Help with my "itch" for a FF

[carlc]

Currently I have a 7D (two years now) and it was an upgrade from a 40D. I really like the improved auto focus and the metering. So far I have not tried video as I have focused only on stills and improving my knowledge of the functions of the camera.

I have the ef-s 10-22mm, sigma 50mm f1.4, ef 24-105mm f4.0L, and (my treasure) 70-200mm f2.8l II. I "think" I want the new 24-70mm f2.8 II but without IS I am disappointed and might go with the ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 IS. Speedlite 580 EX II, custom bracket, Manfrotto tripod and monopod.

I shoot a lot of low light (fast lenses and high ISO) AV and manual mostly. My subjests are primarely residental real estate, events and receptions (wedding assistant), youth sports, landscapes and just starting some photojournalism. Not much into studio portraits, although I am going to get some portable lighting so I can do some volunteer portrait work at church and local nursing homes. I don't crop a lot or print larger than 8x10 except some 10x14.

I realize the new 5DIII has some features that might be beneficial to my described work above, but I need some feedback from the experienced folks here to help me rationalize the $$$$'s for the new 5DIII. I was never tempted by the 5DmkII because of the focusing benefits of the 7D.

So, open up and lead me in the right direction. If I am going to the poor house with a FF I want it to fill a much justified need.

Many thanks.

 

[neuroanatomist]

FF is awesome. Drink the Koolaid. FF is awesome.

But...the 5DII doesn't seem to fit well with some of your subjects. The 5DIII specs are still a rumor. So, I'd wait a bit...

On the realistic side, you'd need to figure in the cost of an UWA lens for FF (16-35, 17-40, or TS-E 17mm, the last being excellent for indoor real estate).

 

[wickidwombat]

FF is awesome. Drink the Koolaid. FF is awesome.

But...the 5DII doesn't seem to fit well with some of your subjects. The 5DIII specs are still a rumor. So, I'd wait a bit...

On the realistic side, you'd need to figure in the cost of an UWA lens for FF (16-35, 17-40, or TS-E 17mm, the last being excellent for indoor real estate).

definately agree, with your subjects and shootign I would wait for the 5D3 the mk2 will disappoint you and I highly recomend the 16-35 f2.8L II

 

[PCM-Madison]

I empathize with your position. I have been very curious about the advantages of full-frame over my 60D. I am still uncertain about the yet-to-be official 5D mk3 considering the likely $3000+ price tag and speculative features. Given that you don't print above 10X14, resolution is really not an issue (the 12 megapixel 5D mk1 is more than enough). I decided to evaluate the full-frame option in a step-wise manner. There are currently great deals out there on a 5D mk1. I recently purchased an excellent 5D mk1 copy + battery grip on CL for $599. Given the current ebay prices, I know that I can sell it for a profit or minimal loss. I am still deciding if a transition to full-frame is right for me, but buying an older camera used will allow me to really evaluate my wants/needs without the big financial commitment/risk. I kept my 60D for uses like sports/wildlife where the high frame rate, better autofocus, and crop are very useful.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Currently I have a 7D (two years now) and it was an upgrade from a 40D. I really like the improved auto focus and the metering. So far I have not tried video as I have focused only on stills and improving my knowledge of the functions of the camera.

I have the ef-s 10-22mm, sigma 50mm f1.4, ef 24-105mm f4.0L, and (my treasure) 70-200mm f2.8l II. I "think" I want the new 24-70mm f2.8 II but without IS I am disappointed and might go with the ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 IS. Speedlite 580 EX II, custom bracket, Manfrotto tripod and monopod.

I shoot a lot of low light (fast lenses and high ISO) AV and manual mostly. My subjests are primarely residental real estate, events and receptions (wedding assistant), youth sports, landscapes and just starting some photojournalism. Not much into studio portraits, although I am going to get some portable lighting so I can do some volunteer portrait work at church and local nursing homes. I don't crop a lot or print larger than 8x10 except some 10x14.

I realize the new 5DIII has some features that might be beneficial to my described work above, but I need some feedback from the experienced folks here to help me rationalize the $$$$'s for the new 5DIII. I was never tempted by the 5DmkII because of the focusing benefits of the 7D.

So, open up and lead me in the right direction. If I am going to the poor house with a FF I want it to fill a much justified need.

Many thanks.

So far, we have some fairly good rumors about just a very few features that a 5D MK III might have. I have a 5D MK II and a 7D. No comparison, the MK II wins hands down except where I am focal length limited and the crop plus high mp helps out a little. 7D AF is good, but since I only use the center point, the 5D is better there.

