To buy a 7D2 or upgrade to better lenses

[ChrisHeathcote]

I have a bit of a dilemma with regards to my current gear. I will try and explain the issue and what my potential fix is.

Problem
The issue I am having is related to reach and I now think it is more lens related than camera. I am currently using a 5d3 with a Sigma 150-500 for my wildlife images. To get extra reach I know I can crop the 5d3 to the same as a crop and further. This isn't an issue if I am shooting at low ISOs, however as in some cases recently I am shooting upto 12,800 and whilst uncropped the image is fine, once cropped it borders on unusable. I have attached images to try and show what I mean.
My dilemma is do I need to add a body or change lenses (or operator ).
View attachment 23923 View attachment 23922
Straight JPEG conversion with no PP Cropped exposure increased by 1 stop, sharpening (103,1.0,25 mask 83) & NR (70,73,0) applied

The EXIF is: shot at 500mm 1/500, F/6.3 ISO 12,800
I know that if I had got the exposure right in the camera it would have lead to a better result, however as you can see from the EXIF, my options were limited.
My options are:

1. Buy Canon 7d mk2 so that I have an effective FOV of 800mm which will contain 20.2mp instead of approx 15mp.

I am also aware that my lens may be the limiting factor as it may not be able to resolve all the pixels, so this leads me to the next option which is the way that I am leaning:

2. Upgrade lens/lenses. My thought is to change to Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x and 2x TC. My logic being that firstly it is a sharper lens (according to DXO if that is to be believed), secondly if need by I can shoot at 420mm f4 allowing me to drop just the ISO by a stop and a bit. Worst case I would be at 600 f/5.6 which is still a touch faster but with a bit more reach meaning I don't need to crop as much.

Just wondered what others thought, especially anyone who has used the 120-300 with TC's

Many thanks once again for your help

 

[wealthysoup]

High iso on the 7d2 will be worse than 5d3. I would go for better glass first

 

[Mike.P]

I currently have a 7D MKI and used to have a Sigma 50-500mm OS on it most of the time. The results were very good but then I acquired a Canon EF 300mm IS f2.8 and even using a 2x extender it gives much better (sharper) results whilst allowing me to use a faster shutter speed.

I would imagine the Sigma 120-300mm and extender would do much the same.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Thanks for the comments

Ryan, it isn't so mooch the camera high ISO I have an issue with, its more the noise that is generated through the PP.

I do think the lens is the best way to go, question now is which one, I like the flexibility of having the zoom, so that I don't have to carry a bag full of lens. I have a max budget of £2-3k

 

[marksweb]

I'd always buy better glass first. I've been shooting with a 300D for 10 years. Over time I've gone from kit lens to L glass and the image quality improves, but the camera still does the same, good, old job.

The need to upgrade comes from the tech, obviously, but I wouldn't say better ISO performance etc was reason to upgrade so soon.

I've got a 7D mkii in the post, but after 10 years I think it's more than justified

 

[dalegt4]

the lens for sure, I run 6Ds and 60Ds and also have the sigma, to be honest it is the lens that is the limiting factor on fine detail things, its a great lens but not in the same league as some of the higher end lenses.

Compared to my 70-200 2.8 the sigma is just frankly awful, not to say the sigma is bad as I love it and use it alot but when images are at full size the 500 is just softer by a significant amount, keep the 5d

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Thanks for the comments, so the next question comes down to lens choices, my current equipment is

Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC, sigma 150-500

My ideas are:
1. Replace 150-500 with 120-300 and TCs

2. Replace 70-200 with Canon 70-200 is USM ii with TCs
replace 150-500 with 400 L f5.6

Once again your thoughts are appreciated

Chris

 

[Tintin124]

Thanks for the comments

Ryan, it isn't so mooch the camera high ISO I have an issue with, its more the noise that is generated through the PP.

I do think the lens is the best way to go, question now is which one, I like the flexibility of having the zoom, so that I don't have to carry a bag full of lens. I have a max budget of £2-3k

Is the 5d mk III cropped to 1.6x same megapixel count as a 7d Mk II off the bat? That I'm not sure it is.

Also if you are getting too much noise whilst PPing then you are not getting enough right in camera with regards to exposure, I would practice that first.

So I'm taking the other option and saying learning the exposure triangle better.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Is the 5d mk III cropped to 1.6x same megapixel count as a 7d Mk II off the bat? That I'm not sure it is.

