5D mk3 at higher ISO vs 7D mk2 at lower ISO

[SalAlexander]

Hello everyone, I currently own a 5D mk3 which I use for just about everything: landscapes, portraits, motorsports, street photography...
I've been shooting more and more motorsports for magazines lately, and for the upcoming season I'll be shooting some MotoGP and F1 races.
I can't afford any of the beautiful super tele primes, but I'm willing to pay around £2000 for some new gear.
Now I'm using my 70-200 2.8 IS II for sports, and since I've always been able to be on the side of the racetrack it's been more than ok, plus at tracks like Imola and Misano you can get very close. But with tracks like Mugello and Circuit of the Americas coming up, I need a lot more range.
I've narrowed it down to 2 options: stick a Sigma 150-600 S on my 5D but shoot at at least f6.3, or buy a Canon 100-400 IS II and a 7D mk2, that way I get a similar focal range as the sigma but an aperture of 5.6, plus a second camera.
Now, I haven't used a crop sensor in years, so my question is this: would the 7D mk2 at a slightly lower ISO and the 100-400 be comparable quality-wise to the 5D mk3 with the 150-600 at a slightly higher ISO?
What do you recommend?
I've attached a few photos I took with the 5D and 70-200 recently in Misano.

 

[YuengLinger]

This is truly the key gear question for ''budget''Canon sports and wildlife photographers.

I look at my 60D images above ISO 800 and doubt I'd be thrilled with just a stop or slightly less improvement, as many reviews indicate the 7DII to be. Friends with the 7D say the 60D (same sensor) for some reason seems slightly less noisy at higher ISO's.

I'm definitely spoiled by my 5DIII.

On the other hand, I do have the 100-400 IS II, and also wish for more reach. The 1.6 cropping isn't truly magnification, but it is tempting to see it as a way of "cheating," that is, of getting more reach and an extra stop compared to using a 1.4 extender.

In any event, I've read many, many discussions of cropping FF vs the in-camera cropping of APS-C, and for now, as I'm only an occasional wildlife photographer, just stick with cropping in post as needed and using the ef 1.4 ex II when definitely settled in on a tripod. It works fine for stuff sitting still. I wouldn't think motorcycles whizzing by would be easy with it.

Sorry to just continue your pondering, but I almost leaned the other way a few days ago when I saw the 7DII on sale for just $1049 USD after rebates, and it included a printer, bag, and SD card.

 

[FEBS]

I would go for the 100-400II. Very good lens. But first I suggest you try it on your 5D3. If not sufficient reach, then you can always buy the 7D2. I know the AF of the 5D3 in combination with the 100-400II is really very good. This is also what we might expect of Canon. I have seen several reviews of the Sigma 150-600S, and I know it is a very good lens, but AF in servo mode is not mentioned that much in those tests. I don't want to say that the AF of the 150-600S is bad, but I would advice for sure the 100-400II for that reason. Also, the 600mm on FF is hard to use for action photography. I most use the 100-400II or the 300 2.8II with 1.4 extender in that case. 600mm might be interesting for start of such an event, but very hard to follow the action.

Concerning 7D2. I have that camera but also the 5D3. There are for sure several things I like there about as 10fps. AF is much better then the 7D, but I don't want to say it is better then the 5D3. I know it has all crosstype points and a better spread in the viewing area, but the 5D3 has some points that are more precise compared to the 7D2. Also the fact that this is a crop, never convinces me to take this camera for sports. I knew, I'm spoiled by my 1Dx. I'm trying out the 7D2 for birding during next months. I think it might give me some advantages over there as it is fast, silent, and the 600II can't make use of the precise AF points of the 1Dx neither, as it is no 2.8 lens.

 

[sanj]

I would go with the Sigma option. That gives me the security of using high ISO when required to freeze the action. It focuses fast and it is near impossible to make out the difference between that and 100-400.
The only thing is 7d2 is faster.
Tough decision, but Sigma option is better for me.
The reach of the Sigma also is a decisive factor.

