7D or 5D3 for low light candids?

[RLPhoto]

Low light candids. When I hear that the 7D doesn't even touch my mind.

 

[FTb-n]

When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense. But, it is.

Just shot a grade school volleyball event with the 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. I shoot these events for my kids' school yearbook and upload a bunch that don't make the yearbook to share with parents. For this stuff, I prefer to save time and space by shooting JPEGs. With the 7D, I often got the shot, but I always had to post process the shoot to cleanup noise, and sometimes add some presence to the color. But, I can see now that the 5D3 will save lots of time. My shots from tonight need no post work, save for cropping on a handful of images. Lack of noise was amazing.

With volleyball, you need to aim and shoot quick. There's really no tracking of a subject. Just pick the player who looks ready to hit the ball, aim, shoot. I've been impressed with the 7D's ability to lock on quick, so far the 5D3 is just as quick, maybe a tad quicker because it offers a larger expanded point focussing option. I had a shorter lens on the 7D and used it for a few shots. All of a sudden, the 7D felt old. A pity, really.

It was a fun night...we also won...

 

[CarlTN]

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

You might also consider a 6D, with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. Your cost would be similar, if not less, than a 5D3/24-105 kit (depending on which 24-70 you choose).

I feel the 6D is superior to the 5D3 for low light. I'm not alone. The 5D3 is best for slightly more than low light, and with very fast, erratic subjects. You won't be achieving your goal with the 24-105 lens. It's a great lens, but not in low light. It also doesn't AF quickly even at noon on a sunny day, no matter what body it's on. I personally would buy a 6D and the Tamron 24-70.

As for the crop factor...I also upgraded from a crop camera (50D). I've only had my 6D a week, but have shot over 1000 pictures, still haven't tried all of my lenses. All I can say is, what the full frame fanboys have been saying is true: A cropped image done with either the 6D or 5D3, will be more detailed than you think it will. It will not be as detailed as a crop body in good light, but it won't be 1.6x behind. It will be about 1.25x to 1.35x behind in good light, and about 1.1x behind in light requiring up to ISO 2000 or so. Above that, it will be ahead. These differences have become negligible from a practical standpoint, in my opinion. I no longer see a need for a crop camera (and I never thought I would not. I will be very sad to see mine go).

This evening I shot an image at ISO 8000 with my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, in dim outdoor light, with all in-camera NR turned off. I had it closed to about f/10. The detail is beyond anything I have ever seen short of a D800 paired with whatever their choice of sharpest lens could be, but at ISO's below 1600 for the D800. The luminance noise in the shot I'm describing, is as low as my 50D at perhaps ISO 800 or 640. The chrominance noise is similar. It's there, but with very slight NR in post, it's gone, and all the detail remains. The color depth is surprisingly nice, though the lens makes a big difference. You need a lens that is fantastic at color rendition, to make full use of the 6D.

I'm blown away by this. Yes, the physical size of the 6D, makes it seem like a toy worthy of derision by the 5D3 or 1DX crowd. It's not a toy. What it is, is what 5D2 buyers five years ago, wish they could have bought instead...and for 40% less cost to boot!

 

[neuroanatomist]

All I can say is, what the full frame fanboys have been saying is true: A cropped image done with either the 6D or 5D3, will be more detailed than you think it will. ... I no longer see a need for a crop camera (and I never thought I would not...

I find it interesting that in many cases, those arguing for the 'reach advantage' of APS-C have used only APS-C. You're far from the first to come to the conclusion you have, after adding a FF camera to your kit.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

There are a great many advantages to APS-C over 135.

Image quality is not one of them.

That writ, a modern APS-C has very, very, very good image quality -- more than enough for the overwhelming majority of photographers. And that even includes low-light high-ISO situations.

But, if you need more than what APS-C can deliver and you're willing to put up with all the areas in which 135 is inferior (size, weight, cost, that sort of thing mostly), then 135 is for you.

Curiously enough, one might reach strikingly similar conclusions when comparing 135 and 645, or 645 and large format. Or even P&S and APS-C.

Cheers,

b&

 

[sawsedge]

I moved to FF in the middle of last year and the difference is astounding. I did a portrait of my daughter with a 50mm f/1.4 at ISO 25600, lit by a single candle in a dark room, hand held. Yeah, it's a bit noisy by that setting, but still quite usable. There is no way I could have done it with the 50D (I realize the 7D is a lot better than the 50D).

The AF of the 5D3 is incredible. As others have noted, having more shots in focus is a major plus. That was the main reason I upgraded.

I get the sense that the 6D is a little better in low light, but not as good for action, but I have not tried a 6D.

As others mentioned, crop sensors don't even enter my mind when you say "low light candids". You are not focal-length limited with candids.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

The 5d3 is lightyears beyond the 7d for these purposes! What it can do in low light is a game changer!

