Full Frame or faster lens?

[Deleted member 369279]

Hello,

I am a long time reader of Canon Rumours. Today i would like to have your opinion.
I own a 7D, a 100-400mm, a 15-85mm and a 50mm f1,4. I am not a pro, but I am really enthusiastic about photography. I mainly do wildlife, landscape and travel photography. I am very happy with the 7D but for wildlife (here in belgium) photography I often have to raise the Iso up to 1600. Which is already a lot on the 7D. So I am thinking about getting faster lens or a 5Dmiii for it is better iso performance. I cannot afford the 200-400 f4. So I was thinking about the new sigma 120-300 with a tc 1,4.
What do you think? What would you get? Both? If so in what order to spread the expense? Going FF i would loose the extra reach previous switchers' opinion on that are welcome.

Thanks a lot for your comments, advices,...

Vincwat

 

[Loswr]

What do you do with your images? If 8 MP is sufficient for your output (16x24" / A2 prints or smaller), the 'extra reach' is not a factor. A FF image cropped to APS-C framing gives a 7-8.6 MP (for current 18-22 MP cameras) which delivers equivalent IQ at low ISO and progressively better IQ as you raise the ISO above 800.

 

[CarlTN]

Hello,

I am a long time reader of Canon Rumours. Today i would like to have your opinion.
I own a 7D, a 100-400mm, a 15-85mm and a 50mm f1,4. I am not a pro, but I am really enthusiastic about photography. I mainly do wildlife, landscape and travel photography. I am very happy with the 7D but for wildlife (here in belgium) photography I often have to raise the Iso up to 1600. Which is already a lot on the 7D. So I am thinking about getting faster lens or a 5Dmiii for it is better iso performance. I cannot afford the 200-400 f4. So I was thinking about the new sigma 120-300 with a tc 1,4.
What do you think? What would you get? Both? If so in what order to spread the expense? Going FF i would loose the extra reach previous switchers' opinion on that are welcome.

Thanks a lot for your comments, advices,...

Vincwat

A 6D will solve all your problems!! The Sigma lens looks like a fine value to me. But for ISO 1600, the 6D can't be beat...For fast sporting events or a lot of birds in flight, the 5D3 might be better.

 

[Deleted member 369279]

Thank you for your replies.
I like the autofocus of the 7D and sometimes I feel like there could be a little bit more AF points, so I don't think that the 6D would solve my problem. If I go FF I'll go for the 5D mkIII. I don't think that I would do any print bigger than A2. So cropping is a solution to get back some of the range loss...

Any one who had the same issues is welcome to comment.

Vinc

 

[danski0224]

I had a 7D and didn't use it much once a 5DII showed up. Too much of a readily apparent difference in quality and framing. I grew up on 35mm film, and the difference is readily apparent.

But, the loss of the 1.6x teleconverter (APS-C) kinda sucked for some instances.

Adding even a 1.4x TC can significantly impact focus speed, and it steals light. I tried the TC on a 300mm f/4 and wasn't happy with the change in AF speed. This was on a 5D series, not 1D series.

Then, you are limited to certain AF points based on the lens (lens groups) and apeture.

If the Sigma reports properly (and it probably does), you should get access to the f/2.8 focus points. That changes with the 1.4x teleconverter.

If it is at all possible to rent it, I'd try that before buying one. Maybe even rent a 5DIII at the same time. I know LensRentals has a partnership with Super Digital City for some of the Sigma lenses they have for rent and you get most of the rental as credit towards a purchase. This is from a USA customer perspective.

If you are willing to shell out the funds for a 5DIII, I'd suggest sourcing a nice used 1DIV instead. Given that "wildlife" is listed first in your interests, and you have no wide angle lenses listed, you will probably be disappointed in the loss of 1.6x. Lots of AF points and FPS in the 1DIV too.

The 5DIII has spot AF with any lens and the 1DIV does not, unless you are using one of the supertelephoto lenses with the buttons.