 

[Rupp1]

Have you considered borrowing/renting a body or lens to see for yourself. I ride motorcycles, and when not riding at track days, have spent time with motorsport photographers. It's too bad that you can't get as close as usual at some of your upcoming events, because normally I suspect that 400mm would be plenty. I've done a lot of research comparing the 5D3 and the 7D2 lately (on these forums and elsewhere). My conclusion is that the 5DIII is the better all around camera, but if you don't have a 1DX, the 7D2 should be excellent for sports. To me, it would come down to frame rate and autofocus. At a track, where you generally have to set up for shots, my guess is that the 5DIII's autofocus is pretty good (even if it isn't the newest) and might be good enough. If you need the extra 5 fps, though, you need it.

I am not as much of an authority on sports photography as some here, so I have no claim to brilliance. It just seems to me that you might consider how often you are going to have the need for speed and length. If you are going to be paid for motorsports on a regular basis, and it's going to be a lot of what you shoot, maybe you need the speed and can rent a long lens. On an irregular basis, stick with the 5DIII. When you can get reasonably close at the track, even 400mm can be too long.Your 70-200 looks pretty good. Good luck with your choice.

 

[SalAlexander]

Thanks for the quick replies, you all make some very good points.
I'm not too concerned about the difference in image quality between the 2 lenses, I am however thinking about the practicality of the 2 setups.
The sigma could stay on the camera the whole time and I could shoot the whole race with just that one lens, never have to worry about my iso as I know the 5D is excellent, but it's big and heavy and will require the use of a monopod, and when I head over to the pits I'll need to change lens to something like the 70-200 or 16-35 and will have to carry around this big lens which might be inconvenient.

With the 100-400 + 7D mk2 option I have the advantage of having 2 cameras, the 100-400 is hand-holdable and easy to store and carry around. But I'd be shooting on a crop...although if light conditions aren't ideal I could always pop the 100-400 on the 5D....argh this is such a touch decision ;D

I would go for the 100-400II. Very good lens. But first I suggest you try it on your 5D3. If not sufficient reach, then you can always buy the 7D2. I know the AF of the 5D3 in combination with the 100-400II is really very good. This is also what we might expect of Canon. I have seen several reviews of the Sigma 150-600S, and I know it is a very good lens, but AF in servo mode is not mentioned that much in those tests. I don't want to say that the AF of the 150-600S is bad, but I would advice for sure the 100-400II for that reason. Also, the 600mm on FF is hard to use for action photography. I most use the 100-400II or the 300 2.8II with 1.4 extender in that case. 600mm might be interesting for start of such an event, but very hard to follow the action.

Concerning 7D2. I have that camera but also the 5D3. There are for sure several things I like there about as 10fps. AF is much better then the 7D, but I don't want to say it is better then the 5D3. I know it has all crosstype points and a better spread in the viewing area, but the 5D3 has some points that are more precise compared to the 7D2. Also the fact that this is a crop, never convinces me to take this camera for sports. I knew, I'm spoiled by my 1Dx. I'm trying out the 7D2 for birding during next months. I think it might give me some advantages over there as it is fast, silent, and the 600II can't make use of the precise AF points of the 1Dx neither, as it is no 2.8 lens.

Great points.
The focusing on the 5D is good enough, if the 7D mk2 matches it I'd be more than happy! You're right that following the action at 600mm can be tough, but it would be nice to have the option of that focal length. And editors have often asked me for tight frozen close-ups to print rather than the slightly wider panning shots. On the other hand teams love the more artistic shots. And when I don't need the extra reach I could put the 100-400 on the 5D for maximum quality.
I'd be very interested to hear your thought on the 7D2 quality compared to the 5D3 and 1dx for professional use!

I would go with the Sigma option. That gives me the security of using high ISO when required to freeze the action. It focuses fast and it is near impossible to make out the difference between that and 100-400.
The only thing is 7d2 is faster.
Tough decision, but Sigma option is better for me.
The reach of the Sigma also is a decisive factor.

