Richard8971 said:

I know this question has been asked over and over and several reviews on the web have put both cameras through their paces, but after my own use of both cameras, here is my 2 cents.

First off, let it be said that a FF 7D is the 5D3. This is not about comparing the these two bodies. The 5D2 is basically a FF rebel (in terms of speed/raw features), with a far SUPERIOR color processor and sensor! (No offense anyone)

I own both cameras. It comes down to this, if you are shooting mainly stills, weddings and "canned" shots, the 5D2 cannot be beat in areas of image quality and low light handling.

However, for wildlife? The 7D is a workhorse and I love using mine. The more I shoot with it, the more I love it. I have been getting amazing images from it and it is far easier to use than I first gave it credit for. It is very fast and a "NOW" camera. It does what you want exactly when you want it done!

I am simply suggesting that a camera that can cost well over a grand less than the 5D3, and upwards of $600 less than the 5D2 and twice as fast as the 5D2, one has to stand up and take notice. When Canon does decide to make a "7D Mark II" they have their work cut out for them. For an APS-C camera, the 7D is as close to perfect as it can be and I for one cannot wait to see what they consider a "replacement" for the 7D! Yes, crop sensors have limits, just as FF bodies do... but the image quality and advantages (speed) of the 7D outweigh the 5D2 in real world shooting!

If you buy one, you will not be disappointed. I haven't been... (shots taken with the 7D, pics sized down for posting, full size rez photos are much, much nicer!)

Click to expand...

Richard, you have summed up my thoughts, feelings and experience of owning the 7D very closely with your post. I bought my 7D soon after it came out... and it's been a workhorse of a camera - very much a 'NOW' camera and capable of great image quality in the right hands, with good lenses (& technique).

Sure a FF has some noted advantages, but often we're talking at pixel peeping level. Even great photographers can not often distinguish an unlabelled crop photo from a FF in many instances.

Enjoy your photography everyone!!

Paul

Thanks Neuro... you have answered all my questions SO clearly and well. I now understand.

You're a legend! Again, your contribution on this forum is so much appreciated.

Paul

I've only just had my 50 1.4 back from repair, so not tried it with the 5d3 yet. On the 7D, i found that i could get keepers wide open, but they were difficult in situations outside my control. Stopping it down a bit is easier

In my (limited) experience, it's the drummer's arms that're the first thing to go, then guitar arms and such.

rcarca said:

nightbreath said:

They look too flat and too sharp to me. I believe you can easily fix this in your editing software.

Click to expand...

I am interested in the "too sharp" part of what you said. I have done nothing to sharpen them. That is straight out of the can. Are you suggseting that I might soften them?

As to the flat bit... does this look any less flat:

...

Unfortunately, you can see more signs of the building work hidden amongst the trees! I really appreciate all of this feedback because it helps me get these looking better!

I will also be back there on a better light day... but perhaps not now until next spring!

Cheers

Richard

Click to expand...

It seems CR forum makes something with sharpness when you add your pictures from Flickr here. When I said "flat" I was referring to main point of attention in the photo, nothing could "catch" my eye. And please don't use shadows push so much

I'm betting it's going to be a long wait for that high MP rumored camera. If you already own some good glass then why not invest in some strobes? That will help with image quality.

IN the STUDIO they just work 1 2 3 easy, OUT doors wow random, if you get them working thats it teh whole day SHOULD run smooth , but if you don't it takes precious minutes,

I suggest marry a TT5 to its FLASH seems if they like each other they work fine he he goofy i know but i have had wonderful results with PW and other times i felt like a rank amature

I just wish they would work better than any Cheapies cause we sure are paying the money for them.

You are on the right path. If you are going to get the 70-200 mkii then you wont need the 100-400. The 200 plus 2xiii extender is all as good as the 100-400. After using the 70-200 mkII with the 2XIII for a while. I picked up the 100-400. Decided to return it as it did not offer me anything I didn't already have. Plus the AF was more accurate on the 70-200 with 2xiii.. More keepers shooting birds in flight. the 100-400 seemed to hunt more for focus and I lost a lot of shots because of it.

NJK said:

I'm pondering the same decision right now.

I don't own either lens yet, but I will be getting the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II soon. I have the non-L 70-300 IS right now, and I routinely shoot at 300mm. I would not object to having even more range. 200mm won't cut it for what I do - so I'll either go with the extender 2x mk III or the 100-400. Obviously, the former solution is cheaper, but if I have to save up a bit longer to get the 100-400 in addition to the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II, then I will.

