September 17, 2014, 03:33:00 AM

Author Topic: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?  (Read 18365 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4480
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2011, 09:41:52 PM »
Why didn't you get the 5d2 for your 16-35? For landscape you really cant't beat the 5d2, 1d X would be the only better option, and as I understand, a tad over budget.

Having actually done this test (7D v 5D2, 24" landscape prints) I can tell you that nobody can tell the difference or tell which print comes from which at low to mid ISO. Out of camera there are some small differences between the two at low ISO, but those differences do not survive post work or printing. I've even challenged people with 100% unlabeled crops, after post processing, only to have them completely fail to say which came from where.

Both make excellent 24" landscape prints, and very good 30" prints, and that's about the limit for critically reviewed landscape prints (i.e. close viewing; judging on fine detail). I highly doubt the 1Dx will change this for landscapes since the limiting factor here is the resolution of fine detail like distant foliage.

I'm basically in the same boat as jrista. The 5D2 is a great camera, but for my uses offers me nothing over the 7D. Until Canon breaks 30 MP in FF I can't see any reason for spending the money.

I followed your answers on the "Earthshatteringly Disappointed with 7D" thread, and you and I seem to think the same. I'm glad to hear the 7D does well for landscape shots. A lot of people tell me I don't need high detail for huge enlargements, but I beg to differ. With the way I have my home laid out, half of my large prints require you to stand within a foot of the print, and the more detail the better in those cases. I'm in exactly the same boat regarding the 5D III/30mp FF. Its good to know the 7D is good enough to hold its own for now. Here's to hoping the 5D III gets both and ISO performance and MP boost!
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2011, 09:41:52 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14381
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2011, 09:42:57 PM »
The TS-E lens is a pain to use on a crop body - the popup flash gets in the way. Canon provides a smaller knob you use in that case, but it's still a really tight fit and the little knob is hard to turn.  Great lens on FF, though!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4480
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2011, 09:45:23 PM »
... a 5D II with it gimped AF wouldn't really help all that much in the area of capturing flying birds or running animals. Long term I intend to own and keep both the 7D and 5D III (or whatever Canon ends up releasing), so the 7D isn't going anywhere.

That is my current usage (although I'll be replacing my 5DII with a 1D X).  You do need to consider whether you'll carry the 5DII when you're hiking around to shoot birds/wildlife.  I usually prefer not to, which is why I kept the EF-S 17-55mm.

I usually set out to photograph one thing or the other. When your hunting down wildlife, you hardly have time to look up at the scenery. I've spent many continuous hours in a 1sq mile area in the Colorado Rockies tracking just one thing or another, say elk or deer, even coyotes and foxes, just to get a few decent shots. Its a lot more work getting a decent shot of wildlife or birds than it is to get a nice landscape shot, so its doubtful I'll carry both cameras with me. I intended to sell my 450D, however the buyer backed out and I've decided to keep it as a backup. I might bring that along on a wildlife shoot for those moments when a battery runs out and the action is still ongoing.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4480
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2011, 09:46:21 PM »
The TS-E lens is a pain to use on a crop body - the popup flash gets in the way. Canon provides a smaller knob you use in that case, but it's still a really tight fit and the little knob is hard to turn.  Great lens on FF, though!

Hmmm...good to know. Thanks! I'd never considered the body structure and how it might affect lens usage.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

dtaylor

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 712
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2011, 09:59:35 PM »
The TS-E lens is a pain to use on a crop body - the popup flash gets in the way. Canon provides a smaller knob you use in that case, but it's still a really tight fit and the little knob is hard to turn.  Great lens on FF, though!

Agreed. If you have the money and are going to get T/S lenses, they belong on a FF body. That is the one respect in which I think the 5D2 has a significant advantage over the 7D for landscapes. But that's assuming you can afford the T/S lenses in the first place.

psycho5

  • Guest
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2011, 10:07:31 PM »
I would save up for the 5D mark III and the 16-35 mark II.... save yourself the hassle of selling stuff later. The 10-22 and any other EF-S lens is bunk!

