Crop camera upgrade

[hopegrad08]

I have learned many things from this forum and now am seeking some specific advice.

In two weeks, I will travel to Tanzania for a month. During my time there, I plan to visit several national parks. With the opportunity to photograph unique wildlife, I'd like to ensure that I'm making the most of this experience. Consequently, I've pondered if I should upgrade my crop body to the 7D mark 2.

My current setup is as follows:
-Bodies: 5D mark III, 550D (T2i)
-Lenses: 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8 mark II, 2X extender mark III, 50 f/1.4, 2 kit lenses (for the T2i)

I know that the 7D mark 2 is not commercially available yet, so I know that knowledge is somewhat limited. I am also posing this question under the assumption that I will be able to get it in my possession prior to traveling to Tanzania.

Furthermore, I've read the discussions about full frame versus crop with regard to resolving power and image quality. The 7DM2 is seemingly a worthwhile camera for wildlife photography. However, my wildlife photographing experience is limited. My niche is mainly landscapes, but I am very comfortable with advanced camera operations.

Based on that information: is it worth upgrading the crop body to the 7D2? Additionally, for those with safari experience, any advice on setup (e.g. body/lens combination, which gear to take or leave behind, etc.) is coveted. I do plan to utilize two bodies to avoid changing lenses due to dust hazards in the parks.

One disclaimer note: I am not a professional and this is not a photography trip. I would qualify myself as an advanced enthusiast that is hoping to use this experience return with some excellent wildlife images.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Marsu42]

Based on that information: is it worth upgrading the crop body to the 7D2?

Imho you've got all the information you need to make the decision: You know the iq of the 200mm zoom with tc on crop (won't change with the 7d2), you know the af performance of the 5d3. Looking at the shots, the 7d2's sensor performance isn't revolutionary.

Now - is having an equal af system on the crop (but with af points nearly all over the vf) and more fps worth spending €1700 on? If in doubt, what other gear parts would you spend that amount of money on as an alternative? Some of your lenses are medocre, there are good replacements esp. for the 17-40 and 50/1.4.

 

[jrista]

I agree with what Marsu said. I think the key differences between the 5D III and 7D II, aside from the IQ difference, is going to be AF point spread and frame rate. I went to the 5D III from the original 7D, and I can definitely feel the difference in frame rate. I don't think I'm really losing anything, the 7D had an AF jitter that cost me enough frames that I didn't have a better keeper rate than with the 5D III.


However, if a difference of 2fps can be "felt", a difference of 4fps should be pretty big. If you NEED that kind of frame rate, then I would say the 7D II has value. Marsu hit the nail on the head though...is it enough value to justify $1800? Is the frame rate and AF point spread together enough to justify the $1800? I shoot birds and wildlife, and the 5D III does quite well. For wildlife in particular, the larger frame with larger animals lets me get beautiful backgrounds that can be more difficult to achieve with the crop frame.

 

[hopegrad08]

Thanks to both of you for your comments. It did seem like it wouldn't provide me any significant advantage over my current equipment. However, I don't know how much reach I will need to get good shots of the animals that I will see. Some subjects (i.e. elephants, giraffe, zebra, hippo) will not be moving quickly, so advanced AF is not imperative.

Another point of contention that I've given thought to is which lens/body combination would be best suited for my interest in this case. Prior to reading a recent thread about FF vs. crop for IQ and distant subjects, I assumed that I would use the 70-200 with the 2x converter on my crop body. After reading those posts, I'm more inclined to use it on the 5D3 and use either the 17-40 or 24-105 on the crop body for wider shots. It does seem counterintuitive to use a FF for longer shots instead of crop. I do recall Neuro stating on more than one occasion that the only advantages crop provides are size and cost.

 

[jrista]

Thanks to both of you for your comments. It did seem like it wouldn't provide me any significant advantage over my current equipment. However, I don't know how much reach I will need to get good shots of the animals that I will see. Some subjects (i.e. elephants, giraffe, zebra, hippo) will not be moving quickly, so advanced AF is not imperative.

Remember, the 5D III already has advanced AF. It just doesn't have an RGB meter linked into the AF system. That is certainly an advantage, but the 5D III is not handicapped by any means.

Another point of contention that I've given thought to is which lens/body combination would be best suited for my interest in this case. Prior to reading a recent thread about FF vs. crop for IQ and distant subjects, I assumed that I would use the 70-200 with the 2x converter on my crop body. After reading those posts, I'm more inclined to use it on the 5D3 and use either the 17-40 or 24-105 on the crop body for wider shots. It does seem counterintuitive to use a FF for longer shots instead of crop. I do recall Neuro stating on more than one occasion that the only advantages crop provides are size and cost.

Neuro's opinion on crop does not reflect everyone's opinion. My opinion, using both a crop and FF myself, is that there IS a reach benefit when using crop. With smaller pixels you resolve more detail when photographing with the same lens at the same distance. That should simply be logical, but some people insist that it doesn't matter. The 7D doesn't have as much of an advantage in resolving power as the 7D II is going to have, and whether it has a real-world advantage or not has been debated to death.


