Any recommendations for my first full frame Canon?

[Rufus]

I have a Canon 450D and I am thinking of upgrading to a full frame Canon.

I would like to do more landscapes and have invested in a Hitech 100mm filter system. My wide angle zoom set at 17mm just avoids vignetting, but my understanding is that it is acting like a (17x1.6 = ) 27mm lens on my present camera because of the 1.6 crop factor. Hence for other purposes I bought a prime 35mm as my "standard" lens because that makes it equivalent to a (35 x 1.6 =) 56mm which is close enough to 50mm.

My understanding is that my EF-S lenses will not fit a full frame model but my EF lenses will do so.

So the first question is: am I right so far?

And the real question is: which model in the Canon range is best suited to landscape, architecture and some studio and macro work with occasional action shots? My budget is not unlimited so price is important and I am, after all is said and done, only a hobbyist. I would like to be able to shoot in RAW only to save space (at present I have to shoot in JPEG too if I want RAW). I would like to do more HDR work as well, and wonder whether that requires a fast camera to take three shots as quickly as possible.

Any help from all you knowledgeable people will be much appreciated.

[DanK]

So the first question is: am I right so far?

Yes.

Any of the cameras you would consider shoot raw without jpeg. I'm surprised that the 450D won't shoot raw without jpeg. I had an earlier-model Rebel years ago, the XTi/400D, and it did.

Any of the Canon FF cameras will be fine for landscape, architecture, and studio work. If you are going to print very large or crop severely, the highest resolution models (5DS, 5DSR) would offer a bit more detail if you use very good lenses, but for most uses, the difference won't be apparent.

The 6D, which is the cheapest, does the best in low light. The next model up, the 5D III, is considerably better for action shots--far better autofocus--but it won't give you improvements for landscape.

For macro, it depends on what you do. If you are chasing bugs, in my opinion, crop sensors are better than full frame because the higher pixel density gives you more pixels on the subject at close to minimum working distance. I shoot FF for most things but use a refurbished 7D for my bugs. For flower macros, the higher resolution you can get with FF is an advantage, but it won't matter whether you buy a 6D or a 5DIII.

Keep in mind that there are opportunity costs in buying a more expensive body. To take full advantage of a camera like a 6D or 5DIII, you will need at least moderately good glass, and glass for full frame is more expensive (because you need a longer focal length for any given field of view).

[Tringa]

Hello Rufus and welcome to CiC.

The following is not based on any personal experience and therefore quite possibly rubbish. It is based on what I have read on another forum. The full frame Canon that appears to be VERY well liked is the 6D.

Here is a link to a review of the 6D - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d/2

You mentioned landscapes and the following is from the conclusion of the above review -

"Landscape and nature photographers could benefit greatly from advantages the 6D brings to the table, including remote control from your smartphone and GPS image tagging. "

Dave

[Black Pearl]

Couple of questions to start with:

What lenses do you have?
What software do you currently use?
What will you be doing with the images?

[rpcrowe]

""I have a Canon 450D and I am thinking of upgrading to a full frame Canon.

My understanding is that my EF-S lenses will not fit a full frame model but my EF lenses will do so."

You are correct... EF-S lenses will not physically fit on Canon full frame cameras. Full frame cameras require EF lenses.

"And the real question is: which model in the Canon range is best suited to landscape, architecture and some studio and macro work with occasional action shots? My budget is not unlimited so price is important and I am, after all is said and done, only a hobbyist."

Virtually any of the Canon full-frame cameras will be suitable for the above purposes. In this posting, I am not going to consider the "Professional Model" cameras such as the EOS-1DX Mark II of any of the predessors to that camera.

Canon is presently offering three full frame DSLR cameras other than its Pro-Line (mentioned above): The EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 5DS, and the EOS 6D. All three of these are excellent cameras and would be perfectly suitable for your needs. However, there is a great price difference between the 6D and the 5D (series) cameras.

The 6D should suit your needs perfectly and runs $1,400 U.S. Dollars at B&H in New York City. I don't know about U.K. prices but, at B&H, the 5D Mark-III cameras run at least $1,100 dollars more at $2,500 USD and the price of the 5DS exceeds that of the 5D3!

There is a possibility of purchasing a used full-frame camera. I purchased a used 5D Mark II on eBay for less than $900 USD recently. The 5D Mark II is a very adequate camera and it is said that the image quality is very close to the Mark II and the 6D but, the latter cameras have a better focusing system and better low light capability. I use a pair of Canon 7D DSLR cameras for my main action shooting so, the slightly less sophisticated focusing system of the 5D2 doesn't bother me.