For graduation (i'm graduating later on this month) my mom splurged on the 5Dmark2 kit from Amazon for $2850 and this new addition has caused me to wonder if I should keep the 7D or not.... i'll have to see. I'm just happy to finally be able to work with a FF sensor.

Richard8971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2011, 10:47:37 PM »
I think a lot of people were surprised AND happy by Canon's 1D X sensor. I've only been doing photography for a few years, but people have been asking camera manufacturers to focus on ISO performance, lowering noise, etc. instead of increasing MP for years. I think Canon made a brilliant move, and I think a hell of a lot of people will be extremely satisfied with their new flagship camera.

I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean in anyway that people couldn't or wouldn't appreciate where Canon took their flagship EOS. However, THERE are people who "see" purely MP size and that's it! They think that bigger is better and the more MP your camera has, it must take better photos! Sadly, the amount of people out there who crave large MP sensors are enough to fuel the fire and Canon has to ackolowedge them. Kinda like those who think video belongs on a still camera. YUCK, YUCK, YUCK!!! If you want video, buy a video camera! Keep the still camera a still camera. My 7D takes video and I swear I will never use it. I refuse to use it!

Why did Canon put video on their still cameras? Because PEOPLE wanted it there! It's a selling point, not for me however.

Before people hijack this thread to 'video on still cameras', I only meant it as an example. My opinions are just that... mine. :)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 10:52:48 PM by Richard8971 »
Canon 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2011, 10:47:37 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4480
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2011, 11:53:06 PM »
However, THERE are people who "see" purely MP size and that's it! They think that bigger is better and the more MP your camera has, it must take better photos!

Well, to be accurate, the truth is more MP is usually better. As someone on another forum I regularly visit put it: More megapixels NOT BAD! The idea that more megapixels is a bad thing, and can't produce better photos than a similar camera with fewer megapixels, is mostly myth. Yes, skill with a camera and some raw creative talent are critically fundamental to making good photographs, but better technology, even more MP, only enhances what skilled creativity can produce. So long as sensors are not significantly outresolving lenses, more MP is not a bad thing. It can, and usually is, a good thing.

People often get too hung up on the "diffraction limited aperture" of a sensor, however the simple fact is that the DLA is only where diffraction BEGINS to affect IQ for a given sensor AT the NYQUIST RATE, not where diffraction has detrimentally affected IQ. Diffraction always exists, at any aperture, and it always affects IQ. Assuming you go from a 10mp camera to a 20mp camera for the same sensor size, and your DLA shrinks from f/16 to f/8. By shooting a photo at f/16 with the 20mp camera, you are not getting WORSE IQ than you did with the 10mp camera. It might be the same, however often it will be a little better, so long as you are not already far outresolving the lens. The 10mp camera with its larger pixels was a limiting factor in capturing all the resolution of the image projected by the lens, and the 20mp camera is capable of capturing more detail, even if its only slightly more. More MP usually means better, even though there are diminishing returns (assuming all else is equal...reduce some other factor, such as crappier readout electronics and a crappy ADC, and THEN you might get negative returns.)

See the forum post below for a more detailed explanation of diffraction, and why more MP is "not bad", and usually good. There are ISO chart samples for comparison, which demonstrate the effects of stopping down more and more with a 5D @ 12mp and a 1DsIII @ 21.1mp, and the improvement (and LACK of "worse" quality at any setting) with the higher MP of the 1DsIII is quite clear.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747761.

