7D or 5D III?

[tpatana]

I have both. For your purposes, I might go 7D + lens, but it really depends on the person.

I love my 5D3. With 7D, I was ok with ISO3200 but 6400 was really terrible. With 5D3, I'm happy at 6400, ok at 12k and if really needed and can ETTR the 25k is still usable.

 

[tpatana]

Like the others who have both, I don't actually use my 7D and it gathers dust as a back up in case the 5D III needs to go in for repair.

Exactly. I did use it once when I needed two bodies at the same time, but 99% of the pics come from 5D.

 

[insanitybeard]

Nighthawk, sounds like you are 'one of those' photographers, so I would suggest you to go for two eos 1dx's!! You can fire away in the dark and not miss a shot AND look rather cool and professional at the same time 8) YEAH!

Another one of your helpful posts...... Somebody who has had an entry level DSLR body for a couple years asks for opinion on an upgrade path and that's the best you can offer? If this is such a gear orientated forum perhaps you should remove yourself from it and go join some real photographers? Save wasting our time and yours

 

[moocowe]

Many of us, in contrast to moocowe, have found that we have to take several shots when doing bird photography with the 7D to get tack sharp focus whereas the 5D III is spot on every time.

Sorry, I should have stated I don't do any bird photography. Closest thing I've shot was an airshow, where I thought the AF performed really well. That was just after I'd stepped up from a 450D, and long before the 5D3 existed, however!

No doubt the 5D3 AF is superior, but the 7D AF should also be quite an improvement for someone coming from an 1100D.

 

[lycan]

go for the 5d mark III. It's a no-brainer if you can afford it

You guys are amazing. On the 60D iso 1600 at low light is way too noisy. It's horrible. Even iso 800 is very noisy in shaded areas. And the 60D is slightly better than 7D at high iso

Also, lenses are usually sharper on FF sensors

 

[jdramirez]

70-300 or the 75-300? I never thought of the 70-300 as a Kit Lens. It is soft-ish from 200-300 and a mkiii isn't going to change that at all. I've said this a few times now, but why don't you see if you can your hands on a t2i, t3i, t4i, t5i, 60D, or 7D because they have the same sensor AND SHOOT IN RAW!!!

Compare the iso values (maybe look up an article or post here about native iso's), and see if you find it tolerable. I'd also suggest tripod mounting the camera to eliminate shake as a variable.

I personally would prefer to get a while host of lenses to go along with my $800 used 7D and spend the saved money, 2200 on really nice lenses. Maybe the 300mm f/4L, or the 70-200 f/2.8L USM plus a 1.4x teleconvertor, a 24-105 would be a nice little upgrade over the 17-40 provided you don't love the 17-24mm... though for some/many 24mm x 1.6 is a touch too long and not wide enough.

I guess the real question is... how much money do you have? Can we have some?

Everyone's definition of acceptable noise is different. It matters what your definition of acceptable noise is and you won't find that out without getting a body in hand. With lightroom, you should easily be able to shoot at 3200 with the 7D and still come away with some shots that look great viewed on faceboook. I forget what the article I read said, but raw images have significantly more information that has been captured, so it is easier to change the exposure and to bring out the colors that were originally there. It does take effort to do the post production, but you have to ask yourself whether you want your shot to look like what the camera sees, or you want it to look like what you see. And that is often a big difference.

I'd suggest shooting in both raw and .jpg for a while... and then really GOOD ones... do some post production with and see if it is better than the .jpg.

The more light, the better the AF... more light comes from the larger aperture of the lens... larger aperture lenses usually have better motors which are faster...

How would a 7D + 300mm f/4 combo go?

Part of the reason I suggest people buy used but in good condition is because bodies depreciate quickly. @ $800, you can probably sell the 7D in 2 years for $700 or maybe $600. So the real cost to own the body is only $75ish per year. If you buy new, you are easily looking at a $400 depreciation after you take your first shot.

I paid around $2600 for my new 5d mkiii (I got a really good deal for a new one from an authorized manufacturer). In 3 years right before the mkiv comes out, I can probably sell it for $2000. After 7 years (around the time of the mkv), I'm maybe looking at $1400. I'm guessing at the timeframe of the new generations and the money I can get, but I'm paying about $171 to $200 a year provided it remains in good condition.

