September 18, 2014, 09:59:39 AM

Author Topic: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII  (Read 3135 times)

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 861
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2014, 04:18:00 AM »
Hi Folks.
If you don't have Lightroom, or maybe even if you do have a look at this utility,
I use it following it being recommended here I think, it will display the info in graph form so you can easily see the ranges you use most, (of just about everything, not just focal length) which may be more use than querying above a certain number?
I have just copied the bit from google, for the info, best of all it is only small < 700kb when I downloaded it a couple of versions ago.
Downside? Windows only!

ExposurePlot
www.vandel.nl/
From this site you can download Wega2 the digital image viewer and ExposurePlot the focal length, ISO, aperture and shutterspeed analyzer for jpg files.
‎Exposureplot - ‎Wega2 - ‎SaveIt - ‎CaptureLens


Cheers, Graham.

If you have Lightroom (and some other programs), you can set a filter to see what focal length your entire library of photos is at; see what percentage of your photos are greater than 250mm focal length to get an idea how many you'd need to crop on full frame to get the same picture.  You can do the same with ISO to see how many you need ISO higher than 1600-3200.

7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2014, 04:18:00 AM »

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1248
  • The best critic sits in front of the camera
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2014, 04:37:24 AM »
Hi Folks.
If you don't have Lightroom, or maybe even if you do have a look at this utility,
I use it following it being recommended here I think, it will display the info in graph form so you can easily see the ranges you use most, (of just about everything, not just focal length) which may be more use than querying above a certain number?
I have just copied the bit from google, for the info, best of all it is only small < 700kb when I downloaded it a couple of versions ago.
Downside? Windows only!

ExposurePlot
www.vandel.nl/
From this site you can download Wega2 the digital image viewer and ExposurePlot the focal length, ISO, aperture and shutterspeed analyzer for jpg files.
‎Exposureplot - ‎Wega2 - ‎SaveIt - ‎CaptureLens


Cheers, Graham.

If you have Lightroom (and some other programs), you can set a filter to see what focal length your entire library of photos is at; see what percentage of your photos are greater than 250mm focal length to get an idea how many you'd need to crop on full frame to get the same picture.  You can do the same with ISO to see how many you need ISO higher than 1600-3200.



Thanks Graham, very usefull tip. Nice to see the statistics of all photos in a specific folder.
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-70VC  |  24-105L  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  70-300L  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1313
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2014, 05:07:10 AM »
Quote from: colin.davis on Today at 01:03:18 PM

"Ruined: You are a smart person. I like smart people.  Thanks for coming to the forum  I am going to go out and do a photoshoot at 250 and see if I can tolerate it... This might be a diccy (& fight provoking) question, but, how much could you 'crop' a full frame image to say it is the 'same' quality as a crop. Rather than 250, could it maybe closer to 300/320?  oh god my brain hurts and I'm not even trying to work out the answer.  I guess there are probably many variables..."


I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2014, 09:58:51 AM »
I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).

Well, idea is, if you have a bottomless pit of money with full frame you can just buy a longer lens and get better results than crop with a shorter lens.  But, the OP has a 100-400 and shoots wildlife; the FOV at 400mm on his current camera is ~640mm.  In order to get that on full frame he'd have to spend $10k on a Canon EF 600mm f/4L or start putting on teleconverters which will negatively impact the image quality (and often autofocus) more than a crop camera will.

So yeah crop is cheaper, but its not just the camera but more importantly the lens when you get to longer focal lengths.

As for cropping full frame to APS-C, when you are reach limited there will be more pixels on the target with crop.  Cropping full frame will work but you will lose detail because of this.  The exception to this rule would be when shooting in low light (i.e. ISO6400) when the lower noise & higher contrast of full frame would likely be a better tradeoff for a little less detail.  Some feel that cropping full frame is at worst no difference but that is not my experience at lower ISOs and it does not logically make sense to me knowing how digital imaging works.

jrista did a fairly well controlled test here that can demonstrate the loss of detail when cropping full frame vs using a crop camera on a reach limited target for a visual demonstration; you can see in his test the full frame crop loses a ton of detail on the moon surface/craters because there just aren't enough pixels to fully reproduce it on full frame due to the cropping:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 10:12:22 AM by Ruined »

Vivid Color

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2014, 10:26:51 AM »
If you are going to Africa, you will definitely want to have a second body as you will not want to change lenses in the field due to the dust. Last year, I took my 6D and T1i to Africa and this combination of full frame and crop body worked really well.