I most often purchase my Canon cameras as refurbished models (the 5D2 was an exception) and I have been very happy with all of the refurbished cameras I have purchased . I mostly purchase my refurbished cameras directly from the Canon USA Store. Unfortunately all models are not always available and I cannot find a 6D on the refurbished market, either here or in the U.K.

A thought about full frame: You will probably need a mid-range zoom for any full framer since your kit lens will not work. My one complaint with my full frame camera is that there is no lens like my EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS available for full frame models. The generally acepted mid range lenses are the 24-105mm f/4L IS as well as the two 24-70mm. The EF 24-105 doesn't (IMO) quite have the quality of the EF 17-55mm and is slower at f/4. The two EF 24-70mm lenses are either flower (the f/4 IS) or don't have image stabilization (EF 24-70 f/2.8L). However the full frame cameras have a bit better ISO performance which "could" make up for the extra atop. Still the 24-70mm lenses don't have quite the range on the long side as the EFS 17-55 which is equivalent to 27.2 to 88mm. The difference between 70mm and 88mm can be important is you want to use that lens for head and shoulders portraiture.

"I would like to be able to shoot in RAW only to save space (at present I have to shoot in JPEG too if I want RAW)."

Your present camera can certainly shoot in RAW only. Look through your menu for Quality.

"I would like to do more HDR work as well, and wonder whether that requires a fast camera to take three shots as quickly as possible."

Your camera, if you choose the option for auto exposure bracketing AND burst shooting will shoot three bracketed shots and stop every time you press the shutter button and then waits until the next time the shutter is tripped. It should be quite adequate for any HDR work.

Another thought, the 6D was issued in Fall of 2012. I suspect that there will be an update coming from Canon somewhere in the future.

[Geoff F]

What sort of Landscapes, Rufus?

Sweeping scenes with lots of overall interest work fine with full frame and wide lenses but I find that wide landscapes often include a lot of blank uninteresting areas so many of my shots are from the 50-70 mm area and I rarely want to go wider than 30 mm.

If you are regularly wanting to use wider lens settings or are having to move back from the scene, then full frame makes a lot of sense. Even when you need to zoom in a bit it is likely that a full frame camera will have significantly more pixels than a crop sensor alternative so you can still crop back your images. But that is subject to actual camera comparisons.

Recently I was faced with deciding between upgrading my 7D to the MkII version or a 5D. Eventually I decided that for most of my shots the 7D MkII was as good or better than the 5D for me; much of my shooting needs a lot of zoom and there isn't that many extra pixels in the 5D for the increased price. But comparing, for example, the MkI 7D with the 5D gave a different result. And the same could be said of comparing that old workhorse the 40D with a 5D; where the 5D would clearly be the winner.

But there are other alternatives within the 5D camera range that need to be considered; including simple things such as improved weatherproofing, although for me, the 7D MkII is much better than the MkI in this respect.

There isn't an easy decision here so you will need to consider a lot of personal variables.

[Rufus]

In response to Black Pearl

Well, my lenses are:

EFS: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
EFS: 55-250 f4-5.6
EFS: 10-22 f/3.5-4.5

EF: 50 f/1.4
EF: 35 f2

So I would probably need a wider EF (24mm?) lens for landscape, although I am not keen on images where the sky is obviously taken through a very wide angle. I am not sure about a dedicated Macro lens yet - it's probably not a priority and would be a budget buster.

I have Photoshop CS6 and will eventually consider consider moving to CC partly because it comes with Lightroom which seems a bit more intuitive, and it is the only way to get updates.

Despite my limited ability, I enter competitions locally at a club for hobbyists like me. So I will be printing images at A4 on my Canon Pixma iP4700 and maybe A3 through a contact I have as well as competing in Projected Digital Image (PDI).

In response to everyone so far - thank you for some very interesting and helpful comments which I need to digest.

[DanK]

I agree with Geoff that FF is not the best choice for everyone. Given your interests, FF does make sense to me, but keep in mind that you will have to replace three of your lenses. And if you want lenses that will make good use of the quality of the FF sensor, you will end up spending a fair chunk of change. So, dollar for dollar or pound for pound, it may not be the best choice. Modern crop sensor cameras produce very high-quality images.

[Donald]

Can I ask - What are you wanting/expecting a full frame camera body to give you that you cannot /will not get from a body such as the 7DMkII, or the 80D that's just been announced today?