With that said, if you do go for one, don't bother with the 24-105...snag a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8. Don't worry about IS, these are light lenses and can easily be handheld at those SS speeds (plus, at 1.4 and 1.8, you can shoot at higher SS's and still let in more light depending on how much space there is between you an the target!

 

[V8Beast]

When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense. But, it is.

Many former APS-C users before you have reached the same conclusion Glad to hear your new purchase is working well for you.

Sadly, Canon has made little to no progress improving the ISO capabilities of its crop sensors in the last 8-9 years. I shot for years with a 20D, and had a go with a 7D when my 5D needed repair. I hoped Canon's latest flagship crop body would have far better low-light capabilities than my old 20D, but files were almost as noisy. Comparing the ISO scores on DxO of the 7D (854) and 20D (721) confirmed my suspicions.

Crop bodies offer outstanding performance for the money, but insisting that they perform nearly as well as FF bodies in low light is absurd.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

The 5d3 is lightyears beyond the 7d for these purposes! What it can do in low light is a game changer!

With that said, if you do go for one, don't bother with the 24-105...snag a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8. Don't worry about IS, these are light lenses and can easily be handheld at those SS speeds (plus, at 1.4 and 1.8, you can shoot at higher SS's and still let in more light depending on how much space there is between you an the target!

As neuroanatomist repeatedly points out, the 24-105 on full frame is better than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in every single measure. It goes wider; it goes longer; it can get a shallower depth of field; and it has less noise at equivalent exposures. If you love the 17-55 on APS-C, you'll be blown away by the 24-105 on full frame.

Yes, of course, the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 are superlative low-light portrait lenses. But there's a reason the 24-105 is the official kit lens of the 5DIII, and it's an awesome combination.

Besides, if you don't need (or want) to obliterate the background, you'll always get better results in portraiture from f/4 to f/11 than you will below f/2.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I have/had both. Together for weddings. 5D3 is incredibly better camera, than 7D.

I sold 7D a couple weeks ago.

Ditto, when I got my mk3 my 7d just sat. I tried usint them side by side, but, the 5d3 really did outperform the 7d in just about every respect. After becoming a paper weight, I sold the 7d and am now on the hunt for a backup. Rented a 6d for the weekend ----it's quite a capable camera!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Thanks for all the feedback.

A 5d3 with the 24-105 is on its way. For my use I think this lens will be more versatile than the 24-70 (I or II) (and cheaper). I've got the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 40 f2.8 for the more light challenging events. I need to see what I can do with these lenses before considering faster zooms or primes. (But, an 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2 could be tempting down the road.)

Don't hesitate ---just get the 85 1.8!!!! It's such a fantastic lens!!!!! And consider the 135mm 2.0!!!!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense. But, it is.

Just shot a grade school volleyball event with the 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. I shoot these events for my kids' school yearbook and upload a bunch that don't make the yearbook to share with parents. For this stuff, I prefer to save time and space by shooting JPEGs. With the 7D, I often got the shot, but I always had to post process the shoot to cleanup noise, and sometimes add some presence to the color. But, I can see now that the 5D3 will save lots of time. My shots from tonight need no post work, save for cropping on a handful of images. Lack of noise was amazing.

With volleyball, you need to aim and shoot quick. There's really no tracking of a subject. Just pick the player who looks ready to hit the ball, aim, shoot. I've been impressed with the 7D's ability to lock on quick, so far the 5D3 is just as quick, maybe a tad quicker because it offers a larger expanded point focussing option. I had a shorter lens on the 7D and used it for a few shots. All of a sudden, the 7D felt old. A pity, really.

It was a fun night...we also won...

try out the servo mode for tracking with the mk3...it works soooooo nicely!!!

 

[FTb-n]

For the past year, since buying my 7D, I thought it or the future 7DII would have a permanent place in my kit. Now, I'm not so sure.

I'm a two-body shooter. The 7D is now my second body, but I find myself shuffling lenses to shoot mostly with the 5D3, thus defeating the purpose of using two bodies. Need to payoff the 5D3 first, but I'm already considering a second FF down the road and will be weighing the merits (and price) of the 6D vs. another 5D3 for this purpose.

Curious side note. The full resolution JPEGs from the 5D3 volleyball shoot averaged between 5-6 MB. Those from the 7D averaged 8-9 MB. ISO for both cameras were mostly 3200. I'm guessing that extra noise accounts for the added data in the 7D files.

Also, I made a rookie mistake during the first game. In switching from RAW to JPEG, I inaverdently switched to Large compressed. But, even those images are cleaner than the ones from the 7D.

Funny that TrumpetPower mentions the 135 and 645 comparison. Decades ago I went from a Canon FTb-n to a Mamiya 645 1000s. When I first started playing with the 5D3 around the house and comparing it to the 7D, I did think "this is a lot like the Mamiya" -- only a tad lighter.