Own 5D mk III and 7D, replace 7D by Mk II for sports? Dilemma....

[chasn]

I am so looking forward to the new 100-400 - it is a fact isn't it? But I can see the prime 400 and the 70-300 May be a good combo. Would the lack of IS be a problem do you think for a 5DIii? ( knowing this is all speculative)

 

[Dylan777]

You going to miss those high ISO shots from 5D III - faster shutter and higher ISO are your friends in shooting sports.

Unless it is a day game or all of the shots end up so distance limited that you crop in really far.

Of course the 7D AF often performs much worse for sports than the 5D3 AF (for me the 7D AF does at least as well for surfing and very small birds up in branches of trees or birds only slightly moving around the ground, otherwise it does, often, much worse for soccer and football), the 7D2 should fix that.

Looking at OP lenses, 300mm will cover many sport events.

Replacing 5D III with 7D II will take away high ISO advantage, unless, OP only shoot sports outdoor day time.

 

[Khufu]

I am so looking forward to the new 100-400 - it is a fact isn't it? But I can see the prime 400 and the 70-300 May be a good combo. Would the lack of IS be a problem do you think for a 5DIii? ( knowing this is all speculative)

I love the 5D3/400mm prime combo! One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much here is "the Full Frame look" in regards to telephoto shooting - and I can tell you it's a very real thing! This lens on FF I think gives you the kind of shallow-but-not-too-shallow look that nature photographers may stop down a little to achieve, giving you more than just one of that Great Ape's or tiny bird's eyes in focus but with beautiful bokeh and background separation - and it's not too much of a chore to lug around at ~1.25kg... to me a crop cam is secondary for reach, hence feeling the 70D is more than adequate at around 50-60% of the 7D2 price tag!

Regarding the new 100-400mm, aye, I believe CR had rumours posted about it being out in the field as we speak... hopefully in its final form and almost ready to go ;D

honestly though, I think I'm likely to grab me the Contemporary edition of the new Sigma 600mm with OS (slated at £1,099 on just 1 online store so far and still with no confirmation of weight..) aaand keep hold of the 400mm f/5.6L because, well, it's only as inconvenient as chucking a flask or drink bottle in your bag, is generally awesome and I imagine is likely to still make it out the house more often for potential impromptu adventuring!

Oh, and: on verrrry few occasions, shooting what I do, have I felt "I wish I was exposing for longer, necessitating IS, for that shot!"

 

[RichM]

I love the 5D3/400mm prime combo! One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much here is "the Full Frame look" in regards to telephoto shooting - and I can tell you it's a very real thing!

I agree about the "Full Frame look". For daylight field sports (soccer,football, lacrosse, etc.) I generally carry the 7d-300f/4 combo, and the 5d3-70-200f/2.8. It seems that about 60% of my shots are with the 7d, and the rest with the 5d3, providing a good mix of both. For night field sports, I've been wanting as the 7d combo is just not good enough. I'm optimistic that the 7d2 will change that.

 

[takesome1]

I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter.
The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach. Extra mm for full frame are really expensive and above budget.... Would it make sense to replace the 7D for the Mk II and start using the 7D mk II for sports only? Or would I be disappointed since detail and low light performance of the 5D mk III are better than then 7D mk II anyway?

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Reasons to consider upgrading the 7D: better reach and maybe AF speed (how does it compare to the 5D III anyway??). fps, although dramatically improved in the Mk II is not my main concern. Any thoughts appreciated.

So your "Dilemma" is this;

Should you upgrade a camera you have not used in three years?

If you can't find the answer inside the question itself go ahead and buy it. Nothing we say can cure this type of madness.

 

[alexturton]

I bought a 7D three years ago, added a 5D mk III later. Since then I have not touched the 7D but kept it as backup camera. I shoot various subjects, also a lot of sports using the 70-200 2.8 II, Sigma 120-300 2.8 sports and 1.4III converter.
The 5D mk III is really awesome but every now and then I do miss the extra reach. Extra mm for full frame are really expensive and above budget.... Would it make sense to replace the 7D for the Mk II and start using the 7D mk II for sports only? Or would I be disappointed since detail and low light performance of the 5D mk III are better than then 7D mk II anyway?