[davidedric]

With a limited budget, look at refurbished or second hand, but I echo Donald's question.

Dave

[Thlayle]

I would like to jump into this thread and ask some similar questions. My situation is very similar to that of the OP. I have a Canon 550 and actually I love shooting with this camera. But I have long had interest in acquiring a full frame Canon.

One of my main interests in photography is shooting night photos and other low light situations (mainly in nature). I find I am constantly fighting a battle with noise, one that I do not expect to go away with a different camera of any model, but that might be less of a struggle with a full frame camera. I would also like the benefit of the full view of my fixed focal length (14mm) Rokinon lens, especially for night shots of the stars. The 14 mm is perfect for me with a f/2.8 and excellent control for coma aberration.

So, looking at the comments on this thread, I still think a full frame would be best for me but like the OP, I wonder about which one? By the way, this is news to me that the 6D is a full frame. For some reason, I have been thinking it is a APS-C.

My other lenses are the original kit lenses and the plastic-fantastic 50mm. I use Photoshop and Lightroom CC. Besides night photography, I spend a lot of time on landscape photography. I always shoot Raw, except for a little bit of JPEG when I am trying for time lapse shooting.

[SuffolkGal]

A 5D2, it's a no brainer. Total bargin on Ebay, I just bought my second one in brilliant condition for £600 with less than 60k actuations.

You need FF for landscape if you are going to get at all serious about it. Don't even think about upgrading to another cropped camera as the noise in low light is never going to match that of a FF camera. Shooting landscapes you will be shooting low light and somtimes you won't be able to use a tripod.

Dump your EF-S lenses and pick up some L series glass and you'll be happy as a happy thing.

[Tony M]

I had a Canon 40D and a little over two years ago I changed to the Canon 6D. The 40D sensor was 10MP and I wanted more megapixels. I went through the same decision-making process, as I wasn't sure whether to get the 70D or 6D. In the end the FF won, mainly because of the lower noise: I wasn't thinking of landscape or architectural photography, which is what I tend to do most; rather, I was thinking I would do more low-light photography where noise is an issue. I also worried that the APS-C format had a limited life-time, being made obsolete by lower-cost FF sensors. I no longer think that APS-C is threatened by FF - 4/3 and 1" sensors may be the real threat.

Now that I have the 6D I can reflect on my decision. FF offers shallower depth of field for a given aperture, which is a benefit for some kinds of photography. It isn't for landscape or architectural photography, where sharpness over the entire image is usually desirable. So there are situations where you must use a smaller aperture and will have to compensate with higher ISO or lower shutter speed. FF can tolerate higher ISO, but it's something to keep in mind.

The 6D is not weather-sealed; the 5D Mk III is. The next camera I buy will be weather-sealed - not necessarily for the inclement weather, but also for perspiration. The multi-controller button stopped working while I was in Cuba last summer, most probably due to the sweat dripping from my forehead. Luckily it started working again the next day, but it occasionally stops working and will have to be cleaned. Something to keep in mind.

The GPS is a real nice-to-have. It's useful when you're in a place that you would have difficulty finding again; something that often happens when going on photography outings in a group where you are not in control.

The WiFi is also a nice-to-have, allowing me to control the camera from my mobile phone and take street photos shooting from the hip without the subject noticing. And it's useful when you want to upload photos quickly to social media.

You will have to change your EF-S lenses. I sold the 10-22mm one and bought the EF 16-35mm F/4 L IS lens, and got the 24-105mm lens with the camera. I'm happy with both lenses; I'm not too demanding of them as I'm sure other factors affect the quality of my photography more than them. I still have the 40D with the EF-S 15-85mm as a backup, and for my daughter to use.

The sensors of the 6D, 5D Mk II and 5D Mk III are so close in performance that it should not be a factor in your decision. The lack of anti-aliasing filter on the 6D may be a problem (mainly for video). It isn't for me.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eiFBV70Z5E and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX_I9KPPdWY for a comparison of the 6D and 5D Mk III.

I hope that helps.

Tony

[DanK]

One of my main interests in photography is shooting night photos and other low light situations (mainly in nature). I find I am constantly fighting a battle with noise, one that I do not expect to go away with a different camera of any model, but that might be less of a struggle with a full frame camera.

Dave, I don't to astrophotography, but I do a modest amount of night photography and have shot with a number of long-time expert night photographers. I think you may be on the wrong track.