I understand that the speed of the focus drive is cut by 75% when the extender 2x is used (and by 50% when the 1.4x is used). I don't do a lot of sports or fast-action shooting (at least not in the 300mm + range), so I can probably live with this. It sounds like with the (mk II) lens + (mk III) extender at 400mm, IQ is on par with what you get from the 100-400 lens at 400mm. Yes, you lose 2 stops of light with the extender 2x, which means that either way you go, you will have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm. So, this is really looking like a true "toss up" here.

I firmly believe in buying lenses with the native focal lengths that you really need, and as I've said, I'm not opposed to saving up a little longer to get the 100-400mm. BUT, here is what has me leaning in the direction of the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II + the extender 2x mk III, instead of the 100-400:

(1) The "drawbacks" in terms of sharpness, IQ, contrast, etc... inherent with any extender are offset by the fact that you're starting with a MUCH higher quality lens (the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II);

(2) Any issues with contrast can certainly be corrected in PP and the images can also be sharpened a bit in PP, if necessary. I’m willing to do this work, if lens + extender ends up being the better way to go;

(3) The 100-400 isn’t (fully) weather sealed, while the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II is weather sealed (as is the extender 2x mk III). I don't deliberately subject my gear to adverse conditions, but it is nice to know that my investment is protected, if the elements catch me off guard; and

(4) The 100-400 only has 2 stops of correction via its IS system, vs. 4 stops of correction via the newer implementation of IS on the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II.

Point # 4 above is what REALLY has me leaning in this direction. I don't lug a tripod around with me everywhere. 99% of my shots are hand-held. DOUBLE the correction (from a more updated IS system) has me thinking that the 70-200 2.8 IS mk II + extender 2x mk III might actually be "better" than buying the 100-400.

Am I crazy for thinking this?!? As you can see, I'm aware of the slower focus speed, IQ issues, etc. of going the lens + extender route here. I didn't see the issue of a much better IS system being discussed in this thread and I just wanted to bring it up. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this and anyone's actual experience as it relates to the two IS systems here. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I don't think the EF-S lens line-up was a BAD idea... Canon needed to do SOMETHING to give users of crop-sensor bodies good wide-angle performance at a reasonable price.

Can you imagine how expensive and complex the optics would be to create an EF lens that matches the wide-angle performance of the EF-S 10-22mm on a crop-sensor body?!? It would need to be the FF equiv. of roughly 6-14mm. That's well into fisheye territory. Trying to correct for the distortion in that focal length range (if it is even possible) would result in one heavy (lots of glass), costly lens! So the EF-S lens line-up does serve a purpose.

With a couple of exceptions, the EF-S line-up is filled with moderately priced, consumer-grade lenses. These lenses tend to be "good enough" for people with crop-sensor Rebels, who just want something better than compact / point & shoot digial cameras.

A consumer-grade crop-sensor body and an EF-S lens or two is also often the "starting point" for many beginners, who might later aspire to take their photography to the next level. If/when they're ready to move up to a professional-grade (FF) body, this is usually the time they upgrade their lens(es) too. A professional-grade body deserves professional-grade glass to really get the best performance out of it; your rig is only as good as its weakest link. Very few beginners purchase lenses that are of high enough quality to later be used with a professional-grade body anyway. So, even if you COULD use your EF-S lenses on a 5D III or 1DX body, would you really want to?? I see the EF-S lenses as the first step in (Canon) DSLR photography.

I have a 60D. The day I bought it, I knew that I would eventually upgrade to FF, so I was careful not to invest too much in EF-S lenses.

My 60D came with the EF-S 18-135mm IS lens. Right away, I found that 18mm wasn't wide enough on my crop-sensor body, so I bought an EF-S 10-22mm lens a few months later. BRAND NEW, the 10-22 is nearly L-series money, and I refused to invest that kind of dough in something that wouldn't work on FF later. I found a great price on a used one, which was in mint condition. When I move up to FF, I will be able to resell my 10-22 and get every penny back out of it, or maybe even make a few bucks on it.