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Reasons to consider upgrading the 7D: better reach and maybe AF speed (how does it compare to the 5D III anyway??). fps, although dramatically improved in the Mk II is not my main concern. Any thoughts appreciated.

So your "Dilemma" is this;

Should you upgrade a camera you have not used in three years?

If you can't find the answer inside the question itself go ahead and buy it. Nothing we say can cure this type of madness.

+1

 

[privatebydesign]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

 

[privatebydesign]

I love the 5D3/400mm prime combo! One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned too much here is "the Full Frame look" in regards to telephoto shooting - and I can tell you it's a very real thing!

I agree about the "Full Frame look".

No it isn't a 'real thing', perspective is perspective and dof is dof. Shoot a ff camera 400mm f5.6 and a crop camera 250mm f3.5 (a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4TC would be close enough) from the same place for the same fov, dof etc, and the images are identical.

 

[Bob Howland]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

 

[Khufu]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Aye, lots of folk don't seem to realise that their 1.5x crop Nikons et al have only 1/2 the coverage of FF... I need to brush up on my basic maths myself - what's 1.6x crop expressed as a fraction and/or percentage, anyone?! Cheeers

Ps. This is reeeeally hard to Google! The industry have done a great job marketing tiny sensors with misleading terms like "1.5x crop" and "1 inch type"

 

[privatebydesign]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Bob,

You are making the classic mistake of assuming all pixels are equal, empirical results always demonstrate that they are not. It has been tested and illustrated many times.

 

[privatebydesign]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Aye, lots of folk don't seem to realise that their 1.5x crop Nikons et al have only 1/2 the coverage of FF... I need to brush up on my basic maths myself - what's 1.6x crop expressed as a fraction and/or percentage, anyone?! Cheeers

Ps. This is reeeeally hard to Google! The industry have done a great job marketing tiny sensors with misleading terms like "1.5x crop" and "1 inch type"

Tables, diagrams, mm² figures to your hearts content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

 

[Khufu]

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Aye, lots of folk don't seem to realise that their 1.5x crop Nikons et al have only 1/2 the coverage of FF... I need to brush up on my basic maths myself - what's 1.6x crop expressed as a fraction and/or percentage, anyone?! Cheeers

Ps. This is reeeeally hard to Google! The industry have done a great job marketing tiny sensors with misleading terms like "1.5x crop" and "1 inch type"

Tables, diagrams, mm² figures to your hearts content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

So you're not sure either then?
A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...

Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...

329/864ths? er... help?

329/864 = 0.38078703703

A Canon APS-C sensor captures 38% of a FF image? That's crap! Did I go wrong somewhere?!

 

[Bob Howland]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Bob,

You are making the classic mistake of assuming all pixels are equal, empirical results always demonstrate that they are not. It has been tested and illustrated many times.

Fine, I'm ignorant and stupid. However, I own a 5D3 and 7D and owned a 5D/40D pairing before that and have done the testing you suggest. Now, would you provide information regarding the "empirical results". And be sure to compensate for the fact that comparisons are almost invariably made between different generations of sensors and image processing, since that's an entirely different question.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Aye, lots of folk don't seem to realise that their 1.5x crop Nikons et al have only 1/2 the coverage of FF... I need to brush up on my basic maths myself - what's 1.6x crop expressed as a fraction and/or percentage, anyone?! Cheeers

Ps. This is reeeeally hard to Google! The industry have done a great job marketing tiny sensors with misleading terms like "1.5x crop" and "1 inch type"

Tables, diagrams, mm² figures to your hearts content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

So you're not sure either then?
A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...

Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...

329/864ths? er... help?

329/864 = 0.38078703703

A Canon APS-C sensor captures 38% of a FF image? That's crap! Did I go wrong somewhere?!

No, I know and it isn't crap.

A 1.6 crop sensor is 38% the size of a FF sensor.

Now you realise why those that do know consider people who say "it is as good as a FF sensor" are not looking closely enough!

 

[privatebydesign]

300mm f2.8 would yield 480mm f2.8 on the 7D mk II
300mm f2.8 + 1.4 converter would yield 672mm f4 on the 7D mk II

Only if you have never tested the actual capabilities of crop vs FF, and seeing as how you own both you should.

