Help with upgrade from T3i?

[Hawk]

Hey all,

I am a long time photographer with film in several bodys like the OM-1. I used point and shoots for light work for awhile but loved shooting film.
.....

Thanks for any help!

Hey Hawk.
Keep the Love Man, the Love of Film.

Personally for me:-
Nothing on this Earth would pry an OM-1 (or, M-1, OM-1MD, OM-1n) from my death-grip.
Film is Superior in tricky light conditions, and will remain that way for at lest the next Decade.
iLford Film, in Blue package, is specifically designed for indoor work, parties, indoor car auctions.
Juji Film, in a Green package, is best for outdoors.

Yoshihisa Maitani, would be spinning in his grave right now !

Thanks! Ya I love the old manual stuff feel like I should look at a Fuji x mount cause its old school like that. Thanks for the film suggestions, I will look those up. I haven't been to creative with film in a long time.

Looked at a Fuji XT1 as well as it scratches my buttons and dials itch.

 

[WIDEnet]

Hey Hawk, it certainly is a *lot* to think about, and can be overwhelming without a solid technical understanding to begin with--that was a pretty advanced article, so it's totally understandable that it is a little confusing; less than a year ago it certainly would have confused me as well. I shoot events and science magazine stuff as well as some freelance PJ with dual 7D1s and 17-5/2.8, 70-200/2.8L IS, and a fast prime or two, recently upgraded from dual 550Ds (virtually the same as your 600D) so we are in pretty similar spots in terms of gear.

Eventually I will upgrade to dual 5DIIIs and a 24-70/2.8L, but since most of what I shoot is destined for the web or magazine-format print, I've been able to get away with the limitations of crop format thus far, and picked up the 7Ds (one with only 15K shutter actuations) for a phenomenal price on Adorama ($400 for one and $500 for the other), as opposed to the ~$3000 you'd pay for an equivalently capable full frame camera and lens upgrade (5DIII plus a 24-70/2.8L). But if I was shooting landscapes, portraits, still-life, etc., then a single 6D (plus lens) would be a much more useful upgrade then two 7D1s, and likely be in better condition while not costing much more.

Clark has a good deal of interesting and highly technical material, and certainly delves deeper than just following the "conventional wisdom." And I do note, he doesn't just "think" things are a certain way, he demonstrates through reasoning how he arrived at that conclusion. However, it really helps to have a strong background in the technical side of photography before reading advanced articles like that on his site, as there are several caveats to the statement "image noise is independent of sensor size" that he expects the reader to be aware of, and without awareness of which can lead to confusion and misleading conclusions. Most notably that his examples, analysis, and conclusions only really hold true for "focal length limited" photography, where you cannot realistically get closer to your subject (and consequently make it fill more of the larger full-frame image circle).

So, this certainly matters if you are interested mostly or solely in wildlife/bird photography, astrophotography, some types of outdoor open-field sports, surveillance, or anything that involves the subject being very far away from the camera, without the possibility of getting any closer. Let's assume we are comparing a 20 MP 6D to a 20 MP 7D2/70D (and roughly equivalent to your current 600D and the 7D1), both with your 70-200/4L IS (therefore the 6D has much larger pixels, but a lower density of pixels on the sensor). In cases like this, let's say your subject is smaller than your desired framing at 200mm (your longest focal length) on your 7D, you would be "focal length limited;" and your subject would cover fewer sensor pixels on your 6D as opposed to your 7D at that focal length. Therefore, cropped to a similar subject size relative to the frame, your 6D shot would be cleaner, but less detailed then your 7D shot, while if you then resized the 7D shot to the lower resolution of the cropped 6D shot, you'd get essentially the same quality image in both noise and resolution (all other factors besides pixel area being equal).

That being true, this analysis does *not* hold presuming the subject is within a "normal" distance range for most photography, and you can get closer if need be. Let's say you've zoomed the lens to 100m, which results in an appropriately-sized framing of your subject on your 7D's sensor. However, due to the field of view crop of your 7D relative to your full-frame 6D, on the latter the subject will be smaller relative to the size of your frame, resulting in fewer pixels covering the subject, and thus the same scenario as before. However, the important difference is this--here you have the option of either moving closer to your subject, or zooming your 70-200 to 160mm, which would result in an equivalent framing of your subject as the 7D (due to that latter's 1.6x field of view crop) and the subject will cover the same number of pixels on that sensor. However, the 6D's pixels are of course larger, which results in nearly 2 stops better (photon) noise performance (all other factors being equal) at the same resolution.

Another way to look at it is that your 70-200/4L IS captures the same amount of light either way, but the larger sensor collects much more of that light that is "wasted" on the smaller sensor. Therefore, in non-focal length limited cases like this scenario, which can be 95%+ of many (or even most) types of photography, full-frame does offer a significant advantage in low light with the same lens (assuming it is full frame compatible, of course), equivalent in noise and depth of field to using a lens around 1.5 stops faster on a crop sensor (like upgrading a f/2.8 zoom to a f/1.8 prime, or a variable aperture kit lens at a middle focal length to a f/2.8 zoom.)

Seems like overall aperture through lens is more important than F-stop overall.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here; I think you mean the absolute aperture diameter of the lens (say 25mm) as opposed to its f-ratio (the focal length of the lens divided by that diameter, say f/2 for a 50mm lens with a 25mm aperture diameter). Which one is more critical depends on the context, so it's meaningless to broadly state that one is more important than the other. Don't worry about this for now; it's not vital to understanding the subject at this level.

