded from the 400D to the 40D and am more than happy with that decision.

If you're after better low light performance then the 40D is noticably better than the xxxD series bodies and also the 50D, as the 50% pixel density increase increased noise levels beyond what the processing could cope with.

A friend of mine has the 7D and, stunning thought it is, the noise is only on a par with the 40/50D in my opinion. Of course it has a far higher pixel density so they've done well to keep the noise at the same levels with the resolution.

You can pick up used 40D bodies for just over 400 quid these days and I'd heartily recommend the upgrade. Best thing I ever did.

[Kitten]

^^ same here.

I got my 40D for £400 in January - best move I ever made. Taken lots of pictures in low light conditions and it works a treat.