You'll often hear quibbling over numbers, is it 60% better, 45% better, etc. Purely from a pixel size standpoint, the theoretical resolution advantage the 7D II has over the 5D III is 52%. Will you get that in real life? It depends. The same issues that may reduce IQ with the 7D II are also going to reduce IQ with the 5D III. If you do everything you can to maximize the resolving power of the 7D II, then you should realize a real-world benefit. High quality, sharp lenses, use of a tripod when necessary, proper use of IS, etc.


The caveat comes when you have the ability to change your distance to subject. If you can get closer...then the larger frame of the 5D III is going to be better. More light, ultimately more pixels if you can frame the same. If you are always able to fill the frame...then the 7D II will rarely produce better IQ. It may produce a better frame because it simply gets more of them per second...but on an identical framing basis, it won't produce better IQ. That's where using the telephoto lenses on the 5D III buys you something...you can frame such that your gathering more light, which means less noise and more pixels on subject.

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks to both of you for your comments. It did seem like it wouldn't provide me any significant advantage over my current equipment. However, I don't know how much reach I will need to get good shots of the animals that I will see. Some subjects (i.e. elephants, giraffe, zebra, hippo) will not be moving quickly, so advanced AF is not imperative.

I'm not a safari geek, but I imagine with too far away subjects the atmospheric disturbance in hot climate gets so significant it won't really matter what sensor you're using

After reading those posts, I'm more inclined to use it on the 5D3 and use either the 17-40 or 24-105 on the crop body for wider shots. It does seem counterintuitive to use a FF for longer shots instead of crop.

Don't only be set upon pixel peeping sharpness, there are other lens propierties. Cropping just the center from a full frame ef lens means a vastly different bokeh and vignetting look wide open. That doesn't matter stopped down, so you should be fine with the 17-40L @f8+ on crop and using your best lens on your best sensor.

I do recall Neuro stating on more than one occasion that the only advantages crop provides are size and cost.

... and other people disagree with our full frame editor, including me and obviously jrista. Crop is certainly great for macro and having to carry around less weight & bulk for the same reach. As you wrote, you're no a pro, so shooting is supposed to be fun - which actually is a good reason to get the 7d2 toy just for the heck of it if you've got the €€€.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

7D Mark ii should make a big difference in AF, metering, and frame rate on your T2i. Just because it is worth the price of $ 1800. Traveling with two bodies is a great way to avoid changing lenses in dusty environments. His 5D Mark iii will do very well in low light, where you are not limited by the reach.

 

[Sabaki]

Based on that information: is it worth upgrading the crop body to the 7D2?

Imho you've got all the information you need to make the decision: You know the iq of the 200mm zoom with tc on crop (won't change with the 7d2), you know the af performance of the 5d3. Looking at the shots, the 7d2's sensor performance isn't revolutionary.

Hey Marsu

Are you saying aside from frame rate and AF performance, you don't foresee any IQ improvement for the 7D2 over the 550D?

 

[Marsu42]

Are you saying aside from frame rate and AF performance, you don't foresee any IQ improvement for the 7D2 over the 550D?

I'm not in the market for a 7d2, so I only had a rough look. There certainly will be an improvement as your 550d's 18mp sensor is the earliest incarnation, so less banding, a little more sharpness (weaker aa filter), 2 more metapixies, maybe 1-2-2/3 stop iso improvment. Refer to other 7d2 threads or reviews for details - question is if you've experienced the problems with the older sensor the newer one might improve.

It all depends on your budget, but that wouldn't be worth €1700 for *me*, I'd rather stay with my 60d which admittedly has better usability than your Rebel. Camera bodies come and go, the 7d2 will drop in price like all do...

... but for less money (after selling your current lenses) you could upgrade to a 16-35L-IS and Sigma 50mm ART - now *that* would have an impact on your pictures for sure. Having the latest, absolute two top-notch camera bodies and shooting with some medicre lenses imho is a bad decision as your gear isn't balanced.

 

[timmy_650]

Have you thought about the 7D not the mark ii. The 7D is cheap now that mark 2 is out. It will give you the same picture quality as the t2i but the build quality is a lot better and so is the AF. One of the other big things about upgrading to a 7D is the button layout will be much closer to your 5D which will make switching between camera easier.

 

[Sportsgal501]

Do you need it or just "want" a 7D Mark II? :-\

 

[hopegrad08]

Do you need it or just "want" a 7D Mark II? :-\

Tough question to answer, which is why I came here to get some insight. I would say that since I am not a pro, then I do not need it. However, I don't "need" my other gear either.

What I'm trying to discern is if there is any significant upside to getting this camera body for my future wildlife photographing opportunities.

Have you thought about the 7D not the mark ii. The 7D is cheap now that mark 2 is out. It will give you the same picture quality as the t2i but the build quality is a lot better and so is the AF. One of the other big things about upgrading to a 7D is the button layout will be much closer to your 5D which will make switching between camera easier.

I did consider that. However, it seems like it may be a more marginal upgrade from my current crop body in terms of IQ (even more so than the 7D2). I've also heard that the antiquated AF system of the 7D may be frustrating, so I thought the 7D2 would make more sense to consider.

As I read through the feedback, I'm leaning more toward keeping my current bodies and utilizing each on this trip.