On the 7D MkII the 300mm f2.8 would yield a 300mm f2.8 cropped.
A 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 convertor would yield a 420mm f4 cropped.

There is no magic and very little in the way of an actual crop tele factor, test it yourself with the gear you already own, most that do are surprised at how little the crop camera actually returns.

The 5D3 cropped to APS-C equivalent results in 8.6MP. The 7D has 18MP, with a pixel pitch resulting in 47MP in a FF sensor. This is fundamentally the same argument about whether a 47MP FF sensor would give a noticeably better image than a 22MP FF sensor. Which is better: larger but fewer pixels or more but smaller pixels?

Bob,

You are making the classic mistake of assuming all pixels are equal, empirical results always demonstrate that they are not. It has been tested and illustrated many times.

Fine, I'm ignorant and stupid. However, I own a 5D3 and 7D and owned a 5D/40D pairing before that and have done the testing you suggest. Now, would you provide information regarding the "empirical results". And be sure to compensate for the fact that comparisons are almost invariably made between different generations of sensors and image processing, since that's an entirely different question.

Search my history, it is a conversation I have had many times with my own empirical results from a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII, they were on sale at the same time thought truthfully the 7D was younger tech, though you wouldn't think it.

If you can't be bothered to do that here is the last time I posted the same comparison images, here two weeks ago.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23224.msg453442#msg453442

 

[Bob Howland]

So you're not sure either then?
A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...

Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...

329/864ths? er... help?

329/864 = 0.38078703703

A Canon APS-C sensor captures 38% of a FF image? That's crap! Did I go wrong somewhere?!

That's about correct. It's 1/(1.6 * 1.6) except that it's typically more like 1.62. Crop factor is measured as a linear measurement and area ratios are proportional to the square of crop factor.

 

[Khufu]

So you're not sure either then?
A quick scan kinda' hasn't remotely answered my question though...

Okay, so let's try this, based on square mm area of Canon's sensors!...

329/864ths? er... help?

329/864 = 0.38078703703

A Canon APS-C sensor captures 38% of a FF image? That's crap! Did I go wrong somewhere?!

That's about correct. It's 1/(1.6 * 1.6) except that it's typically more like 1.62. Crop factor is measured as a linear measurement and area ratios are proportional to the square of crop factor.

I'm trying to make sense of this but I'll be honest... you've lost me! I get literally how zoom & crop is applied via the diagonal, so 2x Zoom or Crop gives you a 1/4 panel and 1.6x evidently gives you 329/864ths ...but this squaring 1.6 jazz, no, I have no idea where we're going with this!

So 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56 = I have no freaking clue what this equals...

Wait! Is that how many APSC sensors fit into the FF? Aha! 1/2.56... 100/256 = 50/128 = 25/64 = 12.5/32 = 6.25/16 = 3.125/8 blah...

This self-answering, stream of consciousness post has been brought to you by myself!
I'll still post it, incase anyone else benefits from my babysteps

 

[privatebydesign]

Wait! Is that how many APSC sensors fit into the FF? Aha! 1/2.56... 100/256 = 50/128 = 25/64 = 12.5/32 = 6.25/16 = 3.125/8 blah...

I heard the light bulb go off here!

 

[entropy69]

I have both 1Dx and 5d III (and had 7d till I upgraded to 7d II yesterday

What made you buy the 7D mk II since you already have a 1Dx and 5D III?

The pro's / con's between 5d III and 7d II will be debated / rehashed here for awhile I am sure.
From the pure practical aspect of shooting, I enjoyed the familiar Canon build, ergonomics, customizability, and wrt to the 7d II vs the 5d III, the increase in FPS was appreciated. The AF functioning (capture rate) was really no better, though the few extra AF points did make positioning the points more convenient/easier.

Anyways, on topic for the OP, the FPS / extra reach are definite value - adds, but offset by need for higher ISO, and (subjectively) a sl drop in resolution/crispness and I'm still not sure about color rendering after only 1 shoot.

I am shooting an all day tournament tomorrow so will post head - head comparisons of all 4 of my bodies next week.

Thank you, valuable input!