For FF digital sensors, and the current generation of Canon lenses, it seems that around 45-46mp is the limit (the same density as Canon's current APS-C 18mp sensors.) Thats more than double the current pixel density of the 5D II, much like the 1DsIII had almost double the density of the original 5D. Gains can still be made, quite possibly a lot of gains. As sensor fabrication gets better, as we move to better microlensing, higher capacity photodiodes at smaller sizes, backlit readout wiring, lower-noise readout electronics, lower noise ADC's, etc., more MP will not necessarily mean more noise. I think the 1DX proves that a high resolution sensor can still be improved CONSIDERABLY. I think the reason the 1DX is only 18mp is more to achieve the insanely high 14fps than for anything else, and I don't see any reason why the same excellent high ISO performance can't be achieved at 21.1 or even 32mp when you don't need high speed readout. There is an ultimate cutoff, where more MP can't produce better images. Assuming we have already pushed lenses as far as they can go, making sensors denser than 45mp at FF size wouldn't produce anything better in the general case. Canon has mRAW and sRAW, which halve the image size and utilize more bayer pixels per RGB pixel to produce a better, cleaner, clearer, sharper photo (kind of like a Foveon sensor.) More MP would be really great for that...an 80mp sensor wouldn't produce better images @ 80mp RAW, however at 40mp mRAW, there would still be plenty of improvement over a 20mp mRAW from a 40mp sensor. Even assuming noise is as "unacceptable" at 80mp as many people claim the 7D's noise is at 18mp today, the 7D produces FANTASTIC images with the mRAW setting...noise almost entirely disappears, where it is often visible at ISO100.

So yes, more MP is generally a good thing, and at worst, NOT BAD! ;-)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Richard8971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2011, 12:33:30 AM »
Well, to be accurate, the truth is more MP is usually better. As someone on another forum I regularly visit put it: More megapixels NOT BAD! The idea that more megapixels is a bad thing, and can't produce better photos than a similar camera with fewer megapixels, is mostly myth.... So yes, more MP is generally a good thing, and at worst, NOT BAD! ;-)

Oh, I agree. Would I trade in my 7D for my old 40D? Um, really hard to say as I loved them both, but I DO love my 18MP 7D!!! (features-wise, OMG)

I just meant that I have seen bad photographs from someone with a 5D mkII and L glass and great photos from someone with a XT rebel and stock glass. MP is NOT everything! MP is a great thing, but not the deciding factor, at least not for me.

Horsepower, TV screen size, MP... the list goes on and on... People want BIGGER, BETTER and they want to be able to BRAG about it. Personally, I like how Canon took the 1D X and sized it down a tad... 18MP. BUT... they sure made one hell of a camera, IMHO.
Canon 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2011, 03:55:09 AM »
Why didn't you get the 5d2 for your 16-35? For landscape you really cant't beat the 5d2, 1d X would be the only better option, and as I understand, a tad over budget.

Having actually done this test (7D v 5D2, 24" landscape prints) I can tell you that nobody can tell the difference or tell which print comes from which at low to mid ISO. Out of camera there are some small differences between the two at low ISO, but those differences do not survive post work or printing. I've even challenged people with 100% unlabeled crops, after post processing, only to have them completely fail to say which came from where.

Both make excellent 24" landscape prints, and very good 30" prints, and that's about the limit for critically reviewed landscape prints (i.e. close viewing; judging on fine detail). I highly doubt the 1Dx will change this for landscapes since the limiting factor here is the resolution of fine detail like distant foliage.

I'm basically in the same boat as jrista. The 5D2 is a great camera, but for my uses offers me nothing over the 7D. Until Canon breaks 30 MP in FF I can't see any reason for spending the money.

But the OP was talking about waiting for the 5d3, and got a 7d whilst waiting when he could have gotten the 5d2 was my point. Trying to prove and fool people to think a 5d picture is taken with a 7d or vice versa is just stupid. You can put ANY of the fast L-primes on the 5d2 and shoot wide open, do the same with the 7d and you1ll see what I mean. To say the 5d2 and 7d is comparable at all is just wrong, plain and simple. I use both FF and 1,3 crop and that beautiful smooth bokeh and transitions of the FF is a big difference to the 1,3. But hey, if you shoot at 50mm f11 iso 100 for landscape the difference is way less than with a 85 1,2 shot wide open or for example my favorite wide TS-17, I would get FF just to have a 17-equiv TS lens. You see, different needs, different products. No need to compare them, if you don't see the point of FF, that's your choice. Compare 60d, 600d and 7d at all same settings, then you have a test.

I have the mk4 and the IQ is fantastic and it delievers when no other camera does, but when I go out and shoot less fast moving subjects, I use the 5d+50L or 24L, it's just crazy good.
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

Haydn1971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2011, 06:36:58 AM »
Having actually done this test (7D v 5D2, 24" landscape prints) I can tell you that nobody can tell the difference or tell which print comes from which at low to mid ISO. Out of camera there are some small differences between the two at low ISO, but those differences do not survive post work or printing. I've even challenged people with 100% unlabeled crops, after post processing, only to have them completely fail to say which came from where.