And that ISO isn't anything but post gain.

Again, this is technically true. However, to understand the real significance and complexities of this requires some background in how sensors work, particularly where and how that gain is introduced. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. The key thing to understand is that there are two sources of noise in a photograph, shot (or photon) noise and read noise, differentiated by where the noise is introduced into the image. For purposes of low-light performance, shot noise is the more important, and in isolation depends strictly upon the amount of light hitting the sensor over the finite length of your exposure. It creeps in because light is transmitted by particles called photons, which each carry a discrete amount of energy that is detected by your camera's sensor, and have an element of randomness in their arrival. At high levels of light, where thousands or millions of photons are hitting each pixel, a few more or less aren't going to make that much difference. However, at low light levels, only a small number of photos may arrive at a single pixel over the time of your exposure, and so if one or two fewer hits one pixel as opposed to an adjacent one due to this randomness, this random fluctuation is observable in the final photo as noise.

While sensors of higher efficiency are theoretically possible (ie fewer photons are "lost" somewhere between the lens and the detector), we are already nearing the practical limits of this, so the main ways to decrease shot noise are either to have a longer exposure time (shutter speed) allowing more photos to be collected (but risking motion blur), a wider aperture lens to gather more light for the sensor (more expensive) or making the pixels larger, either on the sensor (each gather more light due to their larger area) or downsizing images in post, "averaging out" image noise over multiple pixels. If this were the only source of noise, there would be no need to set an ISO on your camera, and you could merely digitally "gain up" in post to brighten the image to your satisfaction, with no more noise than you would have gotten amplifying the signal on the camera. Some of the very newest sensors approach this property, which is called "ISO Independence," such as the Sony sensors Nikon uses in the D800/10 and D750. With these sensors, ISO 200 and above, there is minimal difference in noise whether taking a photo at a higher ISO to exposure properly or shooting at ISO 200 regardless and raising the exposure of the RAW file by the same number of stops in your RAW converter.

Unfortunately, for most other sensors a major consideration is read noise, which is introduced by the camera's electronics after the signal from the sensor is amplified, but before/as the analog data is converted to digital. This mainly affects darker areas of the image at low ISO, particularly if you try to brighten them in your RAW converter. Read noise stays at a constant level relative to the final signal strength before digital conversion, so if you amplify the signal before you digitize (raise the ISO), you amplify the shot noise along with the good signal but not the read noise, and thus you raise more of the useful signal above the constant low-level read noise.

Of course, if you amplify it enough so that all the useful signal is above the read noise level, you gain no better quality since you are still limited by shot noise, and risk bright areas of the image being amplified all the way to white (which cannot be recovered in post). On most Canons, this limit falls around ISO 3200 (at least for crop frame) and on the best Nikons, as low as ISO 200. However, again, in low-light you are mainly limited by shot noise, since after amplification the signal is sufficiently noisy that read noise is a negligible factor. And, as stated above, larger pixels on a larger sensor (or wider aperture, or longer shutter speed, with their respective tradeoffs) will increase the amount of light you collect at the source, raising the signal further above shot noise.

I do notice how much better my 70-200 was than my 17-55.

If by this you mean the images from the 70-200/4L IS look sharper/etc. than those from your 17-55/2.8, this likely has little to do with what Clark discussed (unless you are shooting the same subject at the same distance with both, and then cropping the 17-55's image to the same subject size, which would be absurd). Rather, the 70-200/4L IS is a very sharp lens, significantly sharper across the field on crop frame at every focal length then the 17-55 at its sharpest, as well as with less distortion, vingetting, etc. both due to its more modern and high-quality construction, and the fact that since you get better images from the center of a lens than its corners, you are only using best portion of the image on your 600D from the full-frame 70-200 (as opposed to the crop-frame 17-55).

Furthermore, many would argue that the subjective qualities (bokeh, contrast, color rendition) of the 70-200 are superior, and due to the longer focal length you get greater subject isolation and more background blur, which many find to be more pleasing. Finally, there is the fact that lenses generally perform better at smaller apertures, and since the 70-200/4's max aperture is narrower than the 17-55's, you would likely be using it closer to it's peak performance than the 17-55, at least some of the time. Of course, "better" could mean any number of things, so describing one lens as definitively "better" than another without qualification or context can, again, be somewhat meaningless.

He seems to think 200MM F4 is 50MM where as 55 F4 is 13.5MM...

I assume you are discussing the actual/physical aperture diameter, in which case your first statement is certainly true. Again, he doesn't "seem to think" this, it is objective fact. You can easily verify this for yourself. As you probably know, your f-number is the ratio of a lenses' physical aperture diameter to its focal length, so therefore f(focal length) / f-number = Aperture diameter (That is why aperture is given as f/[f-number], as in f/4). So 200mm / 4 = 50mm, and 55mm / 4 = 13.5mm.

...so more size less noise. Lets in more light to sensor.

This is true...but ONLY for a given focal length, so this would not hold for the example you gave. Optics dictates that a lens of 4 times the focal length would need four times the light (4x the aperture diameter) to produce an image of equivalent brightness on the focal plane (the sensor). Therefore, both lenses would produce images that are of roughly equal brightness, as we would expect given their equal f-ratios. That is one reason why we use f-ratio to compare the apertures of different lenses, rather than the raw aperture diameters. It is interesting to note, however, that increasing aperture diameter with focal length to maintain the same f-number (brightness) is the reason longer focal length lenses with the same f-number have shallower DoF, since DoF is determined by the aperture diameter, not (directly) by the f-ratio.