The 24-70mm L is primarily a FF lens and certainly does not need IS on FF. On a 1.6 crop, it might benefit from IS, but the 17-55mm is really the top pick, since it has the proper focal lengths.

 

[AprilForever]

Get a FF, and watch your corners wither... Unless you get top level glass... So, your ultrawide is going to need to be probably the 14mm, or the 16-35. A lot of people find the 16-35 inadequate, and go for the Nikon 14-24. Yet... the APS-C sigma 8-16 is MUCH cheaper... and the Tokina 11-16 gets rave reviews... sooooo....

If you like sports, stay 7D. You might like the 5D mkII for weddings with your 24-105 and 70-200... but, it will likely be inadequate for what you seek....

 

[Michael_pfh]

Since the wait for the 5D3 has been taking forever I settled for APS-H instead of full-frame. Wide enough but still adding some extra reach on the long end. Very happy with my decision so far.

 

[YellowJersey]

You'll definitely notice a difference in low light on high ISO. As for wide angle, your best bet is probably the 16-35 2.8. Although, I love my 17-40 f4. People say the corners are bad, but I don't really notice with mine. Maybe I'm just not picky enough.

 

[photogaz]

In my experience, the best thing you can do to sort your itch is to scratch it. Go FF!

 

[briansquibb]

You'll definitely notice a difference in low light on high ISO. As for wide angle, your best bet is probably the 16-35 2.8. Although, I love my 17-40 f4. People say the corners are bad, but I don't really notice with mine. Maybe I'm just not picky enough.

I suspect that if you are stopped down to F8 or so then the softnedd is not a field issue but more of a lab issue

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You'll definitely notice a difference in low light on high ISO. As for wide angle, your best bet is probably the 16-35 2.8. Although, I love my 17-40 f4. People say the corners are bad, but I don't really notice with mine. Maybe I'm just not picky enough.

I suspect that if you are stopped down to F8 or so then the softnedd is not a field issue but more of a lab issue

Absolutely, you can get excellent images with most lenses at f/8. The only reason to buy a wide aperture lens is if you absolutely need wide aperture and have no workaround, for example, if you want a shallow depth of field that you don't get at f/8.

 

[skitron]

I recently upgraded from 50D to 5D2 and for me, the change was a mixed bag. I like the cleaner images of the 5D2 but for indoor ambient light shooting, the DOF can easily get too shallow for my tastes. And if you bump the ISO a stop and use a 1.6x longer lens on FF and stop it down to get the equivalent crop body shot, the only real improvement is the difference in megapixels because its a wash on the noise side. I've actually been dragging my feet unloading the 50D if that tells you anything...though I will follow thru and maybe bite on a 7D2 when it comes out.

 

[briansquibb]

Here is a ff that I took today - uk otter

 

[steven63]

I own(ed) both the 7d and the 5dmii until last night, when I parted with my 5dmii . I could have sold the 7d instead but I preferred to hold onto it because of the AF and, honestly the ergonomics ( I love the button layout, even the on/off switch). Having the FF was really nice on a number of fronts (low light capabilities, superb files, FF) but ultimately, the 7d fit the bill better, for me.

Now, IF the 5dx(?) combines some of the features of the 7d that'll be the camera to get. No doubt about it. FF with better low light, perhaps an AF system like the 7d...that alone would get back into the FF game.

 

[briansquibb]

, perhaps an AF system like the 7d...that alone would get back into the FF game.

or even a pro, series 1 type AF and linked metering would be far better

 

[tt]

Here is a ff that I took today - uk otter

Lovely shot, bit of catchlight in the eye..

As mentioned - the 5D Classic / Mk I is a great camera and on the second hand market a good price - A 5D Mark III will likely depreciate in a year more than just buying a 5D Classic!
You've got two lovely lenses to try it with too - 24-105mm & 70-200mm f2.8l II. You'll lose the further "reach" of the 70-200 but gain a shallow dof of the shots.
Another option is just to line up a few things to shoot in a weekend, and hire a 5DMkII.

As a wedding assistant do you get to use some of the primary photographer's equipment or is it all BYO?

 

[carlc]

I prefer to use my own gear. I have rented some equipment from Lensrentals when I feel there is a need outside the items in my bag. That is how I feel in love (and later bought) the new 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. And I am thinking that is exactly what I will do when LR gets the new 5D in stock.

This is the same way I felt when I had my new 1967 GTO, I loved it but was eventually tempted by the '69 Grand Prix. Traded and have never forgiven myself. My 7D is the same thing, I love it but there is this dang itch for a FF.

Thanks to everyone for their help. So now instead of more advice, just send money!!! LOL