Also if you are getting too much noise whilst PPing then you are not getting enough right in camera with regards to exposure, I would practice that first.

So I'm taking the other option and saying learning the exposure triangle better.

Thanks Bryn, Firstly the 7D2 image would contain more pixels than a cropped 5d3, however the pixel density would be greater meaning that the cropped FF image may still be better.

Again thank you for taking the time to reply and I do agree with you that getting it right in camera is ALWAYS the best option and that is what I am wanting to achieve. However with my understanding of the exposure triangle (and I am willing to stand corrected if I am wrong), in this instance I don't see how that would have helped.. I'll explain my reasons.

The EXIF shows the settings as 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 12,800. Shot at 500mm. By my reckoning and (also by my LR adjustments) the image is under by 1 stop. So by using the triangle the options are:

Shutter: Lower to 1/250 - I have never had a particularly steady hand and have always stuck to the rule of 1/focal for shutter speed, so by dropping the speed I risk camera shake, I also introduce the risk of motion blur if the subject moved slightly
Aperture: Lower to f/4.5 - I can't because my lens is at the max.
ISO: Increase to 25,600 - This really is the only option available, however having never used ISO's that high (and before anyone says I know it would probably have been cleaner than 12,800 and increasing by a stop in PP) I tend to stay clear of them. I shoot in Auto ISO and limit it to 12,800.

Now I have happily taken images at 12,800 and been able to clean them in PP, however not at the same time as cropping and increasing exposure (example below). This is why I feel that my equipment is restricting me. The 150-500 is a great lens but needs more sharpening at 500mm, backing off to 450mm helps. If for argument sake I had the 120-300 with 1.4 fitted I would have a 420mm f/4. With this I could have shot at 1/500, f/4, ISO 12,800 and had a correctly exposed shot which just needed cropping and a bit of NR (which the 5d3 is capable of). Hopefully due to being a better lens and being correctly exposed, it wouldn't have needed as much sharpening or NR.

To show the camera capabilities here is an image that I took 5 mins earlier which (in my eyes) exposed correctly, the EXIF is the same as the one in my OP.

View attachment 23970
and cropped to the same dimensions
View attachment 23971

 

[Gremlin]

Not from a cannon user Chris, but I had a a sigma 150/500 on my nikon and although it would give good results in decent light
it didn't under less favourable conditions.
Due to have problems with it going wrong 3 times and spending too much time being repaired I decided to lose it and
got a Nikon 80/400 instead, to say I am blown away with the results is an understatement, it's far superior and I am using a crop body.
So I guess if Canon are the same, go for better glass

 

[Tintin124]

Thanks Bryn, Firstly the 7D2 image would contain more pixels than a cropped 5d3, however the pixel density would be greater meaning that the cropped FF image may still be better.

Again thank you for taking the time to reply and I do agree with you that getting it right in camera is ALWAYS the best option and that is what I am wanting to achieve. However with my understanding of the exposure triangle (and I am willing to stand corrected if I am wrong), in this instance I don't see how that would have helped.. I'll explain my reasons.

The EXIF shows the settings as 1/500, f/6.3, ISO 12,800. Shot at 500mm. By my reckoning and (also by my LR adjustments) the image is under by 1 stop. So by using the triangle the options are:

Shutter: Lower to 1/250 - I have never had a particularly steady hand and have always stuck to the rule of 1/focal for shutter speed, so by dropping the speed I risk camera shake, I also introduce the risk of motion blur if the subject moved slightly
Aperture: Lower to f/4.5 - I can't because my lens is at the max.
ISO: Increase to 25,600 - This really is the only option available, however having never used ISO's that high (and before anyone says I know it would probably have been cleaner than 12,800 and increasing by a stop in PP) I tend to stay clear of them. I shoot in Auto ISO and limit it to 12,800.

Now I have happily taken images at 12,800 and been able to clean them in PP, however not at the same time as cropping and increasing exposure (example below). This is why I feel that my equipment is restricting me. The 150-500 is a great lens but needs more sharpening at 500mm, backing off to 450mm helps. If for argument sake I had the 120-300 with 1.4 fitted I would have a 420mm f/4. With this I could have shot at 1/500, f/4, ISO 12,800 and had a correctly exposed shot which just needed cropping and a bit of NR (which the 5d3 is capable of). Hopefully due to being a better lens and being correctly exposed, it wouldn't have needed as much sharpening or NR.