By the way, I really like your photos.

colin.davis

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
    • Colin Davis Photography
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #20 on: Today at 12:11:15 AM »
So I checked my files from the last year (couldn't be bothered doing past that). With regards to this 100-400 lens, I shoot a lot at the 250-300mark (ie 400-500mm on crop). I also have quite a few at the 400mm mark (ie 640mm).  Though these zoomed at 640mm have an iso sitting somewhere around 800-1600. hahaha. So hmmm. I do shoot heaps of non-zoom stuff, my 15-85 is used more than my 100-400, I just find I am better (well I like my photos more) with wildlife and zoom so they are the ones posted more.

I am currently hunting around for the best 5D III price. So that when I buy it they can release the Mark IV.
Good thought Vivid Colour.  I may yet get a second body closer to travel time then - or use my old one as that.  I have heard dust is an issue...

Also, Thank you Vivid Colour, glad you like them :)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4505
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #21 on: Today at 03:24:23 AM »
Hi Colin,

I recently (few months back) purchased a 5D III to compliment my 7D. I do birds and wildlife mostly, but I also like landscape and macro, as well as astrophotography. Short term, both cameras work well for the astrophotography, but in the long run, I'll need much more expensive and dedicated eqipment to do what I want on that front. For white field astro (i.e. milky way stuff), the 5D III is quite good, although a bit noisy.

For my birds and wildlife stuff, the 5D III is excellent. When I first got the camera, my 2x TC had been missplaced. I use the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II lens for birds and wildlife. For wildlife, the 5D III at 600mm is excellent...it's just about the perfect combination. Deer, coyote, etc. at decent distances frame nicely, with a little bit of slight cropping and rotation room. Larger birds, like egrets, larger waterfowl, frame decently as well.

When it comes to smaller birds, including passerines (songbirds) and shorebirds, I have found that I feel a bit lacking in reach. I'm always wanting to get closer, and at 600mm much too close for most of those birds comfort. At 840mm things were better, but I still felt I wasn't getting the same number of pixels on subject as I did with my 7D. It was only after I found my 2x TC III, and started photographing the smaller birds at 1200mm f/8 at more comfortable distances that didn't influence the birds behavior, that I really felt I had the necessary reach to get the kinds of shots I wanted with a full frame camera.

For the more budget minded, I still think that for smaller birds, something like the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm lenses on the 7D II are going to get you more pixels on target, which means more detail. I don't know how the 7D II will fare on the noise front...only time will tell us that. I can only hope that it's improved over the 7D and 70D IQ since it uses DIGIC 6, and if it has, I think it would be a better choice for reach-limited photography (at least until the 5D IV is out). If you have the skill to get close to frame smaller birds larger in the frame on the 5D III, then it should still produce better IQ than the 7D II, and at higher ISO settings.

The frame rate differences are another thing that I feel I've lost with the 5D III. Experientially, I know that the 7D's 8fps didn't always result in 8 keepers a second. It's AF system has an inherent jitter that tends to kill a couple frames each second, so in the end, you often effectively only get 6fps anyway. The literal 6fps on the 5D III does feel a bit slow in comparison...and it would feel very slow in comparison to 10fps. There isn't a huge difference in the moments and subject poses captured at 6fps relative to 8fps, but I think you could indeed capture better moments at 10fps, and that could be extremely useful for BIF...so that's something to consider.

Now, my preferred lenses for birds and wildlife are the EF 600/4 II and EF 300/2.8 II. I think that the 100-400 and probably the 150-600 (I haven't used the latter) are still excellent for the budget minded photographer. Ironically, I think the latter two lenses are still better paired with a 5D III and expending the effort to get closer to your subjects than a crop camera...simply because of the narrower maximum apertures.

