70D/7DII vs 5DIII + TC
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
GraFax said:takesome1 said:
They're not rare some of the places that I visit. They spring up out of the ground like toadstools in Yellowstone and Glacier NP's.You still never see them more than 100 ft from the road. Not criticizing, just adding some balance back to the equation as far as light weight gear is concerned.
I have been to Yellowstone 4 of the last 5 years. The majority of people there find wildlife by watching for cars pulled over. It is fun to pull over and set up the tripod, it takes a few minutes you will attract 10 other cars each asking what you see. Tell them a bear behind a clump of bushes, wait a few minutes get in the car and go to another spot and repeat the process. I think on a good day you could attract several hundred road hunting "wildlife photographers" with rented white lenses.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
GraFax said:
Carrying the gear doesn't detract from my enjoyment when on a photography outing. I would have enjoyed my day out more if the temperatures had been above freezing and the winds had not been gusting over 40 mph.
GraFax said:
Another mile down the road was...the parking lot with my car in it. Did you miss the part about the loop trail?
GraFax said:
My friend next to me with the D7100 and AF-S 80-400 VR would beg to differ, and his shots seem to support that. My shot with the 1D X at 840mm is already more heavily cropped normal.
GraFax said:
It was my first time seeing them (thus pushing the shutter button even though I knew they were really too far away). They are pretty cool!
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I didn't realize that you were a New Englander. Sachuest Point is a great birding spot which (sadly) I'll probably get to less often now that my daughter moved out of the area. I got a lot of first-time shots down there last year, including Harlequins, Pintails, Scoters, and as well as a couple of Owls. I have a hard time getting there in the time of day with good lighting, though. It's right up there with Plum Island and Mt Auburn as the best New England birding spots.
BTW, to stay on topic of the original post, I bought a 5DIII a couple of years ago after giving up on the wait for the 7DII. I wish that I had a 500/600mm lens, but I'm "making due" with a 400 f/5.6 and a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter. I don't see a need to switch over to a 7DII even though my main interests are bird and dragonfly photography (hobby level, not pro). If I didn't have either one, I would probably go with a 7DII, but that is just based on my interests. I do see myself upgrading to the new 100-400 at some point to get the IS and the incredibly short MFD on the new lens.
Dave
Upvote
0
Nelu said:
I've used both recently here in the Montana wilds. Even the 6D is better than the 7DII for anything but tiny birds.
You have to look at the aesthetic of the entire image, like background vegetation metering in harsher light, exposure consistency, and micro-contrast. FF just takes more professional looking photos.
Upvote
0
gruhl28 said:Thanks for this comparison, AlanF. I like comparisons that make me feel good about my 70D and don't start me dreaming about getting a 5DIII
One question, though. You wrote that the Tamron at 400mm on the 70D is quite good and better than the same lens at 600mm on the 5D. I agree that the 70D at 400 looks better than on the 5D (I didn't see the difference at first looking at this on an iPad, but on a bigger screen I do see the difference). They both look quite a bit softer than any of the other shots, though. I know the Tamron isn't going to be as good as the 300, but even with the 2x converter the 300 looks significantly better. What does the difference look like in a real world situation? Do you have any bird shot comparisons between the Tamron on the 70D and the 300 with TC on the 5D?
Maybe I was expecting too much from the Tamron from all the praise it has received.
I made a policy decision not to use the Tamron on crop, based on my experience with the old 100-400: good on the 5DIII, soft on the 7D. DxO said the same in its excellent comparison of the Tamron - very good on FF and better than the 100-400, but both not so good on crop. Here are two 100% crops of a greenfinch. The upper is by me with the 300/2.8 +2xTC at f/5.6 on the 5DIII, the lower by my wife using the Tamron at 428mm f/6.3 on the 70D.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Many thanks for posting this Alan - exactly the sort of comparison I had been looking for. I shoot the same as you with a 5D3+300II+2x and am always on the lookout for a smaller, lighter alternative. It seems 7D2+300II+1.4x may be a match for travelling/trekking wildlife photography.
Upvote
0
Agreed that the Tamron is best used at f/8, and my customised settings have f/8 as standard. I am very keen, for that reason, to try the new 100-400 with the 1.4xTC on the 5DIII at f/8 to compare. I'll report back in a week or two when my 100-400 II is delivered.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:gruhl28 said:Thanks for this comparison, AlanF. I like comparisons that make me feel good about my 70D and don't start me dreaming about getting a 5DIII
One question, though. You wrote that the Tamron at 400mm on the 70D is quite good and better than the same lens at 600mm on the 5D. I agree that the 70D at 400 looks better than on the 5D (I didn't see the difference at first looking at this on an iPad, but on a bigger screen I do see the difference). They both look quite a bit softer than any of the other shots, though. I know the Tamron isn't going to be as good as the 300, but even with the 2x converter the 300 looks significantly better. What does the difference look like in a real world situation? Do you have any bird shot comparisons between the Tamron on the 70D and the 300 with TC on the 5D?
Maybe I was expecting too much from the Tamron from all the praise it has received.
I made a policy decision not to use the Tamron on crop, based on my experience with the old 100-400: good on the 5DIII, soft on the 7D. DxO said the same in its excellent comparison of the Tamron - very good on FF and better than the 100-400, but both not so good on crop. Here are two 100% crops of a greenfinch. The upper is by me with the 300/2.8 +2xTC at f/5.6 on the 5DIII, the lower by my wife using the Tamron at 428mm f/6.3 on the 70D.
Thanks for the bird comparison. The 300/2.8 +2xTC at f/5.6 on the 5DIII certainly looks sharper. Too bad that combination is seven times more expensive than the Tamron; I guess you get what you pay for. I've been thinking about picking up a Tamron, the price is pretty attractive, or maybe one of the new Sigmas, as long as they'll give acceptable quality. I know the Tamron is said to be soft at 600mm at f/6.3, but it looks like even at 428mm and f/6.3 it's significantly softer than the 300 + TC. I have heard of some pros, like Michael Reichmann, buying the Tamron, though, and I can't help thinking that if it's good enough for him it should be more than good enough for me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