To show the camera capabilities here is an image that I took 5 mins earlier which (in my eyes) exposed correctly, the EXIF is the same as the one in my OP.

View attachment 23970
and cropped to the same dimensions
View attachment 23971

Now this is a pickle... you would have got a much more usable picture at higher ISO for sure because the exposure would be correct and shadows/exposure wouldn't need lifting hence introducing more noise.

Also to note I have a 150-500mm on 500d (crop) and I find the sharpest part of the lens is actually 200 - 350mm which means at above and below its a little soft to start with. it certainly wouldn't be my go to lens for low light.

Sometimes the choice has to be is it worth shooting if light is crappy? Is there anything to gain or make out of your shot.

My wishful upgrade is to a 7d Mk II but that is due to the type of photography I do. The ideal setup for me would be a 5d Mk III/6d and a 7D Mk II. But in your case if you have the money then think Glass is the way to go.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Thanks all, it would appear that the general consensus is faster/better glass. Thanks for confirming what I think I already knew but I was getting a bit caught up in the 7d2 hype. So whilst I try and decide which way to spend my upcoming bonus (again any help from users of the 120-300 S, gratefully received as I think it may be this one) I will try and gain confidence in using higher ISO's. Just taken a quick snap and I was quite surprised

 

[Mike.P]

Of course for the price of the 120-300mm and TC you could just about buy a 400mm f5.6, MKIII 1.4x and a 7DII

Your 2 Tamron lenses are perfectly fine I would have thought and the 7DII can apparently autofocusup to f8. Failing that I personally would go the Sigma 120-300mm route, replacing your 70-200mm with the Canon and teleconverter is still not going to give the reach you require.

But then there is the soon to be released Sigma 150-600mm sport (which is the one I'm waiting for).

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Mike, I looked at that option too However I think I would have an easier job explaining a 1 for 1 lens swap than trying to talk my way out of a new camera as well.

I also looked at the 150-600 too but in reality I don't think I would gain much for the £1700 hole in my wallet. From what I can see possibly slightly better IQ and and extra 100mm. The max aperture is still the same. With the 120-300 & TC I would achieve both of these as well as a faster and more versatile lens.

 

[Tintin124]

M However I think I would have an easier job explaining a 1 for 1 lens swap than trying to talk my way out of a new camera as well.

Why just explain you have made a killing and have mugged off the seller look what I got for this old crappy lens dear

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

She fell for that one when I got the 5d3 for £360

 

[HoppyUK]

To improve picture quality, you must make the image larger. The short answer is you need to get closer, much closer, and work in better light. In your top pic of the squirrel, you've cropped it down to 1/6th of the total sensor area, about the size of your fingernail, with only about 3.5mp. You're basically shooting with a very low res compact camera there. And also, do not under-expose as it will increase noise and reduce shadow detail enormously - push the ISO, or preferably, shoot in better light!

Longer lenses obviously help a lot, but you can't go adding extenders etc and expect to retain the same standard of sharpness. The Sigma 150-500 is not a bad lens in the right conditions. There are some better options but don't expect to just bolt on some new glass and crop your way to great image quality. You need to fill much more of the frame.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

To improve picture quality, you must make the image larger. The short answer is you need to get closer, much closer, and work in better light. In your top pic of the squirrel, you've cropped it down to 1/6th of the total sensor area, about the size of your fingernail, with only about 3.5mp. You're basically shooting with a very low res compact camera there. And also, do not under-expose as it will increase noise and reduce shadow detail enormously - push the ISO, or preferably, shoot in better light!

Longer lenses obviously help a lot, but you can't go adding extenders etc and expect to retain the same standard of sharpness. The Sigma 150-500 is not a bad lens in the right conditions. There are some better options but don't expect to just bolt on some new glass and crop your way to great image quality. You need to fill much more of the frame.

Thanks Hoppy, so what would your suggestion be?
The only ways I can see to fill the frame and get more pixels on target, would be to
1. Physically get closer, but if this wasn't possible

2. Lens longer than 500mm or
3. Crop sensor.

Which brings back to the original dilemma

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks Hoppy, so what would your suggestion be?
The only ways I can see to fill the frame and get more pixels on target, would be to
1. Physically get closer, but if this wasn't possible

2. Lens longer than 500mm or
3. Crop sensor.

Which brings back to the original dilemma

Good nature photography is mostly about a) good field craft, ie get closer, and b) patience. If you can get that right, and it's certainly not easy, then you can get great pictures without an enormous lens. For normal folks though, a bit of (a) and a lot of (b) plus the longest lens you can reasonably use/carry/afford works pretty well. With best technique - accurate focus, zero camera-sake (mono-pod, with OS on, plus fast shutter speed to freeze subject movement), optimum exposure, good atmospheric conditions (dust, heat haze, moisture in the atmosphere can have a big effect with long lenses).

