I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!
- Thread starter cervantes
- Start date
- Status
It is absolutely true that simple maths tells you that the crop sensor should resolve greater detail. And, if you take photos of the moon and other black and white objects you will indeed resolve more fine detail. Under ideal conditions this is also true with photos of wild life. But, in practice, the better IQ of the 5D III with better contrast and noise negates the reach advantage of the 7D in many real life situations. A 7D II may reverse the situation and, if so, I will rush out and buy one. Meanwhile, I use both my 7D and 5D III - both are great cameras.J.R. said:
Upvote
0
It's really all a matter of if the final image you get via a 5D3 needs cropping much. If you like to fill the entire picture with a small bird or other small animal at a distance, and the bird in the shot is about 10% of the image area with a 500mm...then you're still talking about needing to use an 800mm lens on a 5D3, vs. a 500 for a crop camera. The lower noise is really only a factor above ISO 800 or so. I mean, my own camera is not quite as good at noise as the 7D, yet...at ISO 800 I can get more than enough color and contrast, with all the noise edited out, and very little detail loss.
Again...in low light, I would definitely choose a 5D3, or preferably a 1DX...for the speed, AF, and noise. For extreme low light, then a Nikon D3S (and definitely not a D800).
Haha J.R...yea I mean, as for DR...if you wanna be a real man, then just use film or something, and a freeze ray to stop the motion of the wildlife while that good old slow film gets a nice exposure. Or better yet, just set up a bunch of satellite-operated strobes all over the wilderness, and somehow trigger whichever ones you're aiming the lens at. You might even be able to get some shots of sasquatch mating dances or something...
Again...in low light, I would definitely choose a 5D3, or preferably a 1DX...for the speed, AF, and noise. For extreme low light, then a Nikon D3S (and definitely not a D800).
Haha J.R...yea I mean, as for DR...if you wanna be a real man, then just use film or something, and a freeze ray to stop the motion of the wildlife while that good old slow film gets a nice exposure. Or better yet, just set up a bunch of satellite-operated strobes all over the wilderness, and somehow trigger whichever ones you're aiming the lens at. You might even be able to get some shots of sasquatch mating dances or something...
Upvote
0
If you had a crop camera like a 7D, you could just buy the 300 f/2.8 plus 1.4x tele convertor to give you 672mm effectively at f/4. Surely thats a cheaper option than the 500?? I don't do wildlife but if I had to I would go the 1.4x tele way using a good 200 or 300 prime lens. Then you have a practical and very useful lens plus the ability to have longer reach if required.
I'd also wait to see what the 7DII has to offer.
I'd also wait to see what the 7DII has to offer.
Upvote
0
I use the 300mm f/2.8 II with a 2xTC. But, I had a shock when last month I taught my wife how to use the 7D with a 400mm Sigma Apo Tele Macro attached. On her first photographic session ever with an SLR, she got the following (the full at reduced resolution and a 100% crop, wide open at f/5.6) which was as good as I got on the 5D III and 600mm at the same time. I do witter on about the Sigma, but it is a better lens than the Canon f/5.6 400mm. For light weight travel, I might use the 7D/Sigma combination from now on (it is so much better than the 100-400).
Attachments
Upvote
0
AlanF said:
Thanks AlanF,
I'm just curious, how well does the 600mm stack up with the 7D as compared to the 5D3?
May I mention here that I fully understand all the crop factor magnification real / illusion stuff and don't want this thread to spiral out into an APS-C Vs. FF brawl. I'm only looking for a real world opinion
Upvote
0
It's very good on the 7D. The worst drawback of the 7D is its poor consistency of focus (not just me - see the Lensrental tests) and so you have to take several shots to make sure one is in sharp focus. Like you, I hate these crop/FF brawls. On a good day or with the right subjects, the 7D will outperform the 5D III at long distances. But, on other occasions the more modern FF wins. I can live with either camera. I am sure a 7D II with more modern AF and sensor will be a winner.
Upvote
0
For what it is worth my experience with the current crop 7D and 5Diii is that the FF is at least equal to the crop sensor when the images are framed the same.
Given the same lens (600 +1.4) and switching bodies and framing the same scene without moving the setup the FF plus Monster yields better images than the crop in any conditions that I've seen in nature. This becomes most evident in post processing when the FF stands up to 100%, while noise starts into the crop at somewhere between 33-50% and efforts to remove noise degrade the image in my experience.
Hopefully the 7dii will have a sensor that has low enough noise to allow post cropping so that the theoretical advantage of a crop will be seen in reality.