He thinks pixel pitch and overall light plays alot more with less noise than just FF vs APSC debate.

Not exactly, as I've tried to explain above, but he does make the point that total sensor size is not the only thing that matters. At any given resolution, pixel pitch (and thus light-gathering area per pixel) is directly related to sensor size, and with the same framing, a FF sensor of a similar generation should always produce a cleaner image at the same resolution. Once the desired framing is tighter than that projected by the lens on the smaller sensor (focal length limited), then a full-frame sensor of the same pixel density (ie same size pixels) will produce a final cropped image no better than that of an equivalent APS-C sensor with the same lens.

However, for many types of photography, these situations are rare; it all depends on what sort of photography you do. Furthermore, this assumes a perfectly resolving lens above the diffraction limit, both of which further tilt any advantage away from a higher density APS-C sensor, since our modern sensors are at least partially limited by what the lens can resolve, preventing higher-density crop sensors from having as much of an advantage in FLL situations since the lens often can't resolve the extra detail anyway.

Sorry for the huge infodump, but hopefully it helps clear up some of your understanding on this issue! As for what camera to pick, this really depends on what type of photography you plan to use it for, as described above. Of course, if you have questions or still don't understand something, please don't hesitate to ask.

Good luck!

C. A. M. Gerlach

 

[Hawk]

Well first off thanks for taking the time to type all that! I understand what he is saying now since he can't get any close to the stars etc so he's at his Focal Length Limit. I have to admit that I was torn between the 7D II and 5D III as I could keep a lens and its cheaper but I don't wanna end up in same boat with the noise. Though the Digic 6 seems like it may be pretty good with higher ISO.

I mostly like to shoot car shows, wildlife (Birds), landscapes and trips. The T3i was a gift and its a great camera but the noise past 3200 ISO is just not usable for me. I use alot of my shots on bigger screens so its obvious. Once they are resized down of course they look fine. Doing a 100% crop on any of them at that ISO renders them a noisy mess or I have to add enough post the detail gets cooked. I guess I could shoot jpeg but feel like that defeats the purpose of a DSLR to some extent. So I have also looked at getting a monster lens so I never have to crop. I really like subject isolation that you get with long lenses.

I almost feel stupid saying it but however it ends up most my shooting is on cloudy days or in twilight to night some how. I use my 430EX but most of the time don't have it on me. I don't know how it always ends up that way but it does.

I just wish I could get another stop or two of clean ISO and I would never complain again haha. Something about the T3is noise is very blatant. I am not sure how to explain it as I am no pro. But its just very colorful bright noise. Some of the tests show it better than I can explain. Grain doesn't bother me but rainbows do haha. I typically lock my camera at 1600 and just deal with slowing the shutter down to get away from it.

I guess the 5D III looks like the answer unless they come out with another refresh. I am also looking at a X100T just as a daily. I am tired of throwing my DSLR in my car and lugging it everywhere, and people look at you like you are bonkers with it if you drag it into a restaurant etc.

I am thinking have a great DSLR like the 5D III and a good carry like X100T and be good on gear for awhile. I wish there was something like the the X100T that competed with a DSLR to some extent but I know there isn't. Just find DSLRs big and ugly and people are always intimidated by them it seems. Still love my 35mm film cameras.

I agree with what you said about how sharp the 70-200 is. Makes sense that I am right in the sweet spot of it with the crop. I was hoping the 17-55 was super sharp too but even being fast its not quite as good even F4 or a little lower. Friend of mine said it was amazing but I found it underwhelming.

 

[WIDEnet]

No problem, glad it helped you! From what you've said in the last post at least it sounds like you now have a good grasp on the specifics of the situation. This does sound like a pretty difficult choice given you shoot both car shows (I presume cars that are farily stationary?), landscapes, and trips, mostly in low light, all of which would greatly benefit from the extra ~1.5-2 stops you get with the 5DIII, presuming you have around $500-1000-ish extra depending on where you buy (which I would consider 100% worth it compared to the 7D2's marginal noise improvement over the 600D). On the other hand, birds/wildlife and certain types of trips would be focal length limited and thus tilt things somewhat in favor of the 7D2, with it's higher pixel density (meaning better large prints in good light, though equalizing with the 5D3 in poor light due to the need to de-noise/downsize) and possibly better 3D AF Tracking in AI Servo (for BiF, if that's your thing).

The AF, body style, controls, and features are all fairly similar, with a few small things in favor of either, but it really comes down to the sensor. Ultimately, it comes down to how much you are going to use it for focal length limited applications (birds/wildlife) versus pretty much everything else. Even in the former, I'd say the difference in favor of the 7D2 is significantly less dramatic, especially when it comes to noise (which you keep stressing your concern with) compared with what you get in return for everything else with the 5DIII, particularly in low light.

Compared to your current 600D, each would be a huge leap up in terms of build quality, controls, AF, etc. However, if the main thing you want is "another stop or two of clean ISO" like you say, the 7D2 will more than likely leave you wanting in most situations. You do get about 1/3rd of a stop or maybe a little more of better low-ISO performance in RAW, but otherwise the sensor will deliver about the same results as your current 600D, and the same is true of the 70D (which itself is basically a 7D1 in smaller/lighter body style with a 7D2 sensor). You'd really need to step up to the 5DIII to get the performance you say you are looking for, at least for non-focal length limited situations.

