7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

[psycho5]

I would save up for the 5D mark III and the 16-35 mark II.... save yourself the hassle of selling stuff later. The 10-22 and any other EF-S lens is bunk!

For graduation (i'm graduating later on this month) my mom splurged on the 5Dmark2 kit from Amazon for $2850 and this new addition has caused me to wonder if I should keep the 7D or not.... i'll have to see. I'm just happy to finally be able to work with a FF sensor.

 

[Richard8971]

I think a lot of people were surprised AND happy by Canon's 1D X sensor. I've only been doing photography for a few years, but people have been asking camera manufacturers to focus on ISO performance, lowering noise, etc. instead of increasing MP for years. I think Canon made a brilliant move, and I think a hell of a lot of people will be extremely satisfied with their new flagship camera.

I couldn't agree more. I didn't mean in anyway that people couldn't or wouldn't appreciate where Canon took their flagship EOS. However, THERE are people who "see" purely MP size and that's it! They think that bigger is better and the more MP your camera has, it must take better photos! Sadly, the amount of people out there who crave large MP sensors are enough to fuel the fire and Canon has to ackolowedge them. Kinda like those who think video belongs on a still camera. YUCK, YUCK, YUCK!!! If you want video, buy a video camera! Keep the still camera a still camera. My 7D takes video and I swear I will never use it. I refuse to use it!

Why did Canon put video on their still cameras? Because PEOPLE wanted it there! It's a selling point, not for me however.

Before people hijack this thread to 'video on still cameras', I only meant it as an example. My opinions are just that... mine.

 

[jrista]

However, THERE are people who "see" purely MP size and that's it! They think that bigger is better and the more MP your camera has, it must take better photos!

Well, to be accurate, the truth is more MP is usually better. As someone on another forum I regularly visit put it: More megapixels NOT BAD! The idea that more megapixels is a bad thing, and can't produce better photos than a similar camera with fewer megapixels, is mostly myth. Yes, skill with a camera and some raw creative talent are critically fundamental to making good photographs, but better technology, even more MP, only enhances what skilled creativity can produce. So long as sensors are not significantly outresolving lenses, more MP is not a bad thing. It can, and usually is, a good thing.

People often get too hung up on the "diffraction limited aperture" of a sensor, however the simple fact is that the DLA is only where diffraction BEGINS to affect IQ for a given sensor AT the NYQUIST RATE, not where diffraction has detrimentally affected IQ. Diffraction always exists, at any aperture, and it always affects IQ. Assuming you go from a 10mp camera to a 20mp camera for the same sensor size, and your DLA shrinks from f/16 to f/8. By shooting a photo at f/16 with the 20mp camera, you are not getting WORSE IQ than you did with the 10mp camera. It might be the same, however often it will be a little better, so long as you are not already far outresolving the lens. The 10mp camera with its larger pixels was a limiting factor in capturing all the resolution of the image projected by the lens, and the 20mp camera is capable of capturing more detail, even if its only slightly more. More MP usually means better, even though there are diminishing returns (assuming all else is equal...reduce some other factor, such as crappier readout electronics and a crappy ADC, and THEN you might get negative returns.)

See the forum post below for a more detailed explanation of diffraction, and why more MP is "not bad", and usually good. There are ISO chart samples for comparison, which demonstrate the effects of stopping down more and more with a 5D @ 12mp and a 1DsIII @ 21.1mp, and the improvement (and LACK of "worse" quality at any setting) with the higher MP of the 1DsIII is quite clear.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=747761.