A friend of mine gets very good images of birds and bif with 1dx coupled with the 400mm f 5.6 canon and the 1.4ext iii. That setup is much more mobile and hand holdable than the one that I have. Given that that setup starts with a aperture of 8 and he likes to keep shutter speed at least at 1/1000 or higher (ideally at 1600), the low iso sweet spot of the crop sensors never comes into play in real life bird in flight photos.
So i'd second cervantes assertion that there is no crop camera reach advantage in real life.
YMMV
Given the same lens (600 +1.4) and switching bodies and framing the same scene without moving the setup the FF plus Monster yields better images than the crop in any conditions that I've seen in nature. This becomes most evident in post processing when the FF stands up to 100%, while noise starts into the crop at somewhere between 33-50% and efforts to remove noise degrade the image in my experience.
Hopefully the 7dii will have a sensor that has low enough noise to allow post cropping so that the theoretical advantage of a crop will be seen in reality.
A friend of mine gets very good images of birds and bif with 1dx coupled with the 400mm f 5.6 canon and the 1.4ext iii. That setup is much more mobile and hand holdable than the one that I have. Given that that setup starts with a aperture of 8 and he likes to keep shutter speed at least at 1/1000 or higher (ideally at 1600), the low iso sweet spot of the crop sensors never comes into play in real life bird in flight photos.
So i'd second cervantes assertion that there is no crop camera reach advantage in real life.
YMMV
Upvote
0
Alan, I'm surprised you can allow yourself to be seen in the public wilderness with anything less than a white lens. The sasquatch community will rebuke you at their next frolic. It will be funny to hear them growl and shriek "He uses a Sigma, can you believe that? And we're the unevolved ones? I wouldn't even use a Sigma to communicate my tree knocks in morse code! Pardon me, do you have any grey poop on?" :-D
Applecider, if a subject is "framed the same", going from a 5D3 to a 7D (with whatever lens or TC switching is necessary to perform the task), then the 5D3 not only has more pixel density, image dimensions, and a larger sensor area that receives more photons...but also a sensor with more mimamic grange (I won't type the correct spelling for fear of snipers and illiterate interweb bullies who pile on). The 5D3 also has the better, larger AF sensor array, more computing power, the list goes on. So to specifically frame close to exactly the same...is to intentionally handicap the 7D...and not a fair comparison, because the 5D3 would always win that. It has more resolution, more gigantic strange, a beefier, meatier, more robust, more masculine sensor...etc. Its sensor has more mistresses than the one doing the shutter snapping.
My whole point was that a crop camera, makes it so things are not framed the same with the same lens, the lens can be smaller and shorter focal length...advantage crop sensor. Also, because of the smaller pixels...the lens' true resolution can be employed, or exceeded. But to replicate the same framing via full frame, by simply throwing gobs of money at the situation, buying a lens that is twice the size for 3x the price, is also not a fair comparison, and smacks of snobbishness...no offense though. If I could afford it I would just buy at least one of everything out there, and let my own horde of concubines carry it from place to place for me, at my whim.
Applecider, if a subject is "framed the same", going from a 5D3 to a 7D (with whatever lens or TC switching is necessary to perform the task), then the 5D3 not only has more pixel density, image dimensions, and a larger sensor area that receives more photons...but also a sensor with more mimamic grange (I won't type the correct spelling for fear of snipers and illiterate interweb bullies who pile on). The 5D3 also has the better, larger AF sensor array, more computing power, the list goes on. So to specifically frame close to exactly the same...is to intentionally handicap the 7D...and not a fair comparison, because the 5D3 would always win that. It has more resolution, more gigantic strange, a beefier, meatier, more robust, more masculine sensor...etc. Its sensor has more mistresses than the one doing the shutter snapping.
My whole point was that a crop camera, makes it so things are not framed the same with the same lens, the lens can be smaller and shorter focal length...advantage crop sensor. Also, because of the smaller pixels...the lens' true resolution can be employed, or exceeded. But to replicate the same framing via full frame, by simply throwing gobs of money at the situation, buying a lens that is twice the size for 3x the price, is also not a fair comparison, and smacks of snobbishness...no offense though. If I could afford it I would just buy at least one of everything out there, and let my own horde of concubines carry it from place to place for me, at my whim.
Upvote
0
A
And-Rew
Guest
Having given this thread a good read, and some thought, my 2 penneth worth is as follows:
Carrying that weight around all day - don't see an issue. Used to walk around with a 5D2 with BG + 70-300 L on for 8-10 hours without an issue. Some times even had a 580 EXII attached A lot of people were unable to handle that combination due to weight, yet i never once felt it to be heavy. So don't let weight put you off.
As said in a previous reply - when ever you look at the pics of birds that jump out, then check the kit used - you always see something in the region of 500mm being used, and just as often with a 1Dxx body - and these are just hobbyists.
