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.

Three years ago I got a T3i as a gift and grabbed the 17-55 F2.8 and 70-200 IS F4 for it. I mostly shoot Street Landscapes Wildlife and Cars. I have been happy with the T3i thus far but I am getting really sick of the noise at higher ISOs. I shoot in poor light quite bit which makes matters even worse. I usually resize for computer screens and anything past 1600 ISO is just a mess with this cam shooting RAW. Some of it I can fix in post with lightroom but at 3200 everything for me becomes unusable. If I correct in post it takes enough that the picture is now soft and looks like a painting haha.

Anyways I am looking at the 7D MK II or a 5D MKIII for a replacement. I am wondering if the high ISO performance is any better on the 7D MKII or if I should just got for a full frame camera and start over. I do shoot alot of low light it seems, so the T3i is just not working for me. Also sometimes I need a little more FPS for wildlife moving and the T3i is so slow.

Also the T3is focus or lack there of is killing me it has one cross type so you really can only use the center dot and then reframe on everything.

I was also looking at a X100T as a kick around old school camera as I like manual controls alot more than the digital DSLR menus and stuff. I guess I am just old school and like that instead of digging through menus.

I guess I am looking for any suggestions you guys might have for a next step. If I went for the 5D MKIII I would just sell my 17-55 EFS f2.8 and T3i body and put it towards that and probably another L lens.

Thanks for any help!

 

[Dylan777]

I would go FF. Add DxO, 6400ISO should be no problem in low light. Sell your crop gear and put that money toward new 24-70 f2.8 II.

 

[Marine03]

I went from an XSI to a 6D and do a fair amount of low light and say go with the Full Frame. However as we all know the Canon 24-70 costs serious money... i just got the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and love it.

 

[Tinky]

I used to have a t3i and still use two cameras built around the same sensor and digic generation, the 7d and 60d.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, the tech has moved on for sure... but I find 1600 pretty good and 3200 usable enough in a pinch. I expose manually, favouring slight over exposure if anything, no more than a third, this seems to keep shadow noise under control a bit, and at the raw stage I am fairly heavy on the luma NR at all speeds and bring in some very slight chroma NR at 800 and above.

Of course, whilst f2.8 and f4 are nice bright lenses compared to the entry level kit lenses, I also use a trio of f1.4 primes, which gives me two stops over my f2.8 zooms, in occassions where I can cede the depth of field control.

 

[Maximilian]

Hello Hawk!

I am a FF user but that does not necessarily mean that this is the ultimate way to go.
Going FF means spending a lot of money for a good lens. And that's only justifiable if you need the shallow DOF or the high ISO performance of APS-C is not enough to you. (or of course if you don't need to care about money )
But if you decide to go FF get a kit together with a 24-105L. I am sure that it will give you the same or more than your 17-55.

But as you already have that really good 17-55/2.8 AND the 70-200/4 IS I would say try out a 70D and/or a 7D2.
Try to find out if the IQ/ISO performance fullfills your desires and also find out if you really need that highspeed beast 7D2.
If you could be satisfied with the 70D you could put some money into good prime or UWA glass, depending what you prefer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.

IMO, if you're shooting at ISO 3200 or higher, FF is the way to go.

 

[Luds34]

I tend to agree with tinky,

I have an M and a T2i (basically the same sensor as the T3i). I find ISO 3200 usable if I need it, for "computer screen" resolution. Aka, for me that means resizing to the 2048 px on the long end and uploading to flickr, picasa, etc.

But since you do not find that ISO usable, I would probably echo others who have pushed you towards a FF.

For what it is worth... I've found ISO 6400 terrible on that sensor. Good only for truly capturing the snap shot in a pinch. However, I've found I can live with ISO 6400 on a 70D. Not preferred, but I see a large difference between the old 18 MP sensor and the newer 20MP one at ISO 6400.

This is all talking RAW btw.

 

[Luds34]

I was also looking at a X100T as a kick around old school camera as I like manual controls alot more than the digital DSLR menus and stuff. I guess I am just old school and like that instead of digging through menus.

I've been giving that camera some serious looks as well. Or even getting the X100S since that can be had brand new for like 800 bucks now. I do struggle a bit to spend a grand on a camera with a fixed lens. And I was disappointed to see that there is no X-mount 23mm f/2.0 pancake lens from Fuji. I'd rather invest in the lens/glass and know I can swap out the camera down the road when the tech improves. With the X100 series it just bugs me to "throw the baby out with the bath water" sort of deal when you want a newer/better sensor.