For FF digital sensors, and the current generation of Canon lenses, it seems that around 45-46mp is the limit (the same density as Canon's current APS-C 18mp sensors.) Thats more than double the current pixel density of the 5D II, much like the 1DsIII had almost double the density of the original 5D. Gains can still be made, quite possibly a lot of gains. As sensor fabrication gets better, as we move to better microlensing, higher capacity photodiodes at smaller sizes, backlit readout wiring, lower-noise readout electronics, lower noise ADC's, etc., more MP will not necessarily mean more noise. I think the 1DX proves that a high resolution sensor can still be improved CONSIDERABLY. I think the reason the 1DX is only 18mp is more to achieve the insanely high 14fps than for anything else, and I don't see any reason why the same excellent high ISO performance can't be achieved at 21.1 or even 32mp when you don't need high speed readout. There is an ultimate cutoff, where more MP can't produce better images. Assuming we have already pushed lenses as far as they can go, making sensors denser than 45mp at FF size wouldn't produce anything better in the general case. Canon has mRAW and sRAW, which halve the image size and utilize more bayer pixels per RGB pixel to produce a better, cleaner, clearer, sharper photo (kind of like a Foveon sensor.) More MP would be really great for that...an 80mp sensor wouldn't produce better images @ 80mp RAW, however at 40mp mRAW, there would still be plenty of improvement over a 20mp mRAW from a 40mp sensor. Even assuming noise is as "unacceptable" at 80mp as many people claim the 7D's noise is at 18mp today, the 7D produces FANTASTIC images with the mRAW setting...noise almost entirely disappears, where it is often visible at ISO100.

So yes, more MP is generally a good thing, and at worst, NOT BAD! ;-)

 

[Richard8971]

Well, to be accurate, the truth is more MP is usually better. As someone on another forum I regularly visit put it: More megapixels NOT BAD! The idea that more megapixels is a bad thing, and can't produce better photos than a similar camera with fewer megapixels, is mostly myth.... So yes, more MP is generally a good thing, and at worst, NOT BAD! ;-)

Oh, I agree. Would I trade in my 7D for my old 40D? Um, really hard to say as I loved them both, but I DO love my 18MP 7D!!! (features-wise, OMG)

I just meant that I have seen bad photographs from someone with a 5D mkII and L glass and great photos from someone with a XT rebel and stock glass. MP is NOT everything! MP is a great thing, but not the deciding factor, at least not for me.

Horsepower, TV screen size, MP... the list goes on and on... People want BIGGER, BETTER and they want to be able to BRAG about it. Personally, I like how Canon took the 1D X and sized it down a tad... 18MP. BUT... they sure made one hell of a camera, IMHO.

 

[Viggo]

Why didn't you get the 5d2 for your 16-35? For landscape you really cant't beat the 5d2, 1d X would be the only better option, and as I understand, a tad over budget.

Having actually done this test (7D v 5D2, 24" landscape prints) I can tell you that nobody can tell the difference or tell which print comes from which at low to mid ISO. Out of camera there are some small differences between the two at low ISO, but those differences do not survive post work or printing. I've even challenged people with 100% unlabeled crops, after post processing, only to have them completely fail to say which came from where.

Both make excellent 24" landscape prints, and very good 30" prints, and that's about the limit for critically reviewed landscape prints (i.e. close viewing; judging on fine detail). I highly doubt the 1Dx will change this for landscapes since the limiting factor here is the resolution of fine detail like distant foliage.

I'm basically in the same boat as jrista. The 5D2 is a great camera, but for my uses offers me nothing over the 7D. Until Canon breaks 30 MP in FF I can't see any reason for spending the money.

But the OP was talking about waiting for the 5d3, and got a 7d whilst waiting when he could have gotten the 5d2 was my point. Trying to prove and fool people to think a 5d picture is taken with a 7d or vice versa is just stupid. You can put ANY of the fast L-primes on the 5d2 and shoot wide open, do the same with the 7d and you1ll see what I mean. To say the 5d2 and 7d is comparable at all is just wrong, plain and simple. I use both FF and 1,3 crop and that beautiful smooth bokeh and transitions of the FF is a big difference to the 1,3. But hey, if you shoot at 50mm f11 iso 100 for landscape the difference is way less than with a 85 1,2 shot wide open or for example my favorite wide TS-17, I would get FF just to have a 17-equiv TS lens. You see, different needs, different products. No need to compare them, if you don't see the point of FF, that's your choice. Compare 60d, 600d and 7d at all same settings, then you have a test.

I have the mk4 and the IQ is fantastic and it delievers when no other camera does, but when I go out and shoot less fast moving subjects, I use the 5d+50L or 24L, it's just crazy good.

 

[Haydn1971]

Having actually done this test (7D v 5D2, 24" landscape prints) I can tell you that nobody can tell the difference or tell which print comes from which at low to mid ISO. Out of camera there are some small differences between the two at low ISO, but those differences do not survive post work or printing. I've even challenged people with 100% unlabeled crops, after post processing, only to have them completely fail to say which came from where.