7D2 sounds like a nice idea, but a 5D3 cropped down to 1.6x format will give you around 9mp. Perfectly workable. Try it with your Sigma 150-500 at f/8 in decent light with good exposure and it will certainly be miles better than the top squirrel crop. Sigma 120-300 Sports is a very sharp lens, and I strongly suspect it is pretty good with an extender, too. Tamron 150-600 is also a step up from your Sigma, and the new Sigma 150-600 Sports is worth checking out too. I had the first of those to arrive in the UK a couple of weeks ago. Sorry I can't say more than that but my review will be published in the next edition of Advanced Photographer magazine

 

[Neil B]

I've been using 5dmk3 and Sigma 120-300 sport + 2xTC for a while now and lets just say if i wasn't impressed then i would of changed it for something else.
Yes the focussing speed takes a slight hit with the 2x on but still tacks well for BIF even in low light HERE
And another shot wide open f5.6 in low light with the 2x HERE
I do agree with Richards points made above, wildlife photography can be very time consuming and a bit of luck helps

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Thanks for the feedback I think at some point an upgrade in lens will be on the cards, however I'm still undecided on body, following Richards comments. I am also looking forward to the review in AP I think that may be a deciding factor.

 

[buckas]

Had the Siggy in Feb, had the Tamron in September for media reviews - all in all, I'd pick the Tamron over the other as it is better for the price. I found the Siggy frustratingly bad....seriously don't know how users of that lens put up with it. Tamron does have it's flaws, but decent buy in that price bracket.

Personally I'd go for 2nd hand 400 5.6 prime

cheers
drew

 

[Phiggys]

A friend of mine managed to pick up a used Sigma HSM 300-800mm f5.6 that was within your budget.
the down side is the size and weight plus the need for a steady tripod.
But it does a great job with wildlife.
I have the Sigma 800mm prime with the same problem but it's not as versatile as the 300-800mm.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Had the Siggy in Feb, had the Tamron in September for media reviews - all in all, I'd pick the Tamron over the other as it is better for the price. I found the Siggy frustratingly bad....seriously don't know how users of that lens put up with it. Tamron does have it's flaws, but decent buy in that price bracket.

Personally I'd go for 2nd hand 400 5.6 prime

cheers
drew

Thanks Drew, Interesting to hear your your view of the Siggy, I have always been pleased with it apart from in poor light. Given what I've heard so far about the new Sigma being better than the Tamron, I'm interested to hear the reviews as it is more flexible than the 400mm prime and £1600 cheaper than the Sigma 120-300 option with TC's (which pays for a 7d2 )

A friend of mine managed to pick up a used Sigma HSM 300-800mm f5.6 that was within your budget.
the down side is the size and weight plus the need for a steady tripod.
But it does a great job with wildlife.
I have the Sigma 800mm prime with the same problem but it's not as versatile as the 300-800mm.

I've just googled this lens and found this pic. The Canon looks like a toy

 

[Phiggys]

Yep it's certainly a beast but they do come up s/h and it's a massive saving on Canon/Nikon 800mm f 5.6
Sadly they don't usually come with a Sherpa or a subscription to the local Gym

 

[Phiggys]

Back to reality though I can recommend either of the following Canons 300mm f4.0 with IS or the 400mm f5.6 prime
A couple of friends use them and they are cracking pieces of glass and can be used with converters in good light.

 

[Gaz J]

One of those on a 1.6 crop with a 1.4 converter 1792mm. Need a good tripod and good technique to get the best out of it.