True, with the sigma on the 5D I'd never have to worry about my ISO.

Have you considered borrowing/renting a body or lens to see for yourself. I ride motorcycles, and when not riding at track days, have spent time with motorsport photographers. It's too bad that you can't get as close as usual at some of your upcoming events, because normally I suspect that 400mm would be plenty. I've done a lot of research comparing the 5D3 and the 7D2 lately (on these forums and elsewhere). My conclusion is that the 5DIII is the better all around camera, but if you don't have a 1DX, the 7D2 should be excellent for sports. To me, it would come down to frame rate and autofocus. At a track, where you generally have to set up for shots, my guess is that the 5DIII's autofocus is pretty good (even if it isn't the newest) and might be good enough. If you need the extra 5 fps, though, you need it.

I am not as much of an authority on sports photography as some here, so I have no claim to brilliance. It just seems to me that you might consider how often you are going to have the need for speed and length. If you are going to be paid for motorsports on a regular basis, and it's going to be a lot of what you shoot, maybe you need the speed and can rent a long lens. On an irregular basis, stick with the 5DIII. When you can get reasonably close at the track, even 400mm can be too long.Your 70-200 looks pretty good. Good luck with your choice.

Thank you! I have thought about renting, I usually go on lensesforhire.com as they don't require a huge downpayment and the prices are pretty good, but most events won't actually be in the UK so it might become harder to rent gear.
At all events I'll have full media pass, so I'll be able to be on the side of the track all the time, behind the safety barriers. In some tracks though the barriers are at quite a distance for safety reasons, and those are the tracks where I'm thinking having a longer range than 400 might be useful.
As far as focusing goes, I'm more than happy with the autofocus capabilities on the 5D, if the 7D is even better that's great, but I wouldn't compromise on image quality for that. Also the 10fps, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I can see the point for wildlife or football where you can see the expression on the athlete's face, but for motorsports I think 10fps might be a bit "too much". Providing all shots are in focus, I really don't need to go through so many shots to find one I like. I normally just take short bursts of 3-4 shots and the 6fps of the 5D seem to be just right.

 

[AlanF]

I look at my 60D images above ISO 800 and doubt I'd be thrilled with just a stop or slightly less improvement, as many reviews indicate the 7DII to be. Friends with the 7D say the 60D (same sensor) for some reason seems slightly less noisy at higher ISO's.

It's not just the iso, the 60D gives soft images compared with the 7D II - look at comparisons on the TDP site, for example. I got significantly sharper images on upgrading from the 7D to the 7D II.

 

[Random Orbits]

I used to use the 5DIII and the 100-400 II for my daughter's soccer, and that worked well. Then I got the 7D II to pair with the 100-400 II, and that works better. The 7DII files can use more sharpening because of the higher pixel density. IQ from the 5DIII with the same lens is higher but then I'm using the same ISOs and apertures. What you're comparing is a 1 stop difference between the two lenses on the two cameras, and at that point, the IQ difference isn't large. Some on this forum have also noticed that the AF degrades when the 150-600s after f/6.3 is reached.

If you don't already have a 2nd body, then the 7DII becomes a more attractive option.

 

[SalAlexander]

I used to use the 5DIII and the 100-400 II for my daughter's soccer, and that worked well. Then I got the 7D II to pair with the 100-400 II, and that works better. The 7DII files can use more sharpening because of the higher pixel density. IQ from the 5DIII with the same lens is higher but then I'm using the same ISOs and apertures. What you're comparing is a 1 stop difference between the two lenses on the two cameras, and at that point, the IQ difference isn't large. Some on this forum have also noticed that the AF degrades when the 150-600s after f/6.3 is reached.

If you don't already have a 2nd body, then the 7DII becomes a more attractive option.