It is hard to know exactly what will be best for you, but I'm the kind of guy who likes to minimize risk... so if you get an $800 body and another $2200+ in lenses, you'll be better off than if you got a $3000 body and stayed with the 70-300 (provided it is a 70-300).

The 70-300 is about 100x better than the 75-300... and the reason I want a clarification is because very few people would suggest going out with a 75-300 and a mkiii with the expectation of getting good results.

[/quote]

 

[sdsr]

Do you live somewhere, such as the US, where it's easy and not that expensive to rent camera bodies? Ideally, since only you know what you shoot and what your noise tolerances etc. are, you can answer your own questions. If you can't, what is it that you shoot that makes you believe that the difference in shots per second between a 7D and 5DIII would matter? If, as seems to be the case, the 5DIII's autofocus is more accurate, won't that more than make up for the difference? (Maybe it won't.)

Otherwise, I would say what most others have said - if you can afford it, get a 5DIII.

 

[Night Hawk]

jdramirez:
My mistake, you're right. I have the 75-300, not the 70-300.

In terms of money, I have just enough to get a 5D III. So if I were to get the 5D III, I'd have to stick with the lenses that I use right now, whereas if I were to get the 7D, I'd be able to get new lenses.

This is just a hunch, but I figure that (at ISO 100) the 7D with some nice glass would be able to get better photos than a 5D III with my 75-300. However, I often shoot in dark forests, so I'm seldom able to go below ISO 800. Because I upload online, I'd probably be able to get away with ISO 25,600 on the 5D III, which would greatly increase the number of photos that I get. However, the color fringing I get from the 75-300 can be quite bad. Will this pose a real problem if I were to crop the photos taken from a 5D III?

This is a question that's somewhat unrelated, but if I did shoot in RAW, would Lightroom allow me to view all of the photos? I'm pretty new to the software, and I'm also new to RAW, so I need help with this stuff

sdsr:

I do have a photography friend that owns a 5D III. Maybe, if he's not on vacation or something, I'd be able to borrow it and take some test shots. I don't, however, have any way to test the 7D.

In practice how different are the AF systems? Is the 5D III incredibly fast, to the point that it makes the 7D's AF system look primitive? Or is it just that little bit better that allows you to get a few more frames?

 

[jdramirez]

jdramirez:
My mistake, you're right. I have the 75-300, not the 70-300.

In terms of money, I have just enough to get a 5D III. So if I were to get the 5D III, I'd have to stick with the lenses that I use right now, whereas if I were to get the 7D, I'd be able to get new lenses.

This is just a hunch, but I figure that (at ISO 100) the 7D with some nice glass would be able to get better photos than a 5D III with my 75-300. However, I often shoot in dark forests, so I'm seldom able to go below ISO 800. Because I upload online, I'd probably be able to get away with ISO 25,600 on the 5D III, which would greatly increase the number of photos that I get. However, the color fringing I get from the 75-300 can be quite bad. Will this pose a real problem if I were to crop the photos taken from a 5D III?

This is a question that's somewhat unrelated, but if I did shoot in RAW, would Lightroom allow me to view all of the photos? I'm pretty new to the software, and I'm also new to RAW, so I need help with this stuff

sdsr:

I do have a photography friend that owns a 5D III. Maybe, if he's not on vacation or something, I'd be able to borrow it and take some test shots. I don't, however, have any way to test the 7D.

In practice how different are the AF systems? Is the 5D III incredibly fast, to the point that it makes the 7D's AF system look primitive? Or is it just that little bit better that allows you to get a few more frames?

I'm clairvoyant yo!

 

[jdramirez]

So you have about $3000. Or you have @2650 and you are going to sell the t3 for around $350 used which then brings you back up to around $3000 ish.

I have defended the 75-300 as a first zoom lens, somewhat decent bokeh and if you have enough light, you don't need IS. But it isn't a sharp lens, it isn't good with color rendition, and contrast is also poor. It is basically a $100 lens. Simply getting a 55-250mm with IS will improve your distance photos significantly. You won't get more light because it also goes to f/5.6 at 250mm, but it really is a much better lens.

People will fight tooth and nail saying the 70-300mm IS USM f/4-5.6 is REALLY GOOD and it isn't bad, but it also isn't nearly as good as the L version which you can afford with the cash you have and the 7D + 70-300L will blow your MIND!

As for the 5D plus the 75-300... I don't know that those two have ever met. Seriously... people who pay $3000 for a body don't put a $100 lens on it.

