Having Shot with a 7D ...

[ashe]

I have been shooting with the 7D since it was released and now I am thinking of moving to a FF. From what I gather the 5D MII was a stellar camera and in may ways it still is. The question I want to ask... if the Mark III is an upgrade to the features that were lacking on the Mark II shouldn't it preform better?

I shoot as a hobby and my photos consists mostly of Macro and Landscape. From some of the comments I have read here suggest that the Mark III will suck at those 2 things (not my words).

I have sold my 7D and all my lenses in preparation for upgrading and getting some quality lenses. The only hesitation is my 580 EX II, I would have to sell. I am at a crossroads, I have both bodies on pre-order and I should get them both this upcoming week (D800 has an arrival date of the 22nd no date on the 5D yet). I don't have any Nikon lenses yet but I will be borrowing one to test the D800 with.

Don't get me wrong I love Canon, I have been shooting with one or another for about 5 years now, there is a service center about 5 miles from where I live and I drop it off every 6 months or so for a sensor cleaning. I like that option instead of shipping it somewhere.

Having said that... where does someone who just enjoys photography choose? I love the specs like the next person but in reality do I care about the high ISO? Nope... doubt I will use it a lot. I just want clean, crisp photos. (

Ashe

 

[tasteofjace]

The MK3 will not "suck" at anything photography related.

Yes, it may not be the absolute best in every single category, and perhaps won't be the best in any category. But it will be really good, or great at whatever you throw at it.

There's so much mud slinging going on around here about the D800 and the MK3... fact is, they are both going to be great systems.

 

[ronderick]

@ashe:

One question comes to my mind after reading your post - has your 7D failed to yield clean and crisp pictures for you?

 

[ashe]

@ashe:

One question comes to my mind after reading your post - has your 7D failed to yield clean and crisp pictures for you?

It has not, and if it did it was due to the lens I was using. This is why I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging. If the 5D Mark III is anything like the 7D and more I should not have a problem what so ever. For me its a little confusing. The other piece is I want to make sure I am making the best choice when I spend the money.

 

[ronderick]

It has not, and if it did it was due to the lens I was using. This is why I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging. If the 5D Mark III is anything like the 7D and more I should not have a problem what so ever. For me its a little confusing. The other piece is I want to make sure I am making the best choice when I spend the money.

mmm.... I would have suggested holding onto the 7D a bit longer - about a month or two after the release of the new bodies until you make a call.

Anyways, if your primary interest is macro and landscape, either the 5D3 or D800 with their kit lenses will work; in fact, I think the 5D2 is good enough for those purposes already.

Just out of curiosity, what lenses were you using with the 7D? Have you invested in tripod, ballhead, and cable release?

 

[ashe]

It has not, and if it did it was due to the lens I was using. This is why I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging. If the 5D Mark III is anything like the 7D and more I should not have a problem what so ever. For me its a little confusing. The other piece is I want to make sure I am making the best choice when I spend the money.

mmm.... I would have suggested holding onto the 7D a bit longer - about a month or two after the release of the new bodies until you make a call.

Anyways, if your primary interest is macro and landscape, either the 5D3 or D800 with their kit lenses will work; in fact, I think the 5D2 is good enough for those purposes already.

Just out of curiosity, what lenses were you using with the 7D? Have you invested in tripod, ballhead, and cable release?

I shot with Sigmas mostly the (18-50 f2.8 was my primary lenses). I would occasional rent lenses I do have a carbon fiber Giotto's tripod, an 580 EX II, Canon TC80N3 Timer Remote Control and Canon Remote Switch RS60. I sold the ball head I have to a friend who is just starting out and this is why I am at the cross roads. I don't stand to lose if I go the other way.

 

[ronderick]

I shot with Sigmas mostly the (18-50 f2.8 was my primary lenses). I would occasional rent lenses I do have a carbon fiber Giotto's tripod, an 580 EX II, Canon TC80N3 Timer Remote Control and Canon Remote Switch RS60. I sold the ball head I have to a friend who is just starting out and this is why I am at the cross roads. I don't stand to lose if I go the other way.

OK, here's my suggestion: rather than the camera body (5d2, 5d3, D800 - they're all well-suited for the job), you should invest carefully in your lens and tripod/ballhead combination.