Thanks for sharing your experience.
So you find the difference between the 2 negligible once you factor in the advantage of the extra reach with the 7D2? How does it behave above ISO 800? Not just noise, but overall loss of detail and clarity

 

[JMZawodny]

Reading your responses to the other posts, it is quite clear to me that you have already made up your mind (at least subconsciously). The 7D2 and the Canon zoom give you convenience of a second body and the flexibility to choose which lens/body combination meets the requirements of the race venue. Don't forget to consider that wide zoom on the crop body either - you'll have many more options with the second body. BTW, I'm very pleased with the performance of my 7D2 if that is an unspoken concern.

 

[FTb-n]

I was in a similar position last spring. Then 1Dx prices started falling and I grabbed one since low light sports constitutes most of my work. But, I did consider the Sigma 150-600 vs. the Canon 100-400 II and added the latter to my kit in time for summer sports. The 100-400 is a fantastic action lens, especially when paired with the 1Dx and it's stronger battery (which can speed up focusing). This lens is sharp and quick. I'm very impressed with it's focus speed.

With the full frame sensor, I'm not afraid to crop half the image out, especially with outdoor images at ISO's below 3200. Between these two lenses, it all depends upon how badly you need 600 mm. If you need 600 mm because you want 800 mm and are willing to crop with the wider lens, then maybe the 150-800 makes sense. But, I didn't see that much difference between the 600 and the 400 that I wasn't willing to fix by cropping in post. The 100-400 then became a better range for me because of the wider 100 mm length.

My advice is to start with the 100-400 II.

I don't own the 7D2, but I do have a 7D. The 7D2 has a better sensor and much better DIGIC processors. Consequently, in-body JSPs give the appearance of a full stop benefit in high ISO over the 7D, but the real RAW image benefit isn't that great. In my experience FF images tend to be sharper than crop images given the same lens. This gives you more cropping flexibility with the FF image.

One thing to note, I was surprised at the subject separation that I was getting with the 100-400 at f5.6. The background can still be nicely blurred -- another benefit of FF over crop.

Still, the 7D2 is a very capable body and suitable for pros. With ISO up to 1600, it should fit your need nicely. With noise reduction in post, you can stretch the ISO another stop or two.

 

[Alangeli]

I do own 5DIII and 7DII and both lenses mentioned and I am rather disappointed with the performance of the Sigma 150-600mm Sports at a crop body. Using the Canon 100-400mm II at a 70D or 7DII delivers better results. That is the reason why I will sell my 150-600mm and keep the Canon.

The Sports lens is at its limits at 600mm with a 22MP FF body. Using an extender (Sigma 1.4 newest version) or a crop body means using the lens beyound its limits. There is no reason at all to carry so much weight around for less preformance. My results are derived at ISO 100.

 

[[email protected]]

I shoot the 100-400 II and both bodies you're thinking about (as well as the 70-200 II). Because I swap them up frequently, I feel I have a good sense of when I'd use one versus the other.

In general, the difference between the 5d3 and 7d2 can be summarized as being a stop to a stop and a half of ISO. I read in one quantitative analysis it was effectively 1.2 stops. That feels about right against my personal experience. This was kind of disappointing to me. When I got the 5d3, I was expecting some sort of full frame magic to happen. There are a couple other benefits (subject isolation, etc.), but in general, the camera isn't built as well, isn't as weather sealed, is louder, slower and has a narrower focus point range. I love my 5d3, but it's just one of my children, and I have to hand it to the other, the 7d2, which excels at things that are fast, distant and probably going to wind up getting cropped in the end anyhow.

In general, I exit the house with the 5d3 if I'm going into the dark woods, and come out with the 7d2 when I have a little more light, or always when I know I'm going to need the reach.

One last note: if I'd started out with the 5d3 rather than the other way around, I bet the 5d3's shutter sound wouldn't bother me, but having started with the 7d2, it always, always makes me wince inside when I hear it. I love the camera, but that slappy - and loud - carbon fiber sound is truly cringe-worthy. I think that's why they didn't make it go faster than 6 frames per second. The engineers just couldn't bear it.