Both make excellent 24" landscape prints, and very good 30" prints, and that's about the limit for critically reviewed landscape prints (i.e. close viewing; judging on fine detail). I highly doubt the 1Dx will change this for landscapes since the limiting factor here is the resolution of fine detail like distant foliage.

That's a really refreshing view - I started out on here with a view that I needed a full frame camera, I'm steadily developing the view that what I really need is a DSLR that meets my needs for popping pictures of my life events on flickr, pictures of friends, family and the occasional large print on our wall. Pride of place in our lounge is a fantastic looking sunrise in Majorca, print over 3x24" canvas, it doesn't stand well close up, but looks great from the middle of the small lounge. What did i take the picture with ? A Fuji 3mpx point and shoot.

 

[iaind]

I have used 10-22 on 40D and 17-35L on 5DII. Preferred FF so 10-22 languishes in an old bag.
Its a great lens so go for it ,you wont lose much when you sell it when the 5dIII eventually arrives.

 

[ferdi]

The EF-S 10-22mm is an excellent lens, reasonably fast (f/3.5-4.5), quick USM, lightweight, smooth zoomring.
You can use a non-slim filter on it with little extra vignetting (a bit at 10mm wide open).
The huge DOF on a crop body is excellent for many applications.
Cons: not weather sealed, huge lens hood (I left it at home most of the times), not FF compatible.

I sold my copy to fund for the 16-35L II since I needed faster shutter speeds (sports and nightlife photography).
Otherwise I would probably have kept it until I go EF-only with a 1D/5D set.

 

[elflord]

I recently purchased a 7D, which I'm quite happy with so far. I do a lot of nature work, landscapes when I have the time to get out and find them, wildlife and birds most of the time, with a variety of other macro, still life, and even portrait work at times. I've been holding out for a 5D III, however it seems that its release is still quite some way off into the future. I also currently own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens, which I've used with my 450D for a while, however it does limit me on the wide end...essentially capturing an FoV similar to that of the 24-70 on FF.

My question is, should I grab the EF-S 10-22mm lens for the 7D, and use that for landscapes? I've heard that lens is optically really great, but I've also heard it has a fair amount of distortion at the wide end. Should I save my money bank it for the 5D III and use my 16-35mm for that kind of work?

All or nearly all wide angle zooms have some distortion on the wide end. Take a look at the photozone.de reviews.

The 10-22mm EF-S lens will have very little distortion at 16mm, whereas the 16-35 will have quite a lot (because it's the wide end of that lens). Ultra wide angle full frame zooms aren't a very good value proposition on a crop, basically, the image they produce is mismatched for the sensor (that is, you buy the optics to cover a wide fov then throw it away because the image falls out of bounds of the sensor)

 

[jrista]

The EF-S 10-22mm is an excellent lens, reasonably fast (f/3.5-4.5), quick USM, lightweight, smooth zoomring.
You can use a non-slim filter on it with little extra vignetting (a bit at 10mm wide open).
The huge DOF on a crop body is excellent for many applications.
Cons: not weather sealed, huge lens hood (I left it at home most of the times), not FF compatible.

Thanks for the details! The lack of weather sealing is a little worriesome, as I have spent a fair amount of time in winter and snowstorms trying to photograph winter landscapes. The vignetting comment is worriesome as well...I have the Lee filter system with quite a few 4x6 GND filters...and I often stack several on at once with landscape shots to balance out DR. The 10-22 would definitely be out if it can't handle a few filters without a lot of vignetting.

 

[Harley]

The TS-E lens is a pain to use on a crop body - the popup flash gets in the way. Canon provides a smaller knob you use in that case, but it's still a really tight fit and the little knob is hard to turn. Great lens on FF, though!