Price - yes, it is a lot. But it's your money - and if your GF is just as interested in you getting the lens - then get it. This is your hobby, your interest and you have to work to live, not live to work. Photographing birds generally seems to involve a beast of a lens, and as much as i loved the 70-300 L, i can happily accept that it struggled with reach on occasions - but i don't shoot birds, nor do i do much shooting that requires 300mm let alone 500mm!
Theft, accident, fire and all those other things - you live in Austria not the 'States'. Sorry guys, but things are just a little bit more relaxed in many parts of Europe - especially Austria (along with a few others).
Travelling around on a bike - surely the real question here is 'why can't you get a bike panier to carry photographic kit safely?' ??? Again, in Europe we don't all have pick ups or 4x4's as a standard mode of motorised transport. A bike is not only quieter, but can often get you places where a car won't! You can also park it up very quickly for the 'chance shot' you see when travelling at 10-15mph as opposed to 30-70mph! 8)
So, with all the above in mind, my only caveat would be to rent it if possible, if not - then heck, it's your money and your life...
Carrying that weight around all day - don't see an issue. Used to walk around with a 5D2 with BG + 70-300 L on for 8-10 hours without an issue. Some times even had a 580 EXII attached
A lot of people were unable to handle that combination due to weight, yet i never once felt it to be heavy. So don't let weight put you off.As said in a previous reply - when ever you look at the pics of birds that jump out, then check the kit used - you always see something in the region of 500mm being used, and just as often with a 1Dxx body - and these are just hobbyists.
Price - yes, it is a lot. But it's your money - and if your GF is just as interested in you getting the lens - then get it. This is your hobby, your interest and you have to work to live, not live to work. Photographing birds generally seems to involve a beast of a lens, and as much as i loved the 70-300 L, i can happily accept that it struggled with reach on occasions - but i don't shoot birds, nor do i do much shooting that requires 300mm let alone 500mm!
Theft, accident, fire and all those other things - you live in Austria not the 'States'. Sorry guys, but things are just a little bit more relaxed in many parts of Europe - especially Austria (along with a few others).
Travelling around on a bike - surely the real question here is 'why can't you get a bike panier to carry photographic kit safely?' ??? Again, in Europe we don't all have pick ups or 4x4's as a standard mode of motorised transport. A bike is not only quieter, but can often get you places where a car won't! You can also park it up very quickly for the 'chance shot' you see when travelling at 10-15mph as opposed to 30-70mph! 8)
So, with all the above in mind, my only caveat would be to rent it if possible, if not - then heck, it's your money and your life...
Upvote
0
And-Rew said:
I'm all for bicycles as primary modes of transportation, but I couldn't in good conscience recommend to somebody to carry a Great White on a pannier. You're talking about ten pounds of precision optics that costs a thousand dollars a pound. It's very common to take a spill on a bike, and just one would wreck that lens.
Sure, you could get a custom case that would properly protect the lens against a bike wreck, but there's no way you're going to fit it on a pannier.
I could see carrying a Great White in the cargo section of a larger velomobile, such as a Quest. But not on an open-frame bicycle.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
Trumpet, excellent point.
I'm just a dumb American, I thought everyone in Europe mostly stayed home, since they only work 2 days a week? The smallest vehicle I have ever seen over here, is a Hummer. Of course those never leave the pavement...:-D Fear not, sooner or later all of us will be out of work, so we can take up cycling and be cool like you.
I'd love to tour Europe, but pretty sure I wouldn't tour it with a big white lens. A white 70-300L on a future 46 MP full frame would probably work well, although the pixels outside the center would usually be blurred. Would be ideal on a FF under 30 MP. Of course I am thinking about all the architecture I'd shoot, and not really wildlife. I'm sure I would regret being without the reach then.
I'm just a dumb American, I thought everyone in Europe mostly stayed home, since they only work 2 days a week? The smallest vehicle I have ever seen over here, is a Hummer. Of course those never leave the pavement...:-D Fear not, sooner or later all of us will be out of work, so we can take up cycling and be cool like you.
I'd love to tour Europe, but pretty sure I wouldn't tour it with a big white lens. A white 70-300L on a future 46 MP full frame would probably work well, although the pixels outside the center would usually be blurred. Would be ideal on a FF under 30 MP. Of course I am thinking about all the architecture I'd shoot, and not really wildlife. I'm sure I would regret being without the reach then.
Upvote
0
This wholly depends on your proficiency, and that is gained by using the damn things. Here in the Netherlands, it is NOT 'very common' to fall of your bike (most ppl do that up to the age of five, and after that only when drunk), no matter if there is a passenger and a week worth's of groceries on the bike as well. And as for the 'pannier' thingies, I wouldn't carry a Great White on those either. I would buy a 'transportfiets', which can handle loads of 50-100 lbs easily. Exemple gratia:TrumpetPower! said:
Costs less than a 135L and will hold 80kg of big whites 8)
Upvote
0
And-Rew:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track by contributing the first on-topic post since a few days...
