[Lowell Goudge]

Like many here in looking at your kit, except for the 100mm macro and the tamron 28-75 you basically have consumer grade kit lenses.

The fact that you are getting paid work most weekends with just these lenses suggests you are capable, and it is much more about the photographer than the equipment. $2000 would get you a new body and at least one or more lenses. I would suggest something wider than your present kit Lens, and something better /faster for portraits.

If you want to do this within the budget, you can go for a couple of MF lenses. I would suggest a 50/1.4 and the samyang 85/1.4 as starters. Maybe throw in something like a 135 as well.

If you want to get new AF glass, get the DA55/1.4 and the FA77/1.8

The MF glass would likely help with video as well, but I am not sure where that fits into your overall scheme. I personally use a pentax Q for video but to each their own

[mde1970]

I'm interested in this thread, and particularly jrpower10's comment on the Sony A7. Without knowing much, what I read suggests it is a very good, sharp camera and the prospect of keeping my investment in FA and older lenses via an adapter is appealing. And, if I'm not mistaken, Zeiss is making glass for the Sony (Lord, help me keep my lens obsession at bay!). I'd welcome any suggestions on where to go to explore this Sony/Pentax idea more fully. Thanks.

One thing to Note however is Wide Angle lens support for the A7 (particularly the A7R). I've read lots of reports online saying a lot of the legacy wide lenses vignette or smear the corners on the A7R. The wide angle lenses which reportedly work well are quite pricey. I've just picked up a Used Voigtlander Ultron 21mm (as I plan to get an A7R next year) which is pretty much one of the few wide lenses I could afford. Most reports indicate this lens works well on the A7R (by my calculation it will look like 14mm in APSC speak so ideal for my needs).

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I also suggest a sony A99 if you can live with the crappy flash system (although still better than pentax), it has a fully swinging screen that makes it easy to create usual angle shots, no other FF camera offer this, very useful feature if you are bored of shooting people at the regular angles or tired of getting on your knees for a low angle shot or lugging around a ladder for high angle shots.

The Sony experience (essentially failure) with FF dSLR almost certainly is what kept Pentax out of the market. Before considering FF in a dSLR system that has gone another route, also look closely at the menu system, the quality of optics, etc. Even with a lot of marketing muscle, Sony couldn't pull off FF. Competition is tough.

Like me, Clockwork has a Canon 20D which in some respects is a better camera than the 5D. Pinholecam has also weighed in regarding the 5D - and he probably has a slightly higher opinion overall. Bottom line, some of us have been in FF previously and don't see a great advantage. As far as flash is concerned, pretty much only Nikon nails pre-flash TTL, and even some of the pros in that system prefer manual, ratio, or auto. Plenty of generic options that are far more consistent and dependable than pre-flash.

[Na Horuk]

I don't think this was mentioned, but the original 5D has a CCD sensor, right? Lots of people prefer the colours of CCD sensors over CMOS. So maybe you want to try an old Pentax CCD DSLR. You can get a Pentax flagship from back in the day for a quite low price. K10D, K200D,..

[Lowell Goudge]

One thing to Note however is Wide Angle lens support for the A7 (particularly the A7R). I've read lots of reports online saying a lot of the legacy wide lenses vignette or smear the corners on the A7R. The wide angle lenses which reportedly work well are quite pricey. I've just picked up a Used Voigtlander Ultron 21mm (as I plan to get an A7R next year) which is pretty much one of the few wide lenses I could afford. Most reports indicate this lens works well on the A7R (by my calculation it will look like 14mm in APSC speak so ideal for my needs).

They vignette on film too. And edge smearing etc is largely due to lateral CA which can be corrected

[ChristianRock]

How about the K-3 plus an FA-77? The 77 is almost a requirement for pro quality portraits...

If you do the 5D thing instead, a 5D body can usually be had for around 550 from what I've seen. Then I personally would add the pancake 40mm 2.8 (150 or less used) for general photography and an 85mm 1.8 for portraits (275 or less used). There's your 5D system for less than 1000 (you can always try that 50 1.8 whenever you want... but the 40 2.8 is small, contrasty, sharp... great little lens... do a search in flickr, I'm sure you'll be impressed...)

I don't think this was mentioned, but the original 5D has a CCD sensor, right? Lots of people prefer the colours of CCD sensors over CMOS. So maybe you want to try an old Pentax CCD DSLR. You can get a Pentax flagship from back in the day for a quite low price. K10D, K200D,..

No... it's CMOS. I don't think there ever was a full-frame CCD camera.

[clockwork247]

Except portraiture (50mm is too short) and expect tele work (105 is too short). Except that the dynamic range and color deph is worse. Only isos get a boost and that's wasted by the f/4 lens. That f:4 also waste the shallower deph of field possibilities.

A $400 APSC body + a 17-50 might not be as sharp wide open but overall it will gather the same light and get the same deph of field for less than half the price. Add a 50mm f:1.4 it will provide same deph of field, but the focal lens will be better suited to portraits due to crop factor.