 

[buckas]

800mm on a zoom, gonna be soft - pointless heavy soft lens

 

[dalegt4]

the sigmeister as its known is actually meant to be extrememely good

 

[LCPete]

I completely agree with Richard it's all about the light and getting close enough
I'm a long way from being an expert and I do more zoo photos than wildlife but I always try to get the subject in nice light and fill the frame without cropping

 

[StewartR]

800mm on a zoom, gonna be soft - pointless heavy soft lens

Have you actually tried one? It's not as good as a 600mm f/4 prime or an 800mm f/5.6 prime, but I'd hardly call it soft.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'm sorry to crash the reasons for upgrading, but surely you want images that are nicely lit, contrasty and popping out of frame. I am sure some biologist would settle for dark and flat shot, but you are not one of them, are you?

I'm really not convinced that upgrading will be a game changer. 5D3 is extremely good and your lens has some reach. Yes, you could go longer and faster, that would make it easier when the conditions are right. But really you want to set up to get the subjects well lit or cleverly position some flashes yourself.

 

[Coyon]

Cropped exposure increased by 1 stop, sharpening (103,1.0,25 mask 83) & NR (70,73,0) applied

Chris are you applying the NR and sharpening across the whole image? Those two processes are conflicting- sharpening the noise will make it more obvious, and using NR on your subject will just blur out the fur detail you're trying to pick out.
The other issue with the 1st image is that the focus appears to be on the tail rather than the face.

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with your kit- just need to pick your battles as others have said.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Thanks for the comments. Firstly with regards to the sharpening and MR I have been applying and then use the the sharpening mask in LR using the Option key to turn the screen white.

I've decided my main problem is patience, due to work and family commitments I get very little time to get out with my camera on my own. Therefore when I do I try and make the most of it and find missing shots due to lack of light frustrating. On reflecting there have been times when I've looked back and thought I really shouldn't have bothered.

Anyway thank you for all your suggestions and advice. I have decided that for now the 5D3 will be staying and no I won't be getting a 7d2. Dependant on reviews and so forth I may swap the 150-600 for the 150-600 sport in the new year but we'll see.

 

[pete.rush]

I'm sorry to crash the reasons for upgrading, but surely you want images that are nicely lit, contrasty and popping out of frame. I am sure some biologist would settle for dark and flat shot, but you are not one of them, are you?

I'm really not convinced that upgrading will be a game changer. 5D3 is extremely good and your lens has some reach. Yes, you could go longer and faster, that would make it easier when the conditions are right. But really you want to set up to get the subjects well lit or cleverly position some flashes yourself.

I would have to agree, the lights the key, thats the reason why you squirrel shot not that impressive and the fact that your wide open on your lens at f6.3 and by all accounts, these lenses can be a bit soft wide open. Solution, take images in better light and at a higher f-stop as suggested above

 

[Brachytron]

Don't forget that the overall picture quality is a function of both sensor and lens (with other factors of course), so if you improve either one you will see an increase in sharpness. Take a 7D1 and change to a 7D2 and the higher pixel count will raise overall image detail resolution all other things being equal. Keeping to the 7D1 but changing to a sharper lens will also increase overall sharpness.

 

[wealthysoup]

36 replies and something just popped into my head that hasn't been brought up yet (one other poster very quickly skimmed over it). How about a decent monopod to bring the shutter speed down and fix your exposure?

 

[pete.rush]

36 replies and something just popped into my head that hasn't been brought up yet (one other poster very quickly skimmed over it). How about a decent monopod to bring the shutter speed down and fix your exposure?

You would be better off using a tripod or bean bag for this type of shot, more stable

 

[wealthysoup]

You would be better off using a tripod or bean bag for this type of shot, more stable

Potentially, but a tripod is a lot less convenience, can't really comment on beanbags since I've never used one. The best equipment is the equipment which you have when you take the shot. I would suggest that due to convenience then a tripod wouldn't be the best, depending on how far the op is travelling of course

 

[RedRobin]

Back to reality though I can recommend either of the following Canons 300mm f4.0 with IS or the 400mm f5.6 prime
A couple of friends use them and they are cracking pieces of glass and can be used with converters in good light.

....I use those two Canon L lenses too but personally find the 400mm tricky with a Canon 1.4x converter/extender.

I think that any extenders will show up any quality shortcomings which the non-Canon lenses may have (IF they have any quality issues)

There is a Canon 400mm F/5.6L for sale in Classifieds at the moment. I bought both my 300 and 400 on TP Classifieds.

Btw, it had been my plan to sell either the 300 or the 400, depending which I liked best because the 300 with 1.4x Extender offers 420mm. But the 300 focusses down to around 5ft vs 12ft and I wouldn't sell either lens now! Both are favourites.