When it comes to landscapes, this is the one area where I have personally been disappointed in the 5D III. I bought it partly for landscapes, as the 7D never gave me the field of view I really wanted with my 16-35mm lens. I don't get to do a lot of landscapes...all the beautiful ones are many hours drives away,  and my life currently just doesn't support getting out there all that often. I've tried doing some landscapes recently, most of which had quite a bit of dynamic range...and I was rather disappointed in shadow noise quality of the 5D III. The 7D had vertical banding, however it was very regular and easily removed with Topaz DeNoise 5. My experience with the 5D III is that it's banding is much more random, and does not clean up as well or at all with DeNoise. The sheer amount of noise in the shadows is very high as well, and it's not very clean noise...it's banded, it's got a lot of blotchy color splotches in it, and it's more grainy and much more washed out than the random photon shot noise.

After the hype I had heard about improvements to the 5D III's shadow noise quality in the year after it's release, I figured it would have been better than it was. Certainly better than the 5D II. While some of the characteristics seem better, the overall levels of read noise are the same, and it is not any more "sightly" than Canon read noise has been for years. I love landscapes with water in them, which often precludes the use of HDR, or if you do use HDR, it complicates the merge. There are other options, manual blending, etc. that can be used, but it is an increase in workload that I can't really absorb, and even if I could, I just don't want to hassle with the added complexity. With more dynamic range and less read noise (as you get with cameras based on Exmor sensors, like the D810, D600, A7r), you can usually resort to less complicated post processing, and even reduced use of GND filters when on-scene, and just overall a lighter workload (something very appealing to me personally).

As such, I've been seriously considering an alternative for my landscapes, macro, etc. photography. Since I am rather heavily invested in Canon lenses, the Sony A7r is at the top of my list as an alternative full frame, high resolution camera with lots of DR that I could use for landscapes. It's not exactly cheap, but neither is it particularly expensive...and since it does have the potential for EF lens compatibility with the Metabones adapter, it's the cheapest alternative. The other alternative for getting the best IQ possible is the Nikon D810. I'd considered that as well, along with the 14-24mm f/2.8 lens...but the grand total cost on that came out close to $6000, which is just to pricey for me. The A7r is $2300, a much more reasonable price.

Your opinions on read noise and overall IQ may differ from mine, and you may find that the 5D III low ISO IQ is perfectly fine for your needs. If you think the IQ issues of Canon sensors might be an issue, then you may want to seriously consider an alternative package. The 7D II for all your reach-limited action stuff, and the A7r for your landscapes. The A7r is a mirrorless camera, so it's fairly small. The Metabones EF adapter is also quite small, so they can still be quite portable, even in combination with a 7D II.
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: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #21 on: Today at 03:24:23 AM »

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1313
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #22 on: Today at 04:04:07 AM »
I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).

Well, idea is, if you have a bottomless pit of money with full frame you can just buy a longer lens and get better results than crop with a shorter lens.  But, the OP has a 100-400 and shoots wildlife; the FOV at 400mm on his current camera is ~640mm.  In order to get that on full frame he'd have to spend $10k on a Canon EF 600mm f/4L or start putting on teleconverters which will negatively impact the image quality (and often autofocus) more than a crop camera will.

So yeah crop is cheaper, but its not just the camera but more importantly the lens when you get to longer focal lengths.

As for cropping full frame to APS-C, when you are reach limited there will be more pixels on the target with crop.  Cropping full frame will work but you will lose detail because of this.  The exception to this rule would be when shooting in low light (i.e. ISO6400) when the lower noise & higher contrast of full frame would likely be a better tradeoff for a little less detail.  Some feel that cropping full frame is at worst no difference but that is not my experience at lower ISOs and it does not logically make sense to me knowing how digital imaging works.

jrista did a fairly well controlled test here that can demonstrate the loss of detail when cropping full frame vs using a crop camera on a reach limited target for a visual demonstration; you can see in his test the full frame crop loses a ton of detail on the moon surface/craters because there just aren't enough pixels to fully reproduce it on full frame due to the cropping:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0

Thanks, Ruined for your reply. As an old guy newbie hobbyist, I don't understand a lot of this technical stuff. I looked at your link to jrista's moon shot comparison and that actually is where I got  the Neuro quote reference.
Thanks for the comparison!