A couple of months ago, I finally got rid of my EF-S 18-135, and replaced it with the 24-105 L. I really LOVE the 24-105, but with my crop-sensor body, I'm glad I have the EF-S 10-22. When I move up to a FF body, I'll sell off the 10-22 and replace it with the 16-35mm L.

Without EF-S lenses, I simply wouldn't have a viable option for wide / ultra-wide angle shooting.

This topic has been moved to Third Party Manufacturers.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9942.0

ashmadux said:

Toploader Pro AW 75

this can handle a small or large body (with out without a grip, and a 70-200 with hood reversed. works extremely well, i use it for street style an for events. the weather guard is a plus. with no body attached, it works well as a case, with all its great padding.


cheers!

Click to expand...

Handles my 5D with the 100-400, but won't quite take it with the extender on there. Well, it kind of will, but you're forcing the zipper up around the camera body at that point.

serendipidy said:

Jim,

Thanks for the advice. I really should start using RAW instead of JPG. I will checkout Fencecheck.

Any tips on how you keep the plane so sharp when it is moving and shutter speed is 1/50-1/80 range? I guess it is really good panning. Do you use IS when panning? I love that sharp spiral effect behind each propeller. How do you do that...is that because of the prop vapor?

The Blue Angels "Fat Albert" C-130 was at the air show and I got this shot (wasn't in a good location so cluttered foreground/background).

Click to expand...

I hold the shutter button down and just keep shooting a continuous series of shots. It seems like after about the first 2 or 3, you get "aligned" with the motion of the aircraft and can sometimes get some that come out sharp enough. Of course you eat up alot of card space this way, so you have to decide if it is worth getting one good one for a hundred blurry pieces of "abstract art"! I use IS mode 2 (moving target), because I figure it increases my odds of getting aligned with the moving target. Start building up your panning skills slowly, i.e. start with panning at 1/100th and get comfortable with that and then slow it down even more gradually. I like to practice on airliners coming in over my house, or with birds, and I know alot of people use cars on highways to practice. Maybe you could use surfers there in Hawaii?? It definitely is also a muscle memory thing, it seems like once you are comfortable with a range/method of movement it gets easier, but you also havge to maintain that, so I try to practice at least every couple weeks.

The vapor off the props is a benefit of the slow exposure. If your exposure is slow enough and you are shooting from the side (as opposed to head or tail on) the blades will actually make several complete arcs as the aircraft moves forward, and you get a corkscrew effect. I have seen some shots where it is quite dramatic. Shooting in high humidity or fog makes this even more dramatic. Would love to see more of your pics, there are probably some unique opportunities there for aviation shots.

Jim

took this one the other day. enjoy

drjlo said:

"What Id really like though is a 24-85mm F1.4 that weighs less and has image stabilisation — I wont hold my breath though."

Couldn't agree more

Click to expand...

Well theoretically, I think that might be possible, but you forgot one thing in there that makes it impossible. Image quality. The greater the aperture the more you need extra elements to deal with all the issues caused by it. Plus bigger aperture requires bigger glass. Thus bigger elements * More elements = Greater weight. In this case (24-85 1.4) I don't even know if it's possible but if it was it would so heavy you couldn't carry it. Now if you said, forget image quality we'll just have say 4-6 big glass elements to meet the aperture objective and not worry about correcting for anything. But hey it's a 24-85 1.4. Who else has one of those? Yet nobody would buy it. Oh and even though it might be advertised as 1.4 aperture it's T-stop would probably be more like t3.8 or something since in order to save on cost they wouldn't coat the elements to prevent light loss in each element. Wanna buy one? I always see signs at a auto repair shops that say you can only have two cheap, fast, high quality. In photography I think you could say light, cheap, and big aperture. I'm not sure if cheap and big aperture so well but you get the point. Bigger aperture means more money. There's no getting around that.

I think it's left open too long, based on what I think you are trying to do. I would use a faster shutter, maybe 15 seconds or so.

One morning after an awesome rain storm I went out to finish off some gardening and to my surprise found my 5d and lens hanging from a branch, where I had left it the night before. That soaking was about as intense as sitting it in a bucket of distilled water.
I took the batteries out immediately, and of course did not remove the lens. I then gave it all to my dad who took it in to his work where they had a vacuum desiccator, which effectively sucks ALL the water out of whatever you put in there as vapour.
Camera worked perfectly for years after.
Good luck with your gear.

