This posting is about my decision and rationale for moving to a Full Frame DSLR. I was going to wait until I generated enough sales on my microstock sites to afford one. I was going to wait until Canon released the next generation of the 5D — the 5D Mark III. But I am not a good waiter. So this is my story and logic of going to a Full Frame DSLR camera… now.

First, a few words about the cameras before the Full Frame DSLR

My journey through digital photography started with point-and-shoot cameras, then progressed through a series of Canon APS-C bodies: the Rebel XS, the 50D, and the 7D. Each step brought improvements in resolution, autofocus performance, and build quality. The Rebel XS was my entry point — a capable but modest sensor reviewed in detail here. The 50D added more resolution and a sturdier body (review), and the 7D (review) brought a sophisticated AF system and fast burst rate that served me well for action and wildlife.

Yet even with the 7D's strengths, I kept running into limitations that pointed toward a larger sensor. APS-C sensors, with their 1.6× crop factor, effectively narrow the field of view of any lens. A 50mm lens behaves like an 80mm — fine for telephoto reach, but frustrating when you want a true wide-angle perspective or shallow depth of field at moderate focal lengths.

Why Full Frame?

The core advantages of a full frame sensor come down to three things: image quality, depth of field control, and file information. A sensor roughly the size of 35mm film gathers more light per pixel at equivalent resolutions, yielding cleaner files at higher ISO settings. This matters enormously for microstock work, where noise can mean a rejected submission.

Depth of field is the creative lever that full frame hands you. At the same aperture and equivalent framing, a full frame body produces noticeably shallower depth of field than an APS-C camera. For portraits, food photography, and isolating subjects from busy backgrounds, this is transformative. You can stop down further while still achieving separation — or open up for a look that APS-C simply cannot match without exotic glass.

Then there is the file itself. More photosites mean more data: finer gradations of tone, more latitude in post-processing, and the ability to crop aggressively while retaining enough resolution for stock submissions. Working in Photoshop and Aperture, I found that full frame RAW files tolerated adjustments — shadow lifts, highlight recovery, noise reduction with tools like Topaz DeNoise — far better than APS-C files ever did.

The Canon 5D Mark II

I chose the Canon 5D Mark II. At the time, it was the workhorse full frame body for countless working photographers. Its 21-megapixel sensor delivered the image quality I was after, and its compatibility with my existing L-class lenses meant I could transition without rebuilding my kit from scratch. The 5D Mark III was on the horizon, but the Mark II was available, proven, and — crucially — within reach.

The difference was immediate. The viewfinder alone — larger, brighter, with a focusing screen that made manual focus feasible again — changed how I composed. Lenses rendered as they were designed to, without the crop factor altering their character. My wide-angle work finally felt wide. My portraits gained the subject isolation I had been chasing with faster and faster APS-C lenses.

Was it worth it?

For microstock, the cleaner files meant fewer rejections for noise and artifacts. For personal work, the creative control over depth of field and the richer tonal palette made photography feel new again after decades behind a camera. The cost was real, and the timing was impatient — but the rationale held up. Full frame is not a magic bullet, but for the kind of images I make and sell, it was the right move.

Discussions on the DP Review Forums and detailed comparisons on DPReview helped shape my thinking. If you are weighing the same decision, those resources — along with hands-on time with both formats — are the best guide.