There's significant difference in sharpness and other qualities when you get into the "L" territory (or their Nikon counterparts), and personally I think the grade of the lens is more important than the "muscles" of the different camera bodies.

The tripod and ballhead also makes a difference - a good tripod is more resiliant to strong winds, tremors, etc... and a good ballhead (RRS, arca swiss) would be easier to fine-adjust and less chance of tilting (though I notice there's a fair number of landscape shooters who prefer solid 3-way heads). If you have the access, you should try them out to get a feel of the difference - especially brands like Manfrotto and Gitzo.

 

[Loswr]

you have too keep in mind that internet forums are full of tech freaks.
they complain about everything...except their own lacking skills.

Ok, that's the real reason I'm getting a 1D X - then, I'll have nothing to complain about but my own lack of skill.

 

[Arkarch]

I am also a 7D shooter and will hang on to it as my second body. If it helps, I am going for the Mark III.

My thoughts - I love the 7D, but some of my photography is low light - sunsets; sunrises; early dawn; moving cloud or stars; snow storms; or night time events. I have to ISO up to keep the tight exposure. And noise is an issue - and its most noticeable after I recently invested in a NEC Wide-Gamut IPS Monitor and can zoom to pixel level - blah! DXo7, NIK, LR, and other software does a nice cleanup but you will lose detail -and - it is good to have the best source possible at the top of your workflow. After swimming with photographers with great lower-noise FF's such as the Mark II, I hear them and I must make the jump.

My issue with the D800 is that the pixel pitch is similar to the 7D (as a NR rant somehow made that a plus?) and while its a better Sony Sensor --- I just do not want to end up with a FF version of 7D noise. At 100, beautiful. At 3200? If I was shooting studio or architecture on bright sunny days, the D800 has its merits; oddly similar merits to the 7D at crop size.

For me - I want to work on the shot - and if I need to bump the ISO to freeze the clouds/stars or get that stage performer in sharp focus or whatever I am doing - I want that headroom. And on the post I want to focus on the artistiy; and not spend hours cleaning the crap out of an early dawn sky - I want that win.

Thats my neurosis coming out of the 7D mill.

There's significant difference in sharpness and other qualities when you get into the "L" territory (or their Nikon counterparts), and personally I think the grade of the lens is more important than the "muscles" of the different camera bodies.

Absolutely. I recently rented the 135 f/2 and wow!!! New camera. I now have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and beautiful + the room 4-stop IS gives you. Got to sell my EF-S 10-22 glass and am in a tough debate on my next UWA. I have also tried bad glass - yech! Definitely good glass is most important!

 

[ashe]

I shot with Sigmas mostly the (18-50 f2.8 was my primary lenses). I would occasional rent lenses I do have a carbon fiber Giotto's tripod, an 580 EX II, Canon TC80N3 Timer Remote Control and Canon Remote Switch RS60. I sold the ball head I have to a friend who is just starting out and this is why I am at the cross roads. I don't stand to lose if I go the other way.

OK, here's my suggestion: rather than the camera body (5d2, 5d3, D800 - they're all well-suited for the job), you should invest carefully in your lens and tripod/ballhead combination.

There's significant difference in sharpness and other qualities when you get into the "L" territory (or their Nikon counterparts), and personally I think the grade of the lens is more important than the "muscles" of the different camera bodies.

The tripod and ballhead also makes a difference - a good tripod is more resiliant to strong winds, tremors, etc... and a good ballhead (RRS, arca swiss) would be easier to fine-adjust and less chance of tilting (though I notice there's a fair number of landscape shooters who prefer solid 3-way heads). If you have the access, you should try them out to get a feel of the difference - especially brands like Manfrotto and Gitzo.

Honestly this is what I have been saying to myself and hence I have a 24-70 L II on order. Here are some of photos to give you an idea of what I shoot.

http://ashe.smugmug.com/2012/01-06-2011/20932186_4MD6z5#!i=1663127957&k=dmbnW9J

 

[3kramd5]

I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging.

It's easy to argue that the D800 is better (on paper) for landscape type work. It's also easy to argue that the 5D3 will be more versatile, a jack of all trades. Neither are incapable of recording photos.

A great deal of the mud, I think, comes from the price point. Maybe Nikon is making a play at market share, or maybe canon buyers are getting hit with more R&D related costs since they aren't buying sony sensors. Either way, if the Canon were priced at 3k MSRP, I don't suspect there'd be nearly the volume of mud.