While i don't think that one shot of the city at night looks any more like reality than the canon shot, i do understand what you guys are saying. thanks.

one thing though. the guy starts out by saying that the 5dmk3 is better for high iso work, then doesn't show any samples. at what iso does the BMC start to fall down, and how far?

-daveswan- now it looks like you'll have to finance a super computer, and a BMC.

Great lens (just bought one!).

Good to know about the knobs and the cost of repair.

New here but I'll chime in on the 15-85. Borrowed a friends for my 7D and it was noticeably better than my 28-135, but as others have said, quality control varies. Over time I accumulated three (!) 28-135 lenses from Canon.... two of them developed I.S. problems, and you can actually see image quality differences between all three if you look at their images side-by-side, with one of them being obviously sharper than the other two.

But the 15-85 I tried was still noticeably sharper than even the better of the three above. Not as good as a prime of course (my 60mm macro is excellent), but I'd consider it an excellent daily walk around lens, and am considering buying one myself. With the holiday season about here, I'd watch for sales like someone mentioned - they pop up without warning and only last a short time, so keep checking.

That Sunpak flash looks pretty small and light. I think I might try it...if it doesn't work I can always return it. Thanks!

Re: Canon EOS 3D Outed by B&H Photo [CR0]

DarkKnightNine said:

Ricku said:

I really hope it is a hoax!

I don't want this camera to be elephant sized. :-\

Click to expand...

Elephant sized?
Have you ever held a 1DX?
The thing just fits into your hand (or at least mine) like it was molded for it. It's a perfect fit. It was one of the reasons why when I first starting shooting professionally 6 years ago that I chose Canon over Nikon. The 1 series Canons just felt right in my hand.
By contrast, my 5D Mark III feels small and gives me fatigue because the bottom part of my palm has no place to rest.

Click to expand...

He's stated before that he is waiting for the price of the 5D Mark III to come down. If that's the case, he's never going to buy one of these so I'm not sure why on earth he cares whether it has a grip or not. I really believe that anyone spending this kind of money generally prefers a grip. Canon doesn't care about the opinions of those that aren't or can't spend that much coin.

jdramirez said:

neuroanatomist said:

ajd2k8 said:

Well this is my first L lens so I'm just scared of dropping it .. Never dropped a lens but if I'm going to it will be the L lol!

Click to expand...

Honestly, if you drop the lens a filter will almost certainly not help.

Click to expand...

I've seen pictures of shattered uv filters and the lens is unharmed... so it can help...

Click to expand...

Happened to me with my 24-105L at Disneyworld a couple of years ago. Lens fell off the baby stroller, and the filter (B+W) shattered. No damage to the lens! Of course the people near me were ready to call an ambulance until I realized that only the filter broke!

Dropped lenses.... "There are those that "have".. and those that "will""

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Sorry, I misread what you were asking.
Its difficult to give a cost for a shutter. If it dies at a ripe old age, its likely that the mirror box and some other wirk will need to be done, while a new camera with a bad shutter might get fixed for $500. with your discount, $300 allowance for the shutter sounds reasonable. I sold my 1D MK IV for $4200 recently with a very low shutter count, under 2,000.

Click to expand...

That's a really fair price for such low acuations. No idea if that's spelled right but thank for the info about the mirror as well

i do love canon lens, but when talking about zeiss lens... there is no where near from image quality to build quality comparing to zeiss. i do not have one, but my friend has one 21mm f/2.8. he let me use that one for a while and i love it. i can tell how solid it is at first time twisting the focus ring... but i cannot buy more stuff since i already spent too much money on gears within last few months.

Boy it seems like no ones making money lol! Stupid cell phones and point and shoots ruining everything lol

Ricku said:

Canon's high MP / high DR body does not have to be insanely expensive. Just cripple the FPS, give it 16 point AF and native ISO up to 12800. It won't touch the 5D3 sales, nor the 1DX.

This camera is ment to compete with the D800 / D800E, and therefore the price tag should not exceed 4K.

But then again, it is Canon we are talking about here. The camera will probably be overpriced.

Click to expand...

Don't talk about or mention the word "Cripple", I think Canon has been a doing too much of that lately. We don't want to give them any more bad ideas or make them think we're OK with it. They just need to try and give us the best camera they can. I'm sure the overpriced 5D Mark III is going to more than pay for the R&D they put into that AF. Now they just need to put it in every body they can (within reason).