I have a 7D and am about to get set up with a tilt-shift lens. I have opted to buy an old FD 35mm f/2.8 TS lens and will convert it with the Ed Mika TS adapter. This is a much less expensive option than a current TS-E lens, it's much smaller, and better built. The adapter doesn't have any optics, so you aren't reducing the speed of the lens. It also maintains all the functionality of the TS lens so it can be rotated freely. The adapter has an AF confirmation chip so it will communicate with the body and provide EXIF metadata.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EdMika-Tilt-Shift-TS-35mm-2-8-FD-EOS-brass-adapter-conversion-kit-/170742432321?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item27c10ac241

 

[friedmud]

@Jrista

Yes, Samyang is also branded as Rokinon and Bower among others though in the US market Rokinon is the easiest to find. I love the sharpness across the field and fast at f/2.8. Just wish my eyes were better for the manual focus

For manual focus for tripod shots of static objects I _always_ drop into live view mode, zoom all the way in on whatever I want to focus on (which mightH have come from a quick hyperfocal calculation) and then manually focus using the screen. I then hop out of live view and proceed like normal. Beautifully simple and you're guaranteed to have the focus you want (you're actually focusing on the _sensor_ itself instead l your eye)

 

[RayS2121]

EF-S 10-22 appears to be a capable lens and I have heard no major gripes from owners. If the goal is an inevitable move to FF then the main question here is: do you invest in any new glass, especially relatively expensive ones, that will only work on the cropped sensor?

EF-s lenses may well go the way FD lenses went as FF sensors become more common and with more MP (in time). I know some continue to use them (FD), hell I have my A1 still . Not an immediate danger for sure in the Canon line, but I don’t’ want to set off a war on the ultimate future of cropped sensors here.

I would always recommend that one invests in lenses that will have longevity and scope beyond one's current body.

As I see it, the cropped sensor owner has advantages on the telephoto side with more reach for same Focal length and unfortunately a blunted wide angle limit... which is what you face. Most wide you can find in a rectilinear lens may be in the range of ~14mm which gives you about 22mm for the cropped body. about 4mm over the 16mm on 16-35II in the FF.

That said, most my cropped body friends with kit lenses are taken aback by how strikingly wide 24mm really is on a FF. The widest some have ever seen is 18mm with the kit lens which is about ~29mm in FF terms. Hence my earlier suggestion that a cheaper 14mm or an actual Canon 14mm (if budget allows) may tide you over till you hit the FF purchase, give you a modicum of wide angle thrills, and still allow you to keep the glass moving forward.

If you cannot live without the last 4mm to hit that 16mm on FF, then I am afraid you have to buy something like 10-22 EF-S.

That brings us to the age old question:“Do you want it now? Or do you want it good!”

 

[V8Beast]

I recently purchased a 7D, which I'm quite happy with so far. I do a lot of nature work, landscapes when I have the time to get out and find them, wildlife and birds most of the time, with a variety of other macro, still life, and even portrait work at times. I've been holding out for a 5D III, however it seems that its release is still quite some way off into the future. I also currently own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens, which I've used with my 450D for a while, however it does limit me on the wide end...essentially capturing an FoV similar to that of the 24-70 on FF.

My question is, should I grab the EF-S 10-22mm lens for the 7D, and use that for landscapes? I've heard that lens is optically really great, but I've also heard it has a fair amount of distortion at the wide end. Should I save my money bank it for the 5D III and use my 16-35mm for that kind of work?

I used both the 10-22 and 16-35 on a 10D and 20D for many years before upgrading to FF bodies. Since then, I've used the 16-35 and 17-40 on both the 7D and 5D.

IMHO, the 10-22 is an outstanding lens. Optically, it's pretty darn close to the L-series lenses. Distortion wise, from my experience the 16-35, both the MKI and MKII, is the worst of the bunch on the wide end. Dollar per dollar, I think the 17-40 offers the best bang-for-the-buck performance in terms of optics and build quality. I can't, in good conscience, recommended to anyone that spending twice as much for a 16-35 is worth it.

If you stick with a crop body, IMHO, you'll be giving up very little in image quality with a 10-22 vs. a 16-35 or 17-40.

 

[zaza]

I've been thinking along similar lines; own a 7D, want to go wide, will probably be looking seriously at the 5D3 when it eventually surfaces.