Overall going FF using mostly an F/4 lens add very little to the table except bulkyness and money spent.

an F4 lens on a FF is not shallow enough for you? you are sitting on a crop sensor, the f/2.8 dof is still bigger than a FF on f/4...

Can we just look at the final product instead of all these gear talk? you see a pro with a canon FF complain about dynamic range and color depth? heck if you don't like canon then get a nikon D600/D610, there, have your dynamic range and color depth.

and no, your DOF with a crop on a f/2.8 lens is not the same as as an f/4 on a FF... not by a long shot... please multiply everything by the crop factor, I don't understand the notion that people multiply the FL but not the aperture....

Honestly, just grab a FF and shoot with it with some good glass, you'll see why not many pros shoot with crop.

---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 06:44 PM ----------

I don't think this was mentioned, but the original 5D has a CCD sensor, right? Lots of people prefer the colours of CCD sensors over CMOS. So maybe you want to try an old Pentax CCD DSLR. You can get a Pentax flagship from back in the day for a quite low price. K10D, K200D,..

canon was one of the early adopter of CMOS sensor, you won't see any CCD from them unless you look at some of their 1st digital camera... And I wouldn't get a pentax CCD sensor camera for work that pays, not because it doesn't produce good images, but it's definitely not as forgiving as the newer cameras.

---------- Post added 08-18-14 at 06:48 PM ----------

Like many here in looking at your kit, except for the 100mm macro and the tamron 28-75 you basically have consumer grade kit lenses.

The fact that you are getting paid work most weekends with just these lenses suggests you are capable, and it is much more about the photographer than the equipment. $2000 would get you a new body and at least one or more lenses. I would suggest something wider than your present kit Lens, and something better /faster for portraits.

If you want to do this within the budget, you can go for a couple of MF lenses. I would suggest a 50/1.4 and the samyang 85/1.4 as starters. Maybe throw in something like a 135 as well.

If you want to get new AF glass, get the DA55/1.4 and the FA77/1.8

The MF glass would likely help with video as well, but I am not sure where that fits into your overall scheme. I personally use a pentax Q for video but to each their own

MF for pay work is like committing suicide, I know pentax user likes to MF, but get a good camera with micro focus adjust and good glass and forget about MF, your client is not going to sit there and wait for you to focus. yes MF saves tons of money, but there's a reason you're getting pay, invest the money and save everyone their time.

[Lowell Goudge]

MF for pay work is like committing suicide, I know pentax user likes to MF, but get a good camera with micro focus adjust and good glass and forget about MF, your client is not going to sit there and wait for you to focus. yes MF saves tons of money, but there's a reason you're getting pay, invest the money and save everyone their time.

Read my post. I recommended MF glass for video. The OP seemed to think that video was important

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I don't think this was mentioned, but the original 5D has a CCD sensor, right? Lots of people prefer the colours of CCD sensors over CMOS. So maybe you want to try an old Pentax CCD DSLR. You can get a Pentax flagship from back in the day for a quite low price. K10D, K200D,..

Actually, no. Canon has been CMOS for a long, long time. The 5D was different because the 12mp sensor had such low density, but it really wasn't a great implementation when you consider the strides made soon after. Even if you liked the sensor (which was quite good at base ISO), the rest of the package left something to be desired.

[dcBear78]

an F4 lens on a FF is not shallow enough for you? you are sitting on a crop sensor, the f/2.8 dof is still bigger than a FF on f/4...


and no, your DOF with a crop on a f/2.8 lens is not the same as as an f/4 on a FF... not by a long shot... please multiply everything by the crop factor, I don't understand the notion that people multiply the FL but not the aperture....

Haha... Did you even do the maths before making that statement?

[Nicolas06]

an F4 lens on a FF is not shallow enough for you? you are sitting on a crop sensor, the f/2.8 dof is still bigger than a FF on f/4...

An example with dof master:

33mm on APSC f/2.8, focus at 3 meters: deph of field 0.95m
50mm (=33 * 1.5) on FF, focus at 3 meters:

The computation give: f/4.2 (f/2.8 * 1.5 = f/4.2)
dof master give:
deph of field for f/4: 0.87
deph of field for f/4.5: 0.98.

"Oh my god, this is nearly the same deph of field !!! 0.95 us between f/4 and f/4.5 !!!"

Man there nothing special here, we have 1.5x crop factor and 1 stop difference is 1.4. For practical purpose, you can say there 1 stop difference between APSC and FF.

So yes on can say you get approx the same framing and deph of field with an 17-50 f/2.8 on APSC than an 24-70 f/4. The math doesn't match exactly. 17-70 goes a little longer and a little less wide... And the deph of field will be a bit, really a bit, bigger. But for all practical purpose, this is close enough.