Actually after (shortly) trying out the similar sized Sigma 500 this week I'm completely with you on the weight issue. Its far less than I expected at the beginning. Absolutely no problem to carry around in a backpack (that brings the weight to the hips) and probably no problem to carry in my hands for extended periods of time. Holding it to eye-level without support will still be a different story. But I'm sure I can find something to rest my arms on.
I had two accidents in the last three years (since I'm going by bike regularly) - both within the same week. It was wet, there were some leafs on the ground, I was going too fast... you know the story. :
I don't make those mistakes when carrying expensive gear so it's not very common to take a spill for me, plus canon claims that the V2 has "twice the impact resistance" than the V1. Of course I could get hit by a car - but my gear wouldn't be my first concern then.
Rat: Thanks for the hint but the weight will be no problem for my bike.
Couldn't you have told me this right at the beginning - then we could have spared ourselves the trouble of this huge thread... ;D
---------------------------
At the moment I clearly tend to the buying side. I will not get it before April though, so I have still some time to think about it.
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track by contributing the first on-topic post since a few days...
Actually after (shortly) trying out the similar sized Sigma 500 this week I'm completely with you on the weight issue. Its far less than I expected at the beginning. Absolutely no problem to carry around in a backpack (that brings the weight to the hips) and probably no problem to carry in my hands for extended periods of time. Holding it to eye-level without support will still be a different story. But I'm sure I can find something to rest my arms on.
TrumpetPower! said:
I had two accidents in the last three years (since I'm going by bike regularly) - both within the same week. It was wet, there were some leafs on the ground, I was going too fast... you know the story. :
I don't make those mistakes when carrying expensive gear so it's not very common to take a spill for me, plus canon claims that the V2 has "twice the impact resistance" than the V1. Of course I could get hit by a car - but my gear wouldn't be my first concern then.
Rat: Thanks for the hint but the weight will be no problem for my bike.
Daniel Flather said:
Couldn't you have told me this right at the beginning - then we could have spared ourselves the trouble of this huge thread... ;D
---------------------------
At the moment I clearly tend to the buying side. I will not get it before April though, so I have still some time to think about it.
Upvote
0
The 500 f/4L weight doesn't sound AS bad as it is
2 years ago when I was 14 I met someone at an airshow with the 500 I and it was a jaw dropping lens.
Of course back then I only had the 55-250 IS I was quite torn by the weight but was expecting it to be nearly impossible to pick up...
I managed to handhold the lens for 3 consecutive hours... It was a bit painful and tiring after those 3 hours but totally worth it. Yet I would recommend a tripod or at least monopod.
My dream is also the 400 II and 600 II but i'm 15 right now so it'll be a few LONG years before I can actually get one...
Did you look at the 300 f/2.8L IS? It goes for >4000$ used right now and gives great IQ with a 1.4x and 2x extenders giving you 420mm, 600mm & 780mm. Of course the 300 II is lighter and slightly better (IS, design, weight) and costs about 6700$ but if you have the money that would be your best bet in your case. The 300 II + 1.4x III IQ is very comparable to the 500 MKI.
Jan
Btw here's me with the 500 back when I wasn't as strong
2 years ago when I was 14 I met someone at an airshow with the 500 I and it was a jaw dropping lens.
Of course back then I only had the 55-250 IS I was quite torn by the weight but was expecting it to be nearly impossible to pick up...
I managed to handhold the lens for 3 consecutive hours... It was a bit painful and tiring after those 3 hours but totally worth it. Yet I would recommend a tripod or at least monopod.
My dream is also the 400 II and 600 II but i'm 15 right now so it'll be a few LONG years before I can actually get one...
Did you look at the 300 f/2.8L IS? It goes for >4000$ used right now and gives great IQ with a 1.4x and 2x extenders giving you 420mm, 600mm & 780mm. Of course the 300 II is lighter and slightly better (IS, design, weight) and costs about 6700$ but if you have the money that would be your best bet in your case. The 300 II + 1.4x III IQ is very comparable to the 500 MKI.
Jan
Btw here's me with the 500 back when I wasn't as strong
Upvote
0
Why don't you try renting one to check out how well you can handle it on a bike and hand-held?
If it is too big/heavy/expensive, try the 100-400. It is slower and the IQ is not quite as good but I was very happy with mine for a number of years until I could upgrade.
If it is too big/heavy/expensive, try the 100-400. It is slower and the IQ is not quite as good but I was very happy with mine for a number of years until I could upgrade.
Upvote
0
- Status