 

[SalAlexander]

Reading your responses to the other posts, it is quite clear to me that you have already made up your mind (at least subconsciously). The 7D2 and the Canon zoom give you convenience of a second body and the flexibility to choose which lens/body combination meets the requirements of the race venue. Don't forget to consider that wide zoom on the crop body either - you'll have many more options with the second body. BTW, I'm very pleased with the performance of my 7D2 if that is an unspoken concern.

I'm not going to lie, I did start this topic leaning more towards the 100-400 and 7D2 combo, but wanted to hear other opinions to decide, as that 150-600 was always at the back of my mind.
The only thing that would have held me back would have been if the image quality on the 7D2 at f5.6 was drastically inferior to my 5D3 at f6.3
But yes, now I've come to the conclusion that having the flexibility of 2 bodies capable of shooting high speed action, and a lens that doesn't require a monopod is much more important than any image quality difference there might be

I was in a similar position last spring. Then 1Dx prices started falling and I grabbed one since low light sports constitutes most of my work. But, I did consider the Sigma 150-600 vs. the Canon 100-400 II and added the latter to my kit in time for summer sports. The 100-400 is a fantastic action lens, especially when paired with the 1Dx and it's stronger battery (which can speed up focusing). This lens is sharp and quick. I'm very impressed with it's focus speed.

With the full frame sensor, I'm not afraid to crop half the image out, especially with outdoor images at ISO's below 3200. Between these two lenses, it all depends upon how badly you need 600 mm. If you need 600 mm because you want 800 mm and are willing to crop with the wider lens, then maybe the 150-800 makes sense. But, I didn't see that much difference between the 600 and the 400 that I wasn't willing to fix by cropping in post. The 100-400 then became a better range for me because of the wider 100 mm length.

My advice is to start with the 100-400 II.

I don't own the 7D2, but I do have a 7D. The 7D2 has a better sensor and much better DIGIC processors. Consequently, in-body JSPs give the appearance of a full stop benefit in high ISO over the 7D, but the real RAW image benefit isn't that great. In my experience FF images tend to be sharper than crop images given the same lens. This gives you more cropping flexibility with the FF image.

One thing to note, I was surprised at the subject separation that I was getting with the 100-400 at f5.6. The background can still be nicely blurred -- another benefit of FF over crop.

Still, the 7D2 is a very capable body and suitable for pros. With ISO up to 1600, it should fit your need nicely. With noise reduction in post, you can stretch the ISO another stop or two.

Good point, in camera jpeg processing is very important. Most of the time I'm required to send photos ready for online articles within minutes, and can't afford to process raw in lightroom. I do however like to shoot raw+jpeg anyway so I can then later process the raw in my own time for my website or for the teams/drivers/riders or whatever.

I do own 5DIII and 7DII and both lenses mentioned and I am rather disappointed with the performance of the Sigma 150-600mm Sports at a crop body. Using the Canon 100-400mm II at a 70D or 7DII delivers better results. That is the reason why I will sell my 150-600mm and keep the Canon.

The Sports lens is at its limits at 600mm with a 22MP FF body. Using an extender (Sigma 1.4 newest version) or a crop body means using the lens beyound its limits. There is no reason at all to carry so much weight around for less preformance. My results are derived at ISO 100.

That helps out even more, thanks.
At this point I think the best thing to do is to go for the 100-400 and buy a 7D2 to use as an extender when needed, and when I don't I can just use it as a second wide angle camera.
Since you have both the 5D3 and the 7D2, would you say there are substantial differences between the two in terms of buffer? And is the SD card slot handicapped like the one in the 5D?

I shoot the 100-400 II and both bodies you're thinking about (as well as the 70-200 II). Because I swap them up frequently, I feel I have a good sense of when I'd use one versus the other.

In general, the difference between the 5d3 and 7d2 can be summarized as being a stop to a stop and a half of ISO. I read in one quantitative analysis it was effectively 1.2 stops. That feels about right against my personal experience. This was kind of disappointing to me. When I got the 5d3, I was expecting some sort of full frame magic to happen. There are a couple other benefits (subject isolation, etc.), but in general, the camera isn't built as well, isn't as weather sealed, is louder, slower and has a narrower focus point range. I love my 5d3, but it's just one of my children, and I have to hand it to the other, the 7d2, which excels at things that are fast, distant and probably going to wind up getting cropped in the end anyhow.