 

[canont1iuser]

If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.

IMO, if you're shooting at ISO 3200 or higher, FF is the way to go.

Neuro - as someone who shoots JPGs, how much improvement are you talking about over a t3i? More than a 1-stop?

 

[Tsuru]

Also the T3is focus or lack there of is killing me it has one cross type so you really can only use the center dot and then reframe on everything.

I was going to say 6D all the way up until I hit this point.
If your primary uses are landscape and cars then you can keep your methods the same as the T3i by using the central focus point of the 6D then recomposing. If wildlife is the larger portion of the pictures you take then upgrading to the 5DIII would not only give you better auto focus but faster shutter speeds as well. The price difference between the two could make a significant contribution towards some new glass.

 

[Hawk]

Thanks for all the help so far guys! How much better would you say the FF ISO performance is? 2 stops?

I only shoot RAW so its pretty noticeable at 3200 for me. Even whites seem to start getting this rainbow fringing going on.

I like that FF has better DOF aswell. I was leaning towards the 5D III with a 24-70 F4 IS L. Since I have the 70-200 already. Though I may just go with a fast 50mm prime. I always shot prime lenses with film and loved it.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks for all the help so far guys! How much better would you say the FF ISO performance is? 2 stops?

I only shoot RAW so its pretty noticeable at 3200 for me. Even whites seem to start getting this rainbow fringing going on.

I like that FF has better DOF aswell. I was leaning towards the 5D III with a 24-70 F4 IS L. Since I have the 70-200 already. Though I may just go with a fast 50mm prime. I always shot prime lenses with film and loved it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10201.0

Like I said, DxO Prime will take you even further in high ISO world

 

[sagittariansrock]

Thanks for all the help so far guys! How much better would you say the FF ISO performance is? 2 stops?

I only shoot RAW so its pretty noticeable at 3200 for me. Even whites seem to start getting this rainbow fringing going on.

I like that FF has better DOF aswell. I was leaning towards the 5D III with a 24-70 F4 IS L. Since I have the 70-200 already. Though I may just go with a fast 50mm prime. I always shot prime lenses with film and loved it.

All of the 24, 28, and 35mm IS lenses are faster and sharper than the 24-70, and you will be able to get at least a couple for the same price. Yes, the 50mm at f/2.8 is sharper as well (or get the Sigma with fingers and toes crossed).

 

[Hawk]

Great shots in that thread!

Are people expecting a new 5D? Have read a few comments around this forum about it?

 

[wsmith96]

With your low light requirement, I would agree you should consider a 5D III or 6D.

 

[sulla]

Have you checked
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx and
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3i-600D-Digital-SLR-Camera.aspx
for a comparison of ISO-performance of all current EOS cameras? This should give you an idea of the improvement of the 7D2 over your T3i. And also of the improvement of the 6D over the 7D2.

The AF system of the 6D is perhaps not so much better than the T3i's, if you need good performance for off-center points, then only the 5D3 offers great AF and high ISO quality.

 

[chilakamarthi]

With your low light requirement and your shooting needs, I suggest going for 6D. You will be very happy with results for sure (I moved from Xti to 6D with same shooting needs and I am very happy)

 

[Hawk]

I found this Clarkvision guys site and man learning lots. He has lots of counter ideas to the bigger is better thing. Been reading for like three hours.

Seems like overall aperture through lens is more important than F-stop overall. And that ISO isn't anything but post gain. Hmm lots to think about. I do notice how much better my 70-200 was than my 17-55. He seems to think 200MM F4 is 50MM where as 55 F4 is 13.5MM so more size less noise. Lets in more light to sensor.

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

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure.and.upgrades/index.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.

IMO, if you're shooting at ISO 3200 or higher, FF is the way to go.

Neuro - as someone who shoots JPGs, how much improvement are you talking about over a t3i? More than a 1-stop?

Based on online samples, about a stop at higher ISO.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.
IMO, if you're shooting at ISO 3200 or higher, FF is the way to go.

Neuro - as someone who shoots JPGs, how much improvement are you talking about over a t3i? More than a 1-stop?

JPEG shooting at ISO 3200 the improvement 7D Mark ii on the old T3i is something like one ISO stop.
However, there are things to consider besides noise. The sharpness and the colors look better in 7D Mark ii.