Some other considerations:

• The newer DIGIC 6 helps clean up JPEGs better but does little if you're shooting RAW, which you probably should be since JPEG noise reduction messes with fine detail that you can preserve with a careful RAW conversion, and can't do ever really do much better at eliminating noise than good RAW conversion software. So really not much of an advantage unless you shoot JPEGs, which as you say there is no real reason to do anyway, since RAW will almost always be equal or better.

• You could end up getting a super-tele prime (presumably for birds/wildlife), and on one hand, the 7D2 would get you somewhat more "reach" out of it for a given subject distance. On the other, for lower-light situations you'd get only a moderate mount less noise out of a 400/2.8 and 7D2 than a 400/5.6 and a 5DIII, while the former costs about 5x as much. Of course, the former would also be a good deal sharper if the light was good. Also, note that at the same equivalent subject framing and aperture, you get around a stop or more equivalent of background separation with full-frame, though if you're focal length limited with a given lens this effect doesn't really come into play.

• I know what you mean, the world never seems to want to cooperate with one's photography. I own a 550EX and nearly always have it mounted on one of my bodies, but rarely end up using it except in extremely low light. For anything focal length limited, even the more powerful 550EX is almost certainly going to be useless due to the subject distance.

• A final point to consider would be your lens selection. You could probably sell the 17-55 for about $600-700 used, depending on condition and your patience. For full frame, you'd have 3 main choices if you want something as good or better and buying new--the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and 24-105/4L IS and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, plus the Canon 24-70/2.8L I and 28-70/2.8L buying used. All of them are of significantly higher build quality then your 17-55 (with the Tamron perhaps not quite as high as the rest, but still definitely above the 17-55) and the first two are weather-sealed against environmental hazards. However, all of them except the Tamron and the 24-105 lack IS, which can limit you if you are shooting still or even slow-moving objects (and hence the potential of using a shutter speed slower than 1/60-80 at their longest focal length, or < 1/30 at their shortest). Of course, the extra ~2 stops you can raise your ISO makes this much less of a disadvantage. All go a bit wider than your 17-55, though are a tad less on the long end except for the 24-105, which offers a bit more range (but with a slower aperture). AF--wise they all should match or slightly exceed your 17-55, except for the Tamron which was reported to have occasional AF inaccuracy wide open.

• Compared to your 17-55, the 24-70 on full-frame is by all accounts a huge improvement in sharpness especially wide-open, and performs considerably better than even your 70-200. However, even after selling your 17-55, it's still going to cost around $1000 or more new, and lacks IS. The Tamron, while not quite as sharp as the Canon, comes close especially stopped down, and still should meet or exceed your 70-200 in most respects, and it is the only 24-70 with IS. You can find it new for $1200 from B&H, about $500 or so over your 17-55 used.

The 24-105/4L doesn't have quite the same reputation for sharpness, but should still match your 17-55 on full frame and gives you a somewhat wider focal length range to play with, tempered with a one stop slower aperture (though you'll still pick up a net gain in noise performance and DoF on the FF sensor). And where price is concerned, it only costs $600 extra in a kit with the 5DIII, which is about the same or perhaps even less than you sell your 17-55 for. Used, you can also go for the 28-70/2.8L and 24-70/2.8L, which offer everything the Mark II version does except for sharpness around equal or slightly better than your current 17-55, for a price around (28) or a couple hundred more than you could sell that lens for.

• One final thing to note where lenses are concerned is that, in general, a full-frame lens (particularly a Canon L, all of these except the Tamron which doesn't do bad either) is going to hold it's value better than a crop frame one, just due to the ever increasing popularity of full-frame cameras, the fact that they are usable on both full and crop frame, and the reputation and durability/build quality of Canon L glass.

So, in the end, I would agree with you that a 5DIII is probably your best bet, unless the great majority of what you shoot is birds and other FLL limited situations and you just can't afford the extra cash. But if you the latter is true, you might consider holding off until the 5D Mark IV comes out (a few months max if you believe CR) and the 5D3 takes a significant dive due to greater supply and lower demand/value--I'd imagine the used price would drop to close to that of a new 7D2's MSRP, at least on Adorama, and the new price would take a few hundred $$$ cut as well, at the minimum. Another thing to keep in mind is that you can get a 5D3 now, and then if you still aren't satisfied with its FLL performance you could eventually get a 7DII to complement it once the price comes down and you get more money. They have almost identical controls and features so make a great team. But when it comes to noise performance for all but FLL situations, it's not even close--5D3 by a mile.

On your small cam purchase--I can't really speak from experience unfortunately since I've never owned anything but a DSLR (my 550D that I still keep around was my first ever camera of any kind). But for the same price of a X100T, you can get a Sony a7 that will absolutely demolish the former in terms of all measures of IQ, and even best the 5DIII in good light (and around equal when the light's low). Except for the very latest Nikons and its own successors (and only by a hair), it has one of the very best sensors in the world. Size and weight-wise its a very close match to the X100T, quite surprisingly for a full-frame camera. The one big thing to note is that it is an MILC, which means that you can upgrade the lens to something faster or with a much wider range than the Fuji, and even use your Canon lenses on it almost seamlessly with a $300 adapter. Of course, this begs the question--why even get the 5DIII at all haha?

 

[Tinky]

War & peace.