Yes, there are numerous tests here and elsewhere about cropping FF images to the same FOV of APS-C and APS-C cameras and being able to retain details. The technical stuff is over my head, but it seems to hold water only if the FF image is tack sharp.

If my math is right (ha!), the 300mm on your 7D becomes 187mm on the 5D series and 230mm on the 1DIV. I suppose you could mess with your 100-300 on a static subject and compare, or at least get a feel for the differences. Might be worth a shot. Essentially, a 400mm lens would be needed on the 5D to match the "reach" of the 7D.

Up to you to try it before buying more stuff.

There is no clear cut or easy answer. Canon seems to be segmenting their product line.

ISO 6400 on the 5DIII is useable, no problems, without doing anything extra in my eyes. One day I'll take the time to learn how to use either DPP or Adobe products more effectively.

Good Luck.

 

[Loswr]

A 6D will solve all your problems!!

Evidently not. I think most 7D users who shoot wildlife would prefer to step up in AF performance, e.g. the 5DIII, or at least not step down, e.g. the 6D (notwithstanding extreme low light from -0.5 to -3 EV).

 

[CarlTN]

A 6D will solve all your problems!!

Evidently not. I think most 7D users who shoot wildlife would prefer to step up in AF performance, e.g. the 5DIII, or at least not step down, e.g. the 6D (notwithstanding extreme low light from -0.5 to -3 EV).

Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps, since they've waited this long (the 5D3 has been out nearly 2 years), they could at least try a 6D, and then wait to see if the 5D4 comes out in the next year or so.

 

[Loswr]

Or perhaps, since they've waited this long (the 5D3 has been out nearly 2 years), they could at least try a 6D, and then wait to see if the 5D4 comes out in the next year or so.

It was 4 years between the 5DII and 5DIII, 4 years and still no 7DII. Trying a 6D isn't a bad idea at all, but I'd suggest trying by borrowing (or renting, although I'm often against that as it reduces funds available for purchasing). But buying a 6D is trading AF performance with fast-moving subjects for ISO performance. Personally, I'll take an in-focus, noisy image over an out-of-focus, low-noise image. Given that most recommend the 5DIII for fast-moving subjects (yourself included), I'm apparently not alone in that opinion. However, if the 6D does happen to meet the OP's needs, it's a cost-effective solution.

 

[frumrk]

I started out with the 550D (I believe that it is pretty much equivalent to the 7D as far as image quality at Hight ISO's (nothing else)), and later got the 5D Mark II (2 not 3). I have done a lot of low light photography such as at my Children's school concerts... etc... and I have also found that 1600 is pretty much the upper limit that I like to shoot.

After I bought the 5D Mark II I found that it is not only the amount of noise... but also the quality of noise. Where I would almost never go to ISO 3200 on the 550D... I have no problem going to ISO 6400 on the 5D Mark II and from my understanding the Mark III can do much better than that.

So I find that I rarely use the 550D anymore... even though I get a longer reach with it.... actually I find the improved sensitivity of the larger sensor (and better noise profile) more than makes up for any loss in reach.

Just one opinion!

 

[CarlTN]

So I find that I rarely use the 550D anymore... even though I get a longer reach with it.... actually I find the improved sensitivity of the larger sensor (and better noise profile) more than makes up for any loss in reach.

Just one opinion!

This alone does not make up the difference for me, but it's the overall performance, package, and price that did it for me...in choosing the 6D. When you factor in the full frame lenses needed, then the cost does get quite high relative to the cost of a crop camera and crop lenses. Personally, I don't currently own any single lens that costs more than $1000. If I was making more coin, I would happily spend more. Hope to do so in the future! I didn't necessarily pick that price point, it just happens to coincide with the lenses I've bought, that I wanted. It's also nice to occasionally rent a supertelephoto lens, since those cost vastly more.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

While the 120-300mm f/2.8 sounds nice, its also a heavy lens, which means forget handheld shots, you will want some good support.

I'd prefer A 5D MK III and a 100-400L over a 7D and the Sigma just because I can carry it anywhere.

 

[CarlTN]

While the 120-300mm f/2.8 sounds nice, its also a heavy lens, which means forget handheld shots, you will want some good support.