The image you will get from the 75-300 will be what you see on the t3 plus more. So the color fringing at the edges will still be there, and as you go further to the edges, it will get worse. The sensor isn't going to improve the bad image coming from the lens... it might make it sharper and more distinct, but it is there.

You are trying to grind up pig face into a really expensive meat grinder and come out with chopped steak... NOPE! You put in pig face... you are going to get chopped pig face. But if you put in veal into a less expensive grinder, you will get chopped veal.

As for lightroom, you can copy duplicates into your catalog. I choose to only import raw photos, but you can do that with the settings. How... I forget... but you can do it.

Also shooting in raw will fix some of the chromatic abberation and any bowing/distortion from the lens, but seriously... bad lenses don't become good with better bodies.

Like I said, t3i, t2i, t4i, t5i, 60D, all share the same sensor and overall RAW and iso performance... see if you can borrow one of those. You might even be able to rent one from a camera shop for $30 for a day.

I had the 60D and that was the little brother of the 7D... and I was able to get my shot more often than not. 7D will be more than enough for your purposes, though the mkiii is better.

If you are doing birds in flight, you might miss it, but your retention rate/keeper rate will still be around 80% with practice and skill.

 

[Night Hawk]

As long as the noise from the 7D can be fixed in post, then I'll be fine with it. I've just been hearing that it's quite a noisy sensor, so that kind of puts me off.
If I can take photos at 3200/6400 and make them significantly cleaner, than that's good enough.

Also, if the 7D's AF system is significantly better than the 1100D's, then I'll probably be happy.

What kind of quality difference is there between FF and APS-C?

As for lenses, would it be better to get the 70-300L, 300L f/4, or the 200L 2.8 + converter? All sound like good options, but what do you think would be the best for my purposes (mostly bird/wildlife)?

 

[jdramirez]

Here's how I would spend your $3000.
Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR Camera w/ 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens + Extra - $900 (Annapolis, MD)

And I saw others in this neighborhood for the 7D... so hopefully you live near a big city.
Craigs list: I really hate to let this camera go, but I just don't get enough use out of it. I would love to see it g to a good home!

I paid over $2000 for the camera and lens just a couple years ago. There are a couple hundred dollars in extras as well, Including a very nice bag and 32g ultra fast memory card.I am asking $900.

This is an amazing deal, the camera is practically brand new with a shutter count of about 500!

Sell the 28-135 for $200 and you are at $700 for the body.

Sell the 75-300 for $100 and now you are at $2400 in cash in your pocket.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-digital-slr-camera-lenses-specials/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses-speedlites/ef-70-300mm-f-4-56l-is-usm-refurbished

Buy the 70-300 L when Canon has their 15 or 20% off sale for refurbs and you are looking at $1023 before tax.

1300 is now left over.

Alternatively and this is the way I would go, get a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM for 927 plus tax, and then buy a 1.4 teleconvertor for $250, the mkii version, and instead of 70-300 in reach, you now have a 98-280mm, but with the crop factor, you have a 156-448mm lens.

And the cash you have left over is 1150.

1150 is a ton... you can get a 100mm f/2.8L macro and get some stunning nature photos, you could opt to get a 24-105 and sell the 17-40... and the 24-105 was selling the other day without a warranty for 660... which is a steal. Get a squaretrade warranty for a hundred bucks and be protected for a few years.

Seriously... the mkiii is great... but it is NOT the step you make right now.

 

[jdramirez]

As long as the noise from the 7D can be fixed in post, then I'll be fine with it. I've just been hearing that it's quite a noisy sensor, so that kind of puts me off.
If I can take photos at 3200/6400 and make them significantly cleaner, than that's good enough.

Also, if the 7D's AF system is significantly better than the 1100D's, then I'll probably be happy.

What kind of quality difference is there between FF and APS-C?

As for lenses, would it be better to get the 70-300L, 300L f/4, or the 200L 2.8 + converter? All sound like good options, but what do you think would be the best for my purposes (mostly bird/wildlife)?

When the t2i came out, people raved about its low light performance. 6 years later, the image quality and low light performance hasn't changed, but the tech has improved and the 6D is GREAT as in the mkiii... as it sony and nikon reportedly... but the 18mp sensor isn't bad.