As I've often stated, APS-C does have a 'reach advantage'...if you're FL limited AND at low ISO (~800 or less) AND printing larger than 16x24"/A2.

Something else I'm curious about...how small is too small?  For your moon shots, would a 16-18 MP m4/3 body via adapter yield more detail than your 7D?   How about an SX50 HS (granted, not the same lens - but AlanF has posted some provocative comparisons).

Moon shots aside, I'm not convinced of the advantages for bird photography, for several reasons.  If I'd need to crop an image too deeply, I would just delete the shot (more likely, not have taken it).  With the shutter speeds needed, ISO often needs to be raised beyond the tipping point, where the greater noise of APS-C means less detail.  Those are sensor-based factors, and as I've also often stated, we don't take pictures with bare silicon sensors.  Many people have reported that the AF of the 5DIII yields a higher keeper rate than the 7D, and a higher keeper yield of in-focus shots despite the lower frame rate (and with the 1D X, both rate and yield are higher).

I appreciate the careful testing in the specific situation you describe.  I'd be very interested to hear, after you've used the 5DIII to shoot birds for a while, how frequently you grab the 7D for that purpose, instead.   Like Skulker, I kept my 7D for a while...and didn't use it, so eventually sold it (and for far more than it would fetch today, with 7D prices dropping like a stone). 

Despite the 'reach advantage' held by APS-C in certain specific scenarios, IMO the main advantage of APS-C is not reach, but lower cost.

EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

serendipidy

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1313
    • View Profile
Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #23 on: Today at 04:13:13 AM »
I remember this from ALAN F comparing actual reach of crop vs FF...it's not 1.6 times better as I always thought.

Here is a way of calculating the effective extra reach or resolving power of a crop body versus FF, which will amuse the geeks among us.

Measure the MTF of a lens on the crop (= MTFcrop) and the same lens on the FF (= MTFff). The ratio of the MTFs, MTFcrop/MTFff, gives the relative resolving power of the bodies with that lens. However, the crop body can be placed 1.6x further away to give the same field of view. Therefore, the true effective relative resolving power, R, is given by:

R = 1.6x MTFcrop/MTFff.

Photozone lists measured MTFs for a set of lenses on the 5DII and 50D. I calculated their ratios for the Canon 200mm f/2.8 II, 85mm f/1.2 II and 35mm f/2 at wide apertures below the DLA. MTFcrop/MTFff is very close to 0.726 in all cases.

This gives R for 50D/5DII = 1.16.

So the effective extra reach is 16%.  (Based on the ratio of their pixel sizes, a value of 36% is expected.

The dpreview widget gives values for the 5DIII and 7D only for a few lenses. I did the same calculations with the Tamron 150-600mm (between 150-400mm), the Canon 200-400mm and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A at wider apertures below the DLA. In all cases, MTFcrop/MTFff is close to 0.742.

This gives R for 7D/5DIII = 1.19.

So, the effective extra reach is 19%. (Based on the ratio of their pixel sizes, a value of 45% is expected).

There are always arguments about using MTFs quantitatively, but I think in this particular calculation it is reasonably valid to use them. It fits in reasonably well with experience - Jon has shown there is better resolving power in photos of the moon with the 7D, but it doesn't look 45% better. And my own experience is that the 7D and 70D aren't much better than the 5DIII, certainly not 1.6x.

This gives R for 7D/5DIII = 1.19.

So, the effective extra reach is 19%. (Based on the ratio of their pixel sizes, a value of 45% is expected).

That might be true in a testing scenario, but few of us shoot in those. Factor in AF, handholding, higher than base iso, less than ideal aperture or shutter speed etc etc etc and the differences become minimal, as so many people who have owned both have attested to.

As I've stated, the most significant advantage to APS-C is lower cost.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:22:35 AM by serendipidy »
EOS 5D miii, EOS 7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii, 100-400mmL IS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D III OR 6D or 7DII
« Reply #23 on: Today at 04:13:13 AM »