I canceled my 5D3 pre-order (whomever gets my early spot can thank me later). I want more time to mull my options (5D2 + better glass; used 1ds3; D800 + 50mm 1.4 + eventually adding glass; 5D3, just new glass, nothing).

 

[tt]

you have too keep in mind that internet forums are full of tech freaks.
they complain about everything...except their own lacking skills.

Ok, that's the real reason I'm getting a 1D X - then, I'll have nothing to complain about but my own lack of skill.

In part why I enjoyed Jeff Ascough's review of the 5D Mark III (and pertinent to the 1DX too) :

So are there any negatives to owning this camera? Maybe just one. You will lose the ability to blame the camera for any shortcomings in your own photographic ability.

Maybe a public service announcement on the full release of both cameras?

"four to one against and falling...three to one...two...one...probability factor of one to one...we have normality, I repeat we have normality

 

[ashe]

I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging.

It's easy to argue that the D800 is better (on paper) for landscape type work. It's also easy to argue that the 5D3 will be more versatile, a jack of all trades. Neither are incapable of recording photos.

A great deal of the mud, I think, comes from the price point. Maybe Nikon is making a play at market share, or maybe canon buyers are getting hit with more R&D related costs since they aren't buying sony sensors. Either way, if the Canon were priced at 3k MSRP, I don't suspect there'd be nearly the volume of mud.

That is an excellent point.

 

[Arkarch]

I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging.

It's easy to argue that the D800 is better (on paper) for landscape type work. It's also easy to argue that the 5D3 will be more versatile, a jack of all trades. Neither are incapable of recording photos.

A great deal of the mud, I think, comes from the price point. Maybe Nikon is making a play at market share, or maybe canon buyers are getting hit with more R&D related costs since they aren't buying sony sensors. Either way, if the Canon were priced at 3k MSRP, I don't suspect there'd be nearly the volume of mud.

That is an excellent point.

Second that, and +1

 

[ronderick]

I am confused at this whole Canon vs Nikon mud slinging.

A great deal of the mud, I think, comes from the price point. Maybe Nikon is making a play at market share, or maybe canon buyers are getting hit with more R&D related costs since they aren't buying sony sensors. Either way, if the Canon were priced at 3k MSRP, I don't suspect there'd be nearly the volume of mud.

That is an excellent point.

Second that, and +1

My.... looks like a lot of people share the same opinion *lol*

Though interesting enough others did point out that the price of 5D3 is much closer to the orginial 5D; the 5D2 is actually the one that "deviated" from the price range.

 

[elflord]

I have been shooting with the 7D since it was released and now I am thinking of moving to a FF. From what I gather the 5D MII was a stellar camera and in may ways it still is. The question I want to ask... if the Mark III is an upgrade to the features that were lacking on the Mark II shouldn't it preform better?

I have the 5D Mark II, but I got it for shallow depth of field, and better image quality at mid to high ISO. For this, full frame DSLRs excel APS-C cameras, it's really no contest.

However, for macro shooting and landscape more depth of field is desirable.

Also, I take it that you are likely to be shooting at ISO 100 ? Here it doesn't seem nearly as clear to me (but maybe someone who knows more about landscape/macro photography than I do which is a low bar, can help add some clarity to the discussion). Some of the better APS-C sensors outperform full frame sensors at lower ISO (e.g. Nikon's latest APS-C cameras have more dynamic range at low ISO than the 5D Mark II, though the 5D wins hands down at higher ISO)

 

[rlarsen]

I suggest you size up your priorities, and budget. How critical is equipment to your photographic needs. ? Is your current gear limiting what you can do ? Are you willing to switch brands and all your cameras and lenses every time new technology is released ? What are the key features you require ?
I know photgraphers who use very high-end gear and shoot crappy pictures. Others use modest gear with extraordinary results.
The anticipation and release of the 5 D MKlll has been very interesting especially with comparisons to the new Nikon. It reminds me of the guy who makes a lot of money at work and is really happy until he finds out a co-worker earns a little more.
I ordered 2 5D MK lll bodies, and I believe the up-grades from the MK ll and added features are worth the money.
If anything sucks it's that I have to wait a few more days to get them.