 

[Hawk]

Is the A7 image quality that good? I have been looking at the A7 II for awhile and watching some reviews. Maybe I should spring for that. I guess I could go third party lenses if Sonys aren't any good. I like that it can take some nice lenses that have manual controls more old school.

I had no idea it could compete with a DSLR.

 

[WIDEnet]

War & peace.

Eh, I try...

Regarding the A7, I've never actually used one of course. But by every almost every objective measure, the sensor IQ is equal or superior to anything Canon has, and is bested only slightly by the latest Nikon offerings and its own big brother, the D8xx-matching A7R. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Sony makes most of the best sensors that Nikon uses anyway, which right now have cornered the market where low-ISO IQ is concerned, so you'd expect the sensor in the A7, being Sony's flagship full-frame MILC offering, to at least come close to its Nikon brethren.

Not so sure about in other respects; I know it is no slouch but I can't really speak to its competitiveness in terms of AF, ruggedness, controls, speed, etc. But I'd imagine it is a better performer on the video side, should you need that, compared to a DSLR. You might consider the A7 as well as its direct successor; you get $400 off the price plus some extra goodies and the potential for additional savings. The big thing you miss out on is IBIS, but the sensors appear to be identical which means virtually identical IQ.

 

[Tinky]

War & peace.

Eh, I try...

Regarding the A7, I've never actually used one of course. But by every almost every objective measure, the sensor IQ is equal or superior to anything Canon has, and is bested only slightly by the latest Nikon offerings and its own big brother, the D8xx-matching A7R. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Sony makes most of the best sensors that Nikon uses anyway, which right now have cornered the market where low-ISO IQ is concerned, so you'd expect the sensor in the A7, being Sony's flagship full-frame MILC offering, to at least come close to its Nikon brethren.

Not so sure about in other respects; I know it is no slouch but I can't really speak to its competitiveness in terms of AF, ruggedness, controls, speed, etc. But I'd imagine it is a better performer on the video side, should you need that, compared to a DSLR. You might consider the A7 as well as its direct successor; you get $400 off the price plus some extra goodies and the potential for additional savings. The big thing you miss out on is IBIS, but the sensors appear to be identical which means virtually identical IQ.

There are a couple of problems with the a7s. No internal 4k recording. It's not an EF mount. There aren't the lenses.

I don't like rigs. They defeat the main benefit of dslrs, which is portability and compact form. You start adapting you have more connections to fail, more batteries to forget to charge etc...

Really glad that Sony are pushing the technology as Canon etc will need to respond... but would I a tually want to buy one... nope.

 

[WIDEnet]

Hey Tinky,

You make some very good points regarding the A7s with regards to video, which I'll certainly keep in mind in the future should I consider the line for video purposes. However, do note that we were discussing the A7 and A7 II, and for stills, not the A7s for video, so I'm not sure how meaningful your comments are to the OP. He never mentioned anything about video in his use cases or elsewhere so I limited my discussion to stills, particularly with regards to his main camera, and the A7/II was intended to be just his convenience camera so I figured I'd just mention the video in case he was out and about and needed it in a pinch. And for that sort of use, I'd imagine it would offer convenience advantages over most DSLRs, namely at least semi-usable AF, EVF with various aids, and better performance. But again, that never really entered into the discussion, it was mainly a passing comment.

I'm not sure where you got all this about rigs and 4K. Again, this was just supposed to be his convenience camera, and he never even mentioned a need to shoot video of any kind, so I just figured I'd bring it up as a possible option. And to be honest, as someone whose background is in pro video (I'm guessing you may have some experience as well?), personally I've considered 4K on consumer/prosumer cams to be mostly just the new 3D, at least for my purposes. And regarding rigs, I don't use them either, but for the opposite reasons--I use my HDSLRs mainly for locked down shooting of interviews and the like, and specific B-roll shots where I need the shallow DoF or the use of a particular lens, which I'd consider to be the main reason/benefit of using them. I personally consider the form factor to be the main drawback of DSLRs for anything portable where you have to move/operate the camera without support, so I end up using my trusty AC-160A 90% of the time for that. Really, though, it all depends on what you're shooting. But I digress...

I do agree that, still or video, the limited selection of native lenses is perhaps the biggest reason why I too would probably not use one as a primary production camera. Sure, you can always get a metabones and adapt, but it removes a lot of the benefits of it being small and mirrorless to begin with. However, given the OP wants something small, light, and inconspicuous, something with big white lenses is exactly the opposite of what they want, nor is D8xx quality something that's really necessary.

But this got me thinking--if the OP is going to use it as a convenience camera, something like a A6000 might be a much better choice. First off, the body is less than half the price of the A7 (and the X100T) and a third the price of the II, which makes it less of a big investment and leaves a lot more money left over for one or two good (and given the APS-C format, cheaper and more) lenses--even with the kit zoom, its still half the price of the A7 body only. On top of that, it's considerably smaller and lighter than either the A7 or X100T, and given the APS-C format, lenses could be potentially even smaller as well, which serves the OP's purposes quite nicely.

Furthermore, it shoots faster, has a built-in flash, likely lasts longer on a single battery, and its AF system apparently has a better reputation than at least the original A7--all nice benefits for the OP's use. Of course, you do miss out on that sweet full-frame sensor, but given the one in the D6000 scores at least as well as any high-end Nikon APS-C and offers superior quality to any crop sensor Canon (including, of course, the OP's current camera) I'm sure the OP would be more than happy with it for a second take-anywhere camera.

Your thoughts?