Both make excellent 24" landscape prints, and very good 30" prints, and that's about the limit for critically reviewed landscape prints (i.e. close viewing; judging on fine detail). I highly doubt the 1Dx will change this for landscapes since the limiting factor here is the resolution of fine detail like distant foliage.

That's a really refreshing view - I started out on here with a view that I needed a full frame camera, I'm steadily developing the view that what I really need is a DSLR that meets my needs for popping pictures of my life events on flickr, pictures of friends, family and the occasional large print on our wall.  Pride of place in our lounge is a fantastic looking sunrise in Majorca, print over 3x24" canvas, it doesn't stand well close up, but looks great from the middle of the small lounge.  What did i take the picture with ?  A Fuji 3mpx point and shoot.   
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

iaind

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2011, 08:00:55 AM »
I have used 10-22 on 40D and 17-35L on 5DII. Preferred FF so 10-22 languishes in an old bag.
Its a great lens so go for it ,you wont lose much when you sell it when the 5dIII eventually arrives.
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E /24-70 2.8II L / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L / 300 4L / 100-400L

ferdi

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2011, 09:00:02 AM »
The EF-S 10-22mm is an excellent lens, reasonably fast (f/3.5-4.5), quick USM, lightweight, smooth zoomring.
You can use a non-slim filter on it with little extra vignetting (a bit at 10mm wide open).
The huge DOF on a crop body is excellent for many applications.
Cons: not weather sealed, huge lens hood (I left it at home most of the times), not FF compatible.

I sold my copy to fund for the 16-35L II since I needed faster shutter speeds (sports and nightlife photography).
Otherwise I would probably have kept it until I go EF-only with a 1D/5D set.
1D IV, 5D III, 5D II, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200L IS II, 300L IS, Σ 50, Σ 85, 1.4x III, 580EX II, 600EX-RT

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2011, 09:00:02 AM »

elflord

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2011, 10:40:04 AM »
I recently purchased a 7D, which I'm quite happy with so far. I do a lot of nature work, landscapes when I have the time to get out and find them, wildlife and birds most of the time, with a variety of other macro, still life, and even portrait work at times. I've been holding out for a 5D III, however it seems that its release is still quite some way off into the future. I also currently own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens, which I've used with my 450D for a while, however it does limit me on the wide end...essentially capturing an FoV similar to that of the 24-70 on FF.

My question is, should I grab the EF-S 10-22mm lens for the 7D, and use that for landscapes? I've heard that lens is optically really great, but I've also heard it has a fair amount of distortion at the wide end. Should I save my money bank it for the 5D III and use my 16-35mm for that kind of work?

All or nearly all wide angle zooms have some distortion on the wide end. Take a look at the photozone.de reviews.

The 10-22mm EF-S lens will have very little distortion at 16mm, whereas the 16-35 will have quite a lot (because it's the wide end of that lens). Ultra wide angle full frame zooms aren't a very good value proposition on a crop, basically, the image they produce is mismatched for the sensor (that is, you buy the optics to cover a wide fov then throw it away because the image falls out of bounds of the sensor)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4480
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2011, 11:45:38 AM »
The EF-S 10-22mm is an excellent lens, reasonably fast (f/3.5-4.5), quick USM, lightweight, smooth zoomring.
You can use a non-slim filter on it with little extra vignetting (a bit at 10mm wide open).
The huge DOF on a crop body is excellent for many applications.
Cons: not weather sealed, huge lens hood (I left it at home most of the times), not FF compatible.

Thanks for the details! The lack of weather sealing is a little worriesome, as I have spent a fair amount of time in winter and snowstorms trying to photograph winter landscapes. The vignetting comment is worriesome as well...I have the Lee filter system with quite a few 4x6 GND filters...and I often stack several on at once with landscape shots to balance out DR. The 10-22 would definitely be out if it can't handle a few filters without a lot of vignetting.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2011, 11:45:38 AM »