My conclusion is that I'm probably not going to get rid of my 7D for a long time. It's really a great camera. How long until I actually get my hands on a 5D3? Over a year I reckon. Even then, I'll have them in parallel. By the time I'm looking at getting a full-on FF wide angle, I think it'll be a couple of years.
As with all these things, therefore, it's about how quickly you can build up cash and what you want to spend it on. It won't take me 2 years of saving to afford either a 10-22mm EFS lens or the 14mm prime, so I reckon a couple of years of good use is worth the few hundred it costs for a 10-22. If the 7D does hit ebay, selling it with a great wide-angle is no bad thing.

 

[dtaylor]

But the OP was talking about waiting for the 5d3, and got a 7d whilst waiting when he could have gotten the 5d2 was my point.

jrista said his choice was based on wildlife shooting and on cost.

To say the 5d2 and 7d is comparable at all is just wrong, plain and simple.

Looks like I skewered a sacred cow :

I use both FF and 1,3 crop and that beautiful smooth bokeh and transitions of the FF is a big difference to the 1,3.

A fast prime on an APS-C camera can easily diffuse a background. For portraits the difference between something like an 85mm prime on crop and on FF is the difference between one eye in focus and one eyelash. I don't typically want one eyelash in focus, and usually stop down to f/2 or f/2.8 even with a 50mm on crop to make sure I get both eyes and most of the face in focus.

There are situations where the more shallow DoF of FF can be useful, but the difference is not nearly as dramatic as it is made out to be. At the end of the day we obsess too much about small differences. Shuffle up some prints shot with a wide open prime on both. See if anyone notices a difference and glows about one or the other without you even telling them the prints were made with two different cameras. They certainly would see a difference between those prints and prints made from, say, a P&S with the background in sharp focus. But probably not between the DSLR prints.

I would get FF just to have a 17-equiv TS lens.

I believe I said, before your post, that those with T/S lenses are best served by FF bodies.

No need to compare them,

I compared them because of the comments to jrista that he should sell the 7D and buy a 5D2+16-35 now because "a 7D isn't for landscapes." Contrary to the meme, landscape photography is an area where there is little to no difference between the sensors. If you've got a 7D, save the money and wait for a 5D3.

Now if jrista had posted that his 85 f/1.2L just wasn't giving him shallow enough DoF on his 7D, I would have told him to get a 5D2. I don't think I've ever heard someone make that complaint however.

 

[jrista]

Keep in mind, those offering advice about the 10-22 vs. the 16-35...I ALREADY OWN the 16-35mm L II. It was actually the second lens I purchased after getting my first DSRL. I know its a superb lens, and wouldn't give it up for anything.

My question is whether its worth it to spend the money (which, relatively speaking, is a lot) on a 10-22, or whether its just not worth it and it doesn't buy me enough OVER the 16-35mm I already have. I thought the 10-22 went for around $750, but it seems to have climbed in price, and I see it selling for around $840 these days. My real question given that price is:

Will it buy me enough OVER AND BEYOND my current EF 16-36mm f/2.8 L II lens?

I've looked into some primes, but the way I photograph landscapes (there have been plenty of times I've waded out into a lake a ways, dropped my tripod right there, and taken some shots!), a zoom is more useful (unless its a TS lens, in which case I'll deal with moving my tripod around.)

 

[Loswr]

My question is whether its worth it to spend the money (which, relatively speaking, is a lot) on a 10-22, or whether its just not worth it and it doesn't buy me enough OVER the 16-35mm I already have. I thought the 10-22 went for around $750, but it seems to have climbed in price, and I see it selling for around $840 these days. My real question given that price is:

Will it buy me enough OVER AND BEYOND my current EF 16-36mm f/2.8 L II lens?

Assuming you're talking about using both on an APS-C body, the 10-22mm will buy you a 34% wider (diagonal) angle of view. That's pretty significant, from my perspective.

 

[AprilForever]

Keep the 7D and get a Tokina 11-16. Unless you wish to drop a lot on lenses, this will be a much cheaper route...

 

[jrista]

Keep the 7D and get a Tokina 11-16. Unless you wish to drop a lot on lenses, this will be a much cheaper route...

Hmm, thats an intriguing idea, as it would match up with the 16-35mm on the long end nicely. How good are Tokina lenses? I've only owned Canon, and have used a Sigma and Tamron (didn't like the tamron, the sigma was ok.)