Most night photography is done at base ISO, or close to it, with long exposures. For that sort of work, the low light does not convey any real advantage to FF. The main advantage of FF for photography of this sort is that digital long exposures are limited by heat build-up, and for a given number of pixels, the larger sensor will stay cool longer. This is not an issue for urban night photography, but it is for wilderness night photography, where exposures can be very long. Some people who do that sort of work still use film for that reason.

I'll post a few images as examples. All of these were shot raw with no noise reduction in processing, but the really long exposures with the 50D were shot with Canon's subtractive long-exposure reduction, which subtracts fixed noise and doesn't affect image sharpness.

This one is the only night image I have ever taken that won any sort of award. The competition was not specifically night photography, but the judge was an outstanding professional night photographer. This is a 10-minute exposure at ISO 200 with a Canon 50D, which is not only a crop sensor camera, but a fairly noisy one. I mention the prize not to brag but to make the point that my best success in this sort of photography was done without FF. The yellowish glow, by the way, is not from a setting sun; this was taken around 11 PM. The judge, being a night photographer, knew immediately what it was: sodium vapor lamps. He didn't know this, but there is a tiny village at the other end of the lake, perhaps 6 miles as the crow flies. The village has a few sodium vapor street lights. This is the reflection of that light on clouds. With a 10 minute exposure, it becomes very visible.



Here is another with the 50D, this at ISO 100 and 30 seconds, which is more typical of urban night photography:



I do prefer FF for night photography, and I routinely use a 5DIII now for that, but my point is that for a lot of night photography, a crop is just fine unless you have other reasons for FF, such as printing very large or cropping severely. Just for fun, here is the same lake as the first one, turned 90 degrees, taken near midnight under a harvest moon. 5DIII, ISO 100, 6 minutes:

You need FF for landscape if you are going to get at all serious about it. Don't even think about upgrading to another cropped camera as the noise in low light is never going to match that of a FF camera.

I think this is an overstatement. I know many people who have done superb landscape work with crop sensor cameras. If I am not mistaken, Donald, who does breathtaking landscapes, used a 40D until not that long ago. Yes, all other things being equal, FF handles low light a couple of stops better. But with really proper exposure--much easier to manage in landscapes than when shooting something that is moving--you can get pretty good results even with a crop. Here is a test shot I took recently with a 7D generation 1, which is not considered particularly low-noise, at ISO 3200, again with no noise reduction at all:

[rpcrowe]

I am going to buck the crowd. As I mentioned, I shoot with a pair of 7D cameras and I purchased a used Canon 5D Mark-2 camera for several reasons.

First is to see if it would be a bit easier to shoot my dog portraits with a full frame camera because of the distance under which I usually shoot. I have a bit of a problem getting my larger dogs within my frame at the distance I have to shoot.
answer: yes, easier but, not greatly simplified...

Secondly is to see if the quality of full frame would be mind blowing over that of my 7D.
answer: I have not done any head to head tests but, from casual observation (using the same lens) the quality of my full frame images is not mind blowing better...

Third is that I was just darned curious about full frame and when I had the opportunity to get a minty used 5D2 at a relatively low price $900 USD, I picked one up.

What I have noticed is that the autofocus system of the 5D2 is not anywhere nearly as sophisticated for sports and moving subjects as the AF on my 7D cameras. It is more like the AF on my 40D than that of the 7D. I really feel like I am several generations behind rather than only a single generation (5D3 > 5D2) of course, I am one generation behind in my 7D setup (7D2 > 7D) but it doesn't feel like it. The autofocus is so basic and limited on the 5D2, that I will not be taking it to shoot the Blue Angels next week....

Will I keep the 5D2? I have not made up my mind yet. The jury is still out!

I am wondering if you replaced your present EFS: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and EFS: 55-250 f4-5.6 with better glass, might the imagery you get from your present camera improve? Better lenses would give you at least an extra stop at some focal lengths and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS would provide two extra stops at 55mm. Even at a shorter focal length, you would effectively have at least a two stop advantage since you can effectively shoot the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens wide open and to get excellent image quality, you really need to stop down your kit lens a stop or two...

Of course, choosing photo equipment is always a series of choices and compromises

[Thlayle]

Dave, I don't to astrophotography, but I do a modest amount of night photography and have shot with a number of long-time expert night photographers. I think you may be on the wrong track.