 

[Hawk]

Ya I dont do much with video. I could just keep the T3i regardless of what I upgrade too.

At this point I am very intrigued by the A7 II and maybe the A7 S since its low light performance is pretty amazing from the shots I have seen.

I mean if its close to the 5D MKIII and some of the reviews seem to indicate that its close I don't see the point of having the 5D III and the A7 or X100T or whatever I would give a little image quality up to save $1500 on the body alone and just go to a more do it all setup.

Guess I got alot of reading to do haha!

 

[Tinky]

Your thoughts?

As I said. It's not an EF mount. There aren't the lenses.

Sony change tack every couple of years. Alpha. NEX. Now A7. There just aren't the lenses. Unless you go down metabones. Put up with all the caveats and compromises.

The a7 looks great on paper. It's not a systemic camera or, for my needs, be they video or stills.. a keeper.

 

[WIDEnet]

Ya I dont do much with video. I could just keep the T3i regardless of what I upgrade too.

I'd prolly keep the 600D, but it's up to you. Its sensor is close to the best Canon's got in the crop department (not that great, but still useful in many situations), and while speed and control are lacking, it can certainly work well as a second camera, backup camera, or for locked down work. Whether or not that is worth $300 to you is your decision to make.

I mean if its close to the 5D MKIII and some of the reviews seem to indicate that its close I don't see the point of having the 5D III and the A7 or X100T or whatever I would give a little image quality up to save $1500 on the body alone

Like I keep saying, the sensor IQ, particularly at lower ISO, puts the 5DIII to shame, and is up there with the best Nikons. Sensor IQ is the big thing you'd be getting with the A7, not giving up, along with lighter weight. But in the end, I'm going to have to agree with Tinky here. The A7 is probably not the right choice at this time for your primary body (or your always-with-you cam for that matter). Sensor IQ is only one component of image quality; the other main one is lenses and at this point not only is the A7 nowhere close compared to the vast array of Canon glass, it may never be and given Sony's history that Tinky mentions, is a risky investment at best.

Like it or not, best in class or not, Canon's got 100 million EF lenses floating around along will all the other components that make up a camera system, and that ensures that despite their present fortunes (not looking great atm) they are still going to stick around for a long time. For your primary camera, you need a system--and the Sony E-mount really isn't. And for all its low-ISO faults, the 5DIII is still a solid system camera with a galaxy of lenses behind it, and most certainly won't let you down. Plus, the ergonomics of the A7 for any kind of serious use are a bit questionable--I just feel far more comfortable with a 5DIII or 7D in my hands then one of those. Plus, to really get the most out of the A7, any way you cut it you are going to have to put big lenses on it to really get the most out of the body, diminishing its utility as a go-anywhere machine.

However, I still recommend you consider the A6000 as your go-anywhere camera. It's pretty inexpensive compared to most of the competition, even with the kit lens, and while it's not a system camera you don't really need it to be--just one good lens will do since for that purpose, you aren't going to be wanting to mess with changing lenses, and given you can get away with a single fixed focal length in an X100T (at double the price), surely a single good zoom will do the trick for you. And if worst comes to worst, you have invested a whole lot less in the camera, and particularly in the system, then with a A7. You might also consider other large-sensor advanced compacts like these to see if they fit your needs better, though most are as expensive or more so than the A6000 with the kit lens and don't offer a ton of advantages in comparison.

 

[Triggyman]

However, I still recommend you consider the A6000 as your go-anywhere camera. It's pretty inexpensive compared to most of the competition, even with the kit lens, and while it's not a system camera you don't really need it to be--just one good lens will do since for that purpose, you aren't going to be wanting to mess with changing lenses, and given you can get away with a single fixed focal length in an X100T (at double the price), surely a single good zoom will do the trick for you. And if worst comes to worst, you have invested a whole lot less in the camera, and particularly in the system, then with a A7. You might also consider other large-sensor advanced compacts like these to see if they fit your needs better, though most are as expensive or more so than the A6000 with the kit lens and don't offer a ton of advantages in comparison.

a6000 is under serious consideration by yours truly. I'm looking for another camera to carry when I'm lazy to lug around a 5D3. a6000 sensor size/resolution, and body size are just a few factors I'm looking at, but the 16-50mm PZ lens is said to have mediocre performance. And that teeny weeny pop-up flash of the a6000! I heard how error prone the flash exposure is on that camera.

With regards to lenses, that is one of Canon's greatest strengths. Depends on who you ask, Canon might be "lagging behind" on the sensor front, but with the new EF lenses (i.e. 24-70 II and 16-35 f4) they are on the right direction with optical quality. I'm ready to believe the 18-135mm STM or 18-55mm STM is a much better lens than the 16-50mm Power Zoom, and that made me hold off the a6000 until I see how the next Rebel will be.

 

[Hawk]

Hey guys I just came back from BB and got to try out XT1, X100T, A7II, 5D MK III. Not the best place to play with them but I kinda went through the motions with them.

I have to say the sheer size of the 5D really turned me off. Never had handled one before. It took very beautiful images and is very nice but the sheer size with the 24-105 I think was on it is just huge. I have very small hands and am not really a tall person and thinking of lugging that around kinda made me think twice. I also deal with some health problems personally and even the T3is size wore on me.

I really like the XT1 but the locking dials drove me nuts. The lens felt very nice. And it would be perfect to me if it was FF. But them locking dials LOL. I just don't know that much about it.