Now for practical purposes if you use an f/4 zoom on FF and f/2.8 zoom on APSC:

- You don't get any benefit from deph of field by using the FF.
- Your iso will go twice as high on FF (f/4) than on APSC (f/2.8) in low light situation. You'll speak of how your 12800 iso shoot is so clean, well with APSC and an f/2.8 zoom you will shoot at 6400 isos and you'll not see the difference in term of noise between the 2 shoots.
- There no reason to have more color deph or dynamic range as sensor perform the same on that topic for both APSC & FF (compare an old K5 with best FF)

What remains in benefit of FF ?
- The optics tend to be better at f/4 in general than f/2.8. This depend of the optics. This mean a little more constrast and sharpness to expect on the FF. This negate as you get better optics. I mean 18-35 f/1.8 zoom (APSC only) is razor sharp wide open.
- You can get more sharpness from the FF (like 36MP vs 24MP).
- The in focus - out of focus transition my be better on the FF (I would use a prime if I want this kind of thing honestly)


And, last thing for the fun (from dof master):

50mm f/1.4, focus at 2m on FF: 0.13m
same lens 50mm f/1.4, focus at 2m on APSC: 0.09m

Using the same optic, same apperture on an APSC sensor give LESS deph of field than on FF. This is because the focal lens has more influence on the deph of field than apperture. Double the focal lens, deph of field is divided by 4. Double the apperture, the deph of field is multiplyed by 2.

This just mean that if we both use an 85mm f/1.4, the guy on APSC will get less deph of field from his shoot is taken same distance. FF will remain will less deph of field if framing is the same. Funny thing is if FF guy want to find an equivalent of that 85mm f/1.4... This is 135 f/2. It exist, that good. But there is no easy to find 135mm f/1.4... The FF guy will not be able to get more.

This is on short focal lens and wide angle that this deph of field difference is really interresting from an FF point of view.

[dcBear78]

You Tube

You Tube

[Na Horuk]

Actually, no. Canon has been CMOS for a long, long time. The 5D was different because the 12mp sensor had such low density, but it really wasn't a great implementation when you consider the strides made soon after. Even if you liked the sensor (which was quite good at base ISO), the rest of the package left something to be desired.

I said that because i think the OP mentioned he likes the colours of the 5D Mk1 and was wondering if "FF has anything to do with it". I think a different sensor type would have more to do with it, because FF or crop doesn't really affect colours, only FoV, DoF, and diffraction

[Andi Lo]

Using the same optic, same apperture on an APSC sensor give LESS deph of field than on FF. This is because the focal lens has more influence on the deph of field than apperture. Double the focal lens, deph of field is divided by 4. Double the apperture, the deph of field is multiplyed by 2.

Kind of a pointless comparison though since FF + 85mm/1.4 is impossible / expensive / have no AF to replicate in APSC, which is what the OP wanted (depth of field control). Holds true as well for 50mm/1.4 and 135mm/2 for that matter, both very affordable in Canon FF, but extremely expensive (if it even exist) in APSC.

Also f/2.8 zooms are plentiful in FF, but there's really only the sigma 18-35 in APSC. Third party 2.8 zooms are very affordable as well.

[Nicolas06]

Using the same optic, same apperture on an APSC sensor give LESS deph of field than on FF. This is because the focal lens has more influence on the deph of field than apperture. Double the focal lens, deph of field is divided by 4. Double the apperture, the deph of field is multiplyed by 2.

Kind of a pointless comparison though since FF + 85mm/1.4 is impossible / expensive / have no AF to replicate in APSC, which is what the OP wanted (depth of field control). Holds true as well for 50mm/1.4 and 135mm/2 for that matter, both very affordable in Canon FF, but extremely expensive (if it even exist) in APSC.

Also f/2.8 zooms are plentiful in FF, but there's really only the sigma 18-35 in APSC. Third party 2.8 zooms are very affordable as well.

I said the same optic. I mean the same physical object. That 85mm f/1.4 you mount on your FF you can mount on your APSC.

If you do that focussing at same distance you'll have narrower field of view AND shallower deph of field as an FF.

Equivalence is just what happen when you keep same framing AND deph of field (and not focussing distance). You need to change apperture and focal lens.

From actual practical availables lenses in term of prime, FF is not that better when looking at long focal lenses. Lense are expensive on both sides:

85mm f/1.4 on APSC give 135mm f/2 on FF.
135m f/2 on APSC give 200mm f/2.8 on FF.
200 f/2.8 on APSC give 300mm f/4 on FF.
300mm f/2.8 on ASPC give 400mm f/4 on FF.

That's true an f/2.8 zoom is inexpensive on FF and so that easier to find good practical zoom on FF with shallower deph of field.

But if you are really into that shallow deph of field thing you'll want the f/1.4 prime anyway ! And then for wide and normal FF clearly win... For tele that's a draw...

And that using a tele you'll get the most blurred background and the best subject isolation (if that what you are after).