Most night photography is done at base ISO, or close to it, with long exposures. For that sort of work, the low light does not convey any real advantage to FF. The main advantage of FF for photography of this sort is that digital long exposures are limited by heat build-up, and for a given number of pixels, the larger sensor will stay cool longer. This is not an issue for urban night photography, but it is for wilderness night photography, where exposures can be very long. Some people who do that sort of work still use film for that reason.

I'll post a few images as examples. All of these were shot raw with no noise reduction in processing, but the really long exposures with the 50D were shot with Canon's subtractive long-exposure reduction, which subtracts fixed noise and doesn't affect image sharpness.

This one is the only night image I have ever taken that won any sort of award. The competition was not specifically night photography, but the judge was an outstanding professional night photographer. This is a 10-minute exposure at ISO 200 with a Canon 50D, which is not only a crop sensor camera, but a fairly noisy one. I mention the prize not to brag but to make the point that my best success in this sort of photography was done without FF. The yellowish glow, by the way, is not from a setting sun; this was taken around 11 PM. The judge, being a night photographer, knew immediately what it was: sodium vapor lamps. He didn't know this, but there is a tiny village at the other end of the lake, perhaps 6 miles as the crow flies. The village has a few sodium vapor street lights. This is the reflection of that light on clouds. With a 10 minute exposure, it becomes very visible.



Here is another with the 50D, this at ISO 100 and 30 seconds, which is more typical of urban night photography:



I do prefer FF for night photography, and I routinely use a 5DIII now for that, but my point is that for a lot of night photography, a crop is just fine unless you have other reasons for FF, such as printing very large or cropping severely. Just for fun, here is the same lake as the first one, turned 90 degrees, taken near midnight under a harvest moon. 5DIII, ISO 100, 6 minutes:





I think this is an overstatement. I know many people who have done superb landscape work with crop sensor cameras. If I am not mistaken, Donald, who does breathtaking landscapes, used a 40D until not that long ago. Yes, all other things being equal, FF handles low light a couple of stops better. But with really proper exposure--much easier to manage in landscapes than when shooting something that is moving--you can get pretty good results even with a crop. Here is a test shot I took recently with a 7D generation 1, which is not considered particularly low-noise, at ISO 3200, again with no noise reduction at all:

Dan, Great information & beautiful shots. I definitely "get it" about the lower ISOs and the longer exposures for many situations. In some respect, I know I am overselling to myself the need for a full frame. It's with the astrophotography that I find through experience, and advice from some really excellent night photographer's, that the high ISO levels become essential. I go the darkest skies I can find and my subject is the stars themselves. It's a part of my photography experience that has become ingrained. I love the night sky & I love trying to portray it through photos. My 14mm lens on my camera of course works out to more like a 22mm. So the challenge is both noise and field of view.

But your comments resonate with those of Richard's and remind that I should probably see how I do with some better lenses in my collection and then consider the FF cameras. I think the lenses I will be looking at will be compatible with a FF.

Here's a pano I did with my 550 and the Rokinon 14 mm. I am basically happy with it. I think with a FF I would still have to stitch together a series of shots, but the noise might be easier to manage:

[Thlayle]

I am going to buck the crowd. As I mentioned, I shoot with a pair of 7D cameras and I purchased a used Canon 5D Mark-2 camera for several reasons.

First is to see if it would be a bit easier to shoot my dog portraits with a full frame camera because of the distance under which I usually shoot. I have a bit of a problem getting my larger dogs within my frame at the distance I have to shoot.
answer: yes, easier but, not greatly simplified...

Secondly is to see if the quality of full frame would be mind blowing over that of my 7D.
answer: I have not done any head to head tests but, from casual observation (using the same lens) the quality of my full frame images is not mind blowing better...

Third is that I was just darned curious about full frame and when I had the opportunity to get a minty used 5D2 at a relatively low price $900 USD, I picked one up.

What I have noticed is that the autofocus system of the 5D2 is not anywhere nearly as sophisticated for sports and moving subjects as the AF on my 7D cameras. It is more like the AF on my 40D than that of the 7D. I really feel like I am several generations behind rather than only a single generation (5D3 > 5D2) of course, I am one generation behind in my 7D setup (7D2 > 7D) but it doesn't feel like it. The autofocus is so basic and limited on the 5D2, that I will not be taking it to shoot the Blue Angels next week....

Will I keep the 5D2? I have not made up my mind yet. The jury is still out!