In general, I exit the house with the 5d3 if I'm going into the dark woods, and come out with the 7d2 when I have a little more light, or always when I know I'm going to need the reach.

One last note: if I'd started out with the 5d3 rather than the other way around, I bet the 5d3's shutter sound wouldn't bother me, but having started with the 7d2, it always, always makes me wince inside when I hear it. I love the camera, but that slappy - and loud - carbon fiber sound is truly cringe-worthy. I think that's why they didn't make it go faster than 6 frames per second. The engineers just couldn't bear it.

Great to see so many people have both cameras, really helps out a lot.
Yes the sound of the 5D is kind of annoying, I guess it's one of those things you just learn to put up with!
1.5 stops of ISO doesn't sound like a lot, until you start getting to ISO 1600 maybe, then every stop counts.
But to be honest, shooting motorsports doesn't require crazy shutter speed settings. Panning anywhere between 1/160 and 1/320 based on focal lenght and how fast they're going, so most of those shots are at ISO 100-400.
Shots taken at 1/1000+ well...it's not going to be at night so I'm still at reasonable ISO.
First race of MotoGP will be in Qatar at night...I've never been and have no idea how bright the artificial lights are. That might be one of those situations where the 1.5 stops make a difference

 

[risc32]

I would just slap a 100-400v2 on that 5dmk3 and call it a day. Looks like you have many good opinions here.

I really just came here to congratulate you on landing that job. Full press access at motogp sounds like a dream to me. Well, I'd rather be on a 3rd bike for the factory Yamaha team, but what you've got is right up there. Go job, have fun, keep us posted if you can.
- my wife and I can be seen in a photo of Nicky Hayden on his cool down lap, Laguna seca 06. I couldn't get more than a near thumbnail of the image die to the photog not getting back with me, but I printed it!

 

[Random Orbits]

I used to use the 5DIII and the 100-400 II for my daughter's soccer, and that worked well. Then I got the 7D II to pair with the 100-400 II, and that works better. The 7DII files can use more sharpening because of the higher pixel density. IQ from the 5DIII with the same lens is higher but then I'm using the same ISOs and apertures. What you're comparing is a 1 stop difference between the two lenses on the two cameras, and at that point, the IQ difference isn't large. Some on this forum have also noticed that the AF degrades when the 150-600s after f/6.3 is reached.

If you don't already have a 2nd body, then the 7DII becomes a more attractive option.

Thanks for sharing your experience.
So you find the difference between the 2 negligible once you factor in the advantage of the extra reach with the 7D2? How does it behave above ISO 800? Not just noise, but overall loss of detail and clarity

On an overcast day, I had hit ISO 1000, and the 7DII still has good detail and clarity. Again, the comparison is shooting the 7DII at f/5.6 vs. the 5DIII maximally at f/6.3 but more likely at f/8 with an attendant increase in ISO. So the difference between the two systems will be close if it was about a stop to start with. Also agree that if you do buy the items piecemeal to get the lens first. Then you can evaluate if you need more "reach," and the the comparison becomes using an extender with the 100-400II, which still gives good results but restricts you to center point only to using a crop sensor that allows you to use all your AF points.

Having the 5DIII first, I find I had to adjust to the 7DII. Yes, the spread of points is better, but each point also covers more area. So if you're locking on a feature that has a bit of depth in the AF point area, it could be off more than the 5DIII just because the area is larger. In practice, it's not a big problem, but you'll find yourself adjusting where to focus on.

 

[awair]

I would have to say that either choice will do - if the light is good...

My preference though would be for the 5D3 (which I have used but not owned) over the 7D2 which I currently use.

Have a look at this thread, which offers similar considerations regarding reach/quality with 6D/7D2:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23719.0