I loved the X100T I probably would have walked out with it if it was in stock lol. Just the feel and look of it was great. Viewfinder was great aswell.

The A7II OVF seemed a little behind Fujis but I really liked what I saw with it. I have no idea how good or bad the noise is as the cam didn't have a card in it to review the shots. Test shots I have seen look solid. I really like the feel and size of it. It didnt look any worse than my T3i noise wise for sure. That 70-200 Sony lens is beautiful.

I guess right now I am leaning towards the A7 just size and lenses seem decent several fast Zeiss primes and a 70-200 F4. The size and feel of it really sold it for me. The 5D is just big and doesn't fit me that well.If I had a smaller A7 or X100T I literally wouldn't wanna leave the house with it.

I tried the a6000 and man that speed lol. I don't know if I would buy another APC camera after this T3i. Seems like a solid package for sure. That little pop up flash made me lol. Again no card to really look at output. Wish you could take some of these home and try them haha.

There are so many choices I guess I am leaning towards the A7II with couple fast primes and 70-200.

I guess I am just thinking out loud here but to be in the 5D MKIII 3K before lenses yikes. I know the shots are fantastic but just using it isn't nearly as nice to me as some of the smaller bodies with dials and controls. I can get the A7 with a few lenses for same $ and use it daily. I own some other Zeiss glass and have always been happy with it. So being that on some of the A7 lenses is great. I think it from the test shots is a few stops better than my T3i in noise dept and fits me better.

Guess I gotta decide.

 

[Tugela]

I have a T3i as well. I'm choosing to get an NX1 to replace it, assuming I can find one in stock in Canada that is. I think it will serve my needs well.

Cameras such as the 7D2 are non starters for me due to the archaic video functions Canon seems to like in its DSLRs. I never used the T3i for video because the quality was just too unbearable. Originally I had a S10 for video, then replaced that with a G30. I always bought Canon equipment. Last year I bought a Sony RX100M3 as a travel camera and boy! That certainly opened my eyes about what we SHOULD expect in a camera and how Canon have been short-changing us on IQ all this time. It was my WTF moment. I will never buy another Canon product until they up their game and produce IQ comparable to what their competition are doing.

 

[Hawk]

Ya I have done some video for YT on my T3i and its pretty bad. I had to buy a bunch of lights so I could run the ISO super low and it was still a grainy mess. I have some stuff I use in post to clean it up a bit.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

However, I still recommend you consider the A6000 as your go-anywhere camera. It's pretty inexpensive compared to most of the competition, even with the kit lens, and while it's not a system camera you don't really need it to be--just one good lens will do since for that purpose, you aren't going to be wanting to mess with changing lenses, and given you can get away with a single fixed focal length in an X100T (at double the price), surely a single good zoom will do the trick for you. And if worst comes to worst, you have invested a whole lot less in the camera, and particularly in the system, then with a A7. You might also consider other large-sensor advanced compacts like these to see if they fit your needs better, though most are as expensive or more so than the A6000 with the kit lens and don't offer a ton of advantages in comparison.

a6000 is under serious consideration by yours truly. I'm looking for another camera to carry when I'm lazy to lug around a 5D3. a6000 sensor size/resolution, and body size are just a few factors I'm looking at, but the 16-50mm PZ lens is said to have mediocre performance. And that teeny weeny pop-up flash of the a6000! I heard how error prone the flash exposure is on that camera.

With regards to lenses, that is one of Canon's greatest strengths. Depends on who you ask, Canon might be "lagging behind" on the sensor front, but with the new EF lenses (i.e. 24-70 II and 16-35 f4) they are on the right direction with optical quality. I'm ready to believe the 18-135mm STM or 18-55mm STM is a much better lens than the 16-50mm Power Zoom, and that made me hold off the a6000 until I see how the next Rebel will be.

Dear, I own the Canon 5D3 and several good lenses, and consider myself a advanced hobbiest. I was also tired of lugging my heavy equipment all the time without compromising the quality of my images. I was waiting for a new EOS-M capable to rival the Sony a6000 in terms of AF and fps. Canon has failed so I purchased the Sony a6000 and a Sony Zeiss 16-70mm (24-105mm FF equiv) and AF is super fast and IQ is fantastic. I am very happy I pulled the trigger. The SELP 1650 kit lens IQ and performance are mediocre, just buy the body and a good lens.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I went FF about a year ago looking for better ISO performance. However, it has been reported that the 7D2 ISO performance is way better than the previous one.

 

[WIDEnet]

I went FF about a year ago looking for better ISO performance. However, it has been reported that the 7D2 ISO performance is way better than the previous one.

It certainly is better, but not anything close to a full frame camera. 7D1/60D/550-700D all share a very similar sensor, but the 7D1 was the first time they used it and had some pattern noise at higher ISO that was cleaned up in later versions. So while I'd say the 7D2 is perhaps a third stop or more less noisy than the original in RAW, (full stop better in JPEG), the OP's 600D is a little less noisy than the 7D1 so there is an smaller difference compared to the 7D2. The one thing I have heard it being dramatically less noisy in is dark-current noise for long exposures (astrophotography), but that's a different type of noise than either of the ones I talked about as being relevant for most shots.

In comparison, the A6000 is around a third to a half stop better than the 7D2, or around 2/3-stop better than your 600D. Of course, a full-frame, say, A7 would be around a full two stops improvement in noise, plus wider dynamic range...but again, would be a much bigger investment and leave you less to buy other lenses with.