I'd prefer A 5D MK III and a 100-400L over a 7D and the Sigma just because I can carry it anywhere.

Hard to disagree with that.

 

[Etienne]

Go with the 5DIII and you will see immediate IQ improvements, and you will be hooked on FF. Great AF, and ergonomics and build like the 7D.
There will be Christmas sales soon.
I got my 5DIII on a sale at $2850 almost a year ago

 

[East Wind Photography]

My opinion is to go with the 5diii with the 100-400. The loss of the chip multiplier won't affect you much as the extra megapixels and lower noise will allow a deeper crop. I got rid of my 7d a while back as I simply wasn't using it anymore. I don't miss the "extra reach" at all.

Hello,

I am a long time reader of Canon Rumours. Today i would like to have your opinion.
I own a 7D, a 100-400mm, a 15-85mm and a 50mm f1,4. I am not a pro, but I am really enthusiastic about photography. I mainly do wildlife, landscape and travel photography. I am very happy with the 7D but for wildlife (here in belgium) photography I often have to raise the Iso up to 1600. Which is already a lot on the 7D. So I am thinking about getting faster lens or a 5Dmiii for it is better iso performance. I cannot afford the 200-400 f4. So I was thinking about the new sigma 120-300 with a tc 1,4.
What do you think? What would you get? Both? If so in what order to spread the expense? Going FF i would loose the extra reach previous switchers' opinion on that are welcome.

Thanks a lot for your comments, advices,...

Vincwat

 

[sanj]

Or perhaps, since they've waited this long (the 5D3 has been out nearly 2 years), they could at least try a 6D, and then wait to see if the 5D4 comes out in the next year or so.

It was 4 years between the 5DII and 5DIII, 4 years and still no 7DII. Trying a 6D isn't a bad idea at all, but I'd suggest trying by borrowing (or renting, although I'm often against that as it reduces funds available for purchasing). But buying a 6D is trading AF performance with fast-moving subjects for ISO performance. Personally, I'll take an in-focus, noisy image over an out-of-focus, low-noise image. Given that most recommend the 5DIII for fast-moving subjects (yourself included), I'm apparently not alone in that opinion. However, if the 6D does happen to meet the OP's needs, it's a cost-effective solution.

Agree.

 

[photo212]

Buy a new main camera, and use your previous main camera as your backup.

I would not buy a back-up camera (unless you are considering a mirrorless or point-n-shoot). If you purchase a good camera as a true backup, consider how many times you will actually use it. Hopefully, never. You are only pulling it out if your main camera fails. If your main camera does not fail, you'll never be using the back-up.

 

[rahkshi007]

My opinion if you shoot wildlife, should stick with crop sensor for more economically. since now 70D has great iso performance, then 7dmarkii should be similar or better, so save your money first and wait for 7dmark2.

 

[Loswr]

since now 70D has great iso performance

Great ISO performance? From what I can tell, it's not significantly better than the 60D, which is similar to the 7D.

 

[Deleted member 369279]

70d high ISO performance is not much better compared to the 7D. Thtat is why I don't expect e 7D mark II to be much better compared to the 7D. If I want better IQ at high ISO O have to go for the 5D markIII. That is probably what I will do. I will trade the 15-85 against a 24-105.

Thanks everyone

 

[Don Haines]

since now 70D has great iso performance

Great ISO performance? From what I can tell, it's not significantly better than the 60D, which is similar to the 7D.

If you look at the JPG's straight from the camera, the 70D is significantly better than the 60D, but if you shoot RAW, the difference is very slight..... Far more computing power in the new camera (I think its around 17X) lets the 70D process the images a lot more in camera.

If you want image quality, I'd pick a 6D over a 70D any day of the week. If you want AF ability for quick moving objects, then the order would probably be 1DX, 5D3, 70D or 7D (order depending on if you shoot video), 60D, and finally 6D.... and if you want crop for more pixels on the target and want good AF and reasonable IQ, I'd wait for the 7D2...