I am wondering if you replaced your present EFS: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and EFS: 55-250 f4-5.6 with better glass, might the imagery you get from your present camera improve? Better lenses would give you at least an extra stop at some focal lengths and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS would provide two extra stops at 55mm. Even at a shorter focal length, you would effectively have at least a two stop advantage since you can effectively shoot the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens wide open and to get excellent image quality, you really need to stop down your kit lens a stop or two...

Of course, choosing photo equipment is always a series of choices and compromises

Thanks, Richard, for the information & great suggestion. The better glass for me will have to be compatible with a Canon FF since I think I still may be headed in that direction. And of course there's the whole coma aberration issue. It would be ideal if I could find lenses that also match that criterion, but that might be a bit too much to hope for.

[Tronhard]

I have a fairly large range of Canon bodies - 450D, 500D, 600D, 650D, 60D, 7D and 5DMkIII. Over the years I have used them all for a combination of landscape, travel and wildlife photography, so I hope I can make a comment from the point of relative experience.

I would question first of all what your budget will be: not only will you be buying a body, but some fairly costly glass.

My first observation is to do with the size of photo you are looking at printing. A4 is NOT really that big, so unless you intend to crop heavily I question whether a crop sensor, used with skill will generate a lot of noise for you. I have done a lot of panoramic landscapes using the crop sensor and a standard - mild telephoto lens on a tripod carefully levelled. By stitching them together I got great results that were way wider than A4 and while I do not enter competitions I have sold some of the images, which would indicate that they were reasonably good quality.

Absolutely the FF 5D offers benefits in terms of DOF and the ability to use wide-angle lenses. There are benefits to both APS-C and FF, but if you are considering dumping your current investment I would think again and at least keep what you have, as you will have a spare body in case of emergency and you can still use your current stable of lenses plus any new FF lenses you get.

With regards to quality of image - I have taken the following images in low light with a range of bodies and lenses as identified. I have no idea how well these higher resolution images will come out on this page but hopefully they will demonstrate that even at 100% - which generates an image larger than A4, the quality is reasonable. What I wonder is, are those taken with the APS-C sensor too noisy for your purposes? I DO have images taken with the 7D but they are in Canada I am in NZ!

I just reviews the panorama on this site. It looks awful compared with the original, but it will at least demonstrate that there is an alternative to using a wide-angle lens with a FF sensor at great cost.


Canon 600D, Canon 15-85mm EFS IS-USM ISO 200, 20mm, f9, 2sec


Canon 60d, ISO 200,26mm, f7.1, 4 sec


Panorama of 5 images stitched, Canon 60D, ISO-200, 33mm, f6.3, 1/640


Canon 5DMkIII, ISO-160, f10, 0.8 sec

[rpcrowe]

Another thought comes to mind. Noise is not only a factor of the camera sensor but also of proper exposure and proper post processing.

I read an interesting comment somewhere lately that I have not tested out and am just throwing into the hat to see what pops out. I am paraphrasing the posted comment but, it reads something like this:

A full frame camera has a more narrow depth of field than a crop camera and thus more area of an image may be out of focus than the same image shot with a crop camera. Out of focus areas show more noise than areas in focus. So the narrow depth of field may partially offset the full frame cameras better ISO performance...

[Tronhard]

Another thought comes to mind. Noise is not only a factor of the camera sensor but also of proper exposure and proper post processing.

I agree... Not seeing any of the images that are an issue makes it difficult to do any analysis, but on a pure logical basis, I am left to ask what specifically is wrong with the results Rufus is getting at A4 size when sensors on APS-C cameras can yield very satisfactory results (I am not referring to my own in this case there are heaps of them on line and I have seen in my own club competitions), and at relatively large magnifications in all conditions.

Rufus, perhaps it would be a good idea to publish a few your problematic images with the EXIF details (in particular the ISOs used) so we can look at what the issue is. One consistent factor in my own images is that I keep to a very low ISO. According to an article from a Canon expert, Canon cameras perform best at an ISO of 160 and multiples of that (apparently Nikon works on multiples of ISO 100). I learned with film and then one chose an ISO for a whole film, so for me it is easy to leave the ISO at ISO200 and sort the other settings accordingly.

It may well not be a case of buying new gear, but using a different technique to make the best of what you have. The result might save you a lot of money. I agree with a saying that goes waaay back in photography: "better gear doesn't make you a better photographer". I was not immune from this: I upgraded my cameras to 3x60Ds just before I went on a 5-week shoot in the Rockies, and frankly I should have stuck to the gear I knew well as I would have got better results.