Canon has failed so I purchased the Sony a6000 and a Sony Zeiss 16-70mm (24-105mm FF equiv) and AF is super fast and IQ is fantastic. I am very happy I pulled the trigger. The SELP 1650 kit lens IQ and performance are mediocre, just buy the body and a good lens.

While that is an expensive lens, the price of this setup would actually end up being less than just the A7 II body only. So the OP would have to decide if it was worth it to also get a 5DIII (around $3000 with the 24-105, as well as his current 70-200/4) for when he needed better image quality, particularly in low light, and to all the varied lenses Canon can offer.

However, given what the OP has said, I don't think this setup would be viable for them as their primary camera since A. They'd also need a reasonably fast telezoom (or something even longer, which isn't really available for Sony) for wildlife and travel shots, which would cost another $1000 or so to get something equivalent to their current Canon, and B. Given the 1-stop slower aperture of that lens relative to the OP's current 17-55/2.8, you'd equal or worse low-light performance even with the A6000's better sensor and less background separation.

Ya I have done some video for YT on my T3i and its pretty bad. I had to buy a bunch of lights so I could run the ISO super low and it was still a grainy mess. I have some stuff I use in post to clean it up a bit.

The alaising/moire is just terrible, and like I said before Canon "1080p" resolution is about equivalent in detail to a decent 720p due to the mushing of details. Of course, it doesn't have to be this way and Canon knows it--you can already do a number of tweaks (lower digital gain, raise bitrate, optimize other settings) with Magic Lateran to get somewhat more acceptable quality with any Canon, but what you can do with the 5DIII and ML RAW video is just incredible, and just the level of sharpness, detail and graduation in the picture (even without talking about grading latitude in post) blows the "normal" 5D3 video out of the water.

It really shows you how badly Canon is crippling that camera--which is exactly what it is and everyone knows it, to protect Cinema EOS sales. If the 5DIII came with ML and RAW built in, it's basically a 2K/FHD version of the $16,000 C500 where image quality is concerned. But the fact is that in order to not compete with those cameras, it also doesn't really compete well with any other DSLR or even MSLT systems (A7, GH4, even Nikons). The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.

Guess I gotta decide.

Yup, and ultimately it's up to you. About the X100T--I've heard nothing but good things about the X100x line and I know they are a joy to use...but at that price, a fixed-lens compact with an APS-C sensor just isn't competitive these days, since you can buy the A6000 with a fast prime like the Sony 35/1.8 OSS (and optically stabilized, to boot) for 2/3rds the price of a X100T, or even with the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8 for less than an X100T. So if you have the money, then sure. But beyond that being fixed lens it won't be much good for wildlife/birds or anything you'd shoot with your current 70-200 or even the longer (or widest) end of your 17-55...so it would certainly not replace even your current DSLR/lenses, and that would limit what you can carry it around for relative to breaking out something else.

Again, you might want to consider the A7 over the II version given the main benefit the latter offers is IBIS, considering almost all the Sony zooms and medium to longer primes are already optically stabilized, and it saves you $400 you can spend on lenses, another prime, a small compact, etc. But really, it's up to you.

The biggest problem I see for you with the A7 as your primary system is that at least as of now, there are zero lenses currently available (outside of mirrors) of greater than 200mm focal length. Considering right now your longest focal length, adjusted for FoVC, is 320mm, you would have to be content with around 3/5ths of that, with no option to go higher. And you won't see as much background separation as with the 5DIII due to shorter focal lengths. But if you can live with those disadvantages and the lack of lenses in general, then perhaps the A7 is for you.

Good luck!

 

[Tinky]

It really shows you how badly Canon is crippling that camera--which is exactly what it is and everyone knows it, to protect Cinema EOS sales. If the 5DIII came with ML and RAW built in, it's basically a 2K/FHD version of the $16,000 C500 where image quality is concerned. But the fact is that in order to not compete with those cameras, it also doesn't really compete well with any other DSLR or even MSLT systems (A7, GH4, even Nikons). The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.

I would be careful about that kind of incendary libellous post, which makes no sense. Why did they even bother putting on headphone jacks if they are so hell-bent on crippling the 5D3. Why give various GoP patterns if they are so keen to force every Philip Bloom wannabe onto C series cameras?

It's primarily a DSLR. For Stills. The AA filter is designed for stills. This is the weakest link in the 5D3 chain as far as video goes. If you want to hack a 5D3 properly, have the stock AA removed and replaced with quartz glass. ML can only go so far.

Even a hacked 5D3 cannot compete with the C series. These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.

Yep. Your argument stacks up less and less the more you look at the facts.

Surely a 2K version of a C500 is a C300? The 5D3 matches the C300? Close. But no cigar. If you need 50i. (Which the broadcasters are looking for.) If you want hassle free audio.

Canon have a chimera product with video SLRs. Their DSLRs can do great things, even the humble T3i in the right hands. I would have bought a 5D3 but I'm probably going to get a c100 and ninja instead. Which is more on a par with a c300 than a 5D3 will ever be.

Canon aren't crippling their DSLRs. Did you read the bit on the ML page about the warranty? You are using your camera beyond specification. Fair do's. Lots of folk are without apparant problem.

I think they are trying to suit too many markets. In use a C series or even an unfashionable ENG camera often makes 100x more sense that a tiny DSLR hiding inside a mecanno set on a plinth.

And your bit about not competing with Sony or Panasonic or Nikon. So what. Most folk don't need or want 4K yet & none of them take EF lenses.