 

[Dylan777]

As long as the noise from the 7D can be fixed in post, then I'll be fine with it. I've just been hearing that it's quite a noisy sensor, so that kind of puts me off.
If I can take photos at 3200/6400 and make them significantly cleaner, than that's good enough.

Also, if the 7D's AF system is significantly better than the 1100D's, then I'll probably be happy.

What kind of quality difference is there between FF and APS-C?

As for lenses, would it be better to get the 70-300L, 300L f/4, or the 200L 2.8 + converter? All sound like good options, but what do you think would be the best for my purposes (mostly bird/wildlife)?

1600ISO is my cut off for 7D in low light shots

7D AF is 2.5x better than 1100D

IQ between FF Vs crop? Once you shoot with FF, I don't think you want to go back to crop ever again. I been there, done that. Try to borrow your friend 5D III, before buy 7D.

70-200 f2.8 IS II + 7D is not a bad combo at all.

Good luck,

 

[dtaylor]

I'm the guy on this forum who will gladly challenge the "FF is SOOO much better" crowd to actually prove it with tests. At low to mid ISO, after post processing, I don't see the difference in 24" prints. And the test images / IQ measurements at places like Imaging Resource and DPReview don't detect it or show it either.

I'm also a huge fan of the 7D and think it's one of the best all around small format cameras ever produced. Literally. Before the 7D you could choose high resolution IQ (i.e. 5D) or responsive, high speed sports performance (1D series), but not really both. The 7D can make a 30" landscape print shot, then turn around and track a sprinter at 8 fps. Other cameras were a little better at one or the other, but the 7D was unique in the level of both at introduction. Sensor, features, body and UI...it rocks.

That said: at high ISO the latest FF is much better. It's not that the 7D is bad. It can do 8x12 and even 13x19 at ISO 1600 and 3200. A 5D3 or 6D will do 30" at those ISOs. It's almost like you're not at high ISO yet. If you want to do some work in PS and will be printing smaller, 25,600 is usable. That's insane.

And the 5D3's AF is better. I don't think it's dramatically better as some here claim, but it is better.

Also: I don't see a crop magnification advantage unless I'm cropping even further then APS-C. A 7D shot next to a 6D or 5D3 shot cropped to APS-C...no real difference. Now if I have to crop the 7D to, say, 9 MP to get the magnification I want the FF can't keep up. But how often is that necessary?

You won't be disappointed with the 7D. But if you have the budget, the 5D3 would be the first choice.

 

[tpatana]

One of my 7D @ ISO3200 photos was printed on canvas, about 5x3 feet. It looks awesome even when looking really close.

Would it have been better if I already had 5D3 by then? Actually not possible, because 5D3 wasn't released yet. But with time machine, yes. But it was still good enough. 7D is awesome, I try to keep it at max. ISO1600, but still 3200 is ok when good exposure.

 

[Night Hawk]

The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, but my problem is the weight. Would it simply be too much to carry around (with the 7D) for say 2 hours without a tripod?

 

[Loswr]

The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, but my problem is the weight. Would it simply be too much to carry around (with the 7D) for say 2 hours without a tripod?

Not for me, but then, I have no problem carrying a gripped body with 100-400L, 70-200L IS II, or 28-300L for hours. The key is not to use the neck strap. I use either a Blackrapid strap, and if the lens has a tripod collar (I got one for the 70-300L, too), I attach the strap to the lens foot. I also sometimes use a SpiderPro Holster.

 

[jdramirez]

The 70-300L seems like a great lens for me, but my problem is the weight. Would it simply be too much to carry around (with the 7D) for say 2 hours without a tripod?

Get a set of dumbells... work out your upper back, shoulders, and wrists. Neck helps too, but you can't really do that with dumbells.

It isn't that heavy... but for the quality, you have to pay the price.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (2.89 lbs.)and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii (3.28 lbs) are both heavy-ish. But the 70-300 is lighter (2.31 lbs).

If weight is a real issue, you might want to consider the 70-300 f/4-5.6 DO IS USM... but I have no clue if image quality is comparable to L's.

 

[Loswr]

If weight is a real issue, you might want to consider the 70-300 f/4-5.6 DO IS USM... but I have no clue if image quality is comparable to L's.

The IQ of the DO lens isn't comparable to the L, although the DO is much smaller (same size as the 24-105L) and lighter. I'll pay the size/weight penalty for better IQ.