6D, 5D3, or wait for the 5D4, dilemma, mistake, too many choices.

[Dale.]

Hi all.

Needing some opinions. I currently have a 7d (mk1) with which I have a love /hate relationship. It's an oustanding camera but can really frustrate me at times.. One of the things I love taken pictures of is wildlife, for many different reasons but even on a crop sensor camera, and a 300mm L lens, sometimes with a 1.4x TC shooting from hides and getting just about as close to real wildlife as it's possibile to get, I still find the need to crop in. This is where my hate of the 7d comes into play, as I never get the image quality I want or feel I should be getting once I start cropping in. The 7 is known for being a noisy beast but my copy seems particularly 'bad'. I understand the quirks of crop snesors and the image quality not being the same as full frame. 2 of my mates are avid wildlife photographers and they both work with FF cameras and despite already being effectively 40% 'further away', if that's the right term from the subject than I am with a crop sensor, they get far better image quality than I do with my 7d, even if they have to crop 40% more than I effectively do, just to get to my off camera focal length. They then crop even further and still get much better image quality.

Is the difference between FF and CS that much ?

As the title would imply, I am now tempted to go FF. I am considering the 6d as it is well known for being excellent at landscapes, another of my loves. So that side of things isn't an issue. The 6d though, is not as good as a wildlife camera due to it's AF stystem, being just 11 points and only the centre one being cross type. The 7d is much better at focusing, particularly tracking,than the 6d but what's the point if the image quality is pants? I can't really justify the price on a 5d3 at the moment, I have the cash but it would probably be divorce territory, and of course, the 5d4 seems imminent, so it would be worth hanging on, as the price of the 5d3 will fall. I doubt I would be able to justify the price of a 5d4 either, when that comes out.

So, my dilemma is, stick with the 7d and expose more to the right, which seems to help with the noise problems but then you risk blowing the whites, which there are a lot of in wildlife photography. Or buy a 6d, with it's ropey wildlife reputation but (apparently) much better image quality. Balancing exposure and noise with the 7d is a fine art, that I have only mastered about 30% of the time but it can be done. I could just bite the bullet and get a 5d3 but risk camping out. Or wait but at what point do you stop waiting?

My heart says 6d, I think it would suit my capabilities as a photographer and would have less of what I don't use. It's just the focusing 'issues' for wildlife that it might have that concern me.

I have considered a 7d2 which has far less noise issues than the MK1 according to reviews. That's still crop sensor though and might still look grainy after cropping.

Also, a little off the topic of this thread but what are the views on Portus Digital and HDEW? Grey is an option for me.

Maybe I'm pixelpeeping with my 7D or expecting too much from it but opinions will be valued.

Thanks.

 

[HoppyUK]

6D or 5D3 is not a way forward if you're already short of reach. You're mistaken about FF, unless it's a 5DS/R that can work like a 20mp crop camera, but with other disadvantages for birding.

From what you've said, 7D2 and 500/4 L would be sweet Wildlife was never cheap or easy.

 

[mike_6480]

7d mk II and tamron or sigma 150-600 for reach

 

[Byker28i]

Can the 7d mk2 autofocus at f8? As you've a 1.4 to another option wound be the canon 100-400 with or without tc.
5d mk3 is a great camera but especially for birds you need reach.

 

[Gaz J]

7D MkII AF's @ f8.

6D I don't think would be a good choice.

5D3 is a nice camera but if you're reach challenged then a crop sensor has to be favourite. If you have a 500 or 600 then maybe the FF.

I'm toying with getting another 7D MkII even though i sold the last one because I wasn't happy with it.

 

[seriousrikk]

Earlier this year I started shooting wildlife again a bit - kinda casually though. I went full frame a few years ago so I paired my 5D3 with a 100-400mm II and while I got excellent results, I found I was short of reach.

Yes, that camera can take some fairly aggressive cropping but I was definitely losing quality. I sold my second body (6D) in order to pick up a 7DII, and that was pretty much the master move. Yes there is more noise than the full frame bodies, but not massively and it takes NR quite well. But the detail retained while cropping is really good.

 

[wardy07]

Can the 7d mk2 autofocus at f8? As you've a 1.4 to another option wound be the canon 100-400 with or without tc.
5d mk3 is a great camera but especially for birds you need reach.

Yes, the 7D2 does AF at f8 and works really well with the 100-400mkii + extender.
Having said that, for a lot less money, the Sigma 150-600 C will also AF with a Canon mkii or the new Sigma extender which with crop gives a massive reach advantage and decent IQ also.

 

[big soft moose]

6D is definitely not a good call for wildlife photography - ive got one and its out performed by my 70D in ever way that matters. 5D3 is probably going to be a better option, but in all honesty your major problem is your lack of lens reach

for wildlife you really need 400 or 500 plus, 300 just isnt going to cut it - so you'd be better off keeping your 7D and spending the money on a decent long lens

 

[ecoleman]

6D2 coming soon as well.

 

[Gaz J]

This guy has got some of the best stuff I've seen from a 7D MkII. He's a friend of mine so its safe to link. Uses a 300 + 1.4 in the main.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobite1746/

 

[HoppyUK]

7d mk II and tamron or sigma 150-600 for reach

Being realistic on budget, that has got to be the best VFM option by some way.

100-400 Mk2 is even better, fabulous lens, much easier to manage and very versatile - but it's rubbish at 600mm

 

[Dale.]

Thanks for the replies, really helpful.

I do agree that lack of reach is a problem. I don't think that the 7dMk1 image quality tolerates cropping well at all, which gets me thinking that FF might be a better option in that sense. With FF though, I'm 40% further away, if that's the right way to put it, from my subject.

So, after reading over the opinions here, the 7Dmk2 is now back in the running.

Bearing in mind that I already have a 7Dmk1, a 7Dmk2 can be gotten for just under £1k (grey) or almost £1.2k UK, but is a Mk2 £1k or so much better than a Mk1?

No decision being made yet on FF as oppossed to CS for me but another option the the Mk2 and get a wide angle lens as the widest I have is the 24-105 which isn't wide enough for landscapes and also, as suggested, the Sigma 150-600, which is earning itself a very good reputation.

The 7dMk1 is well known for being noisy, is the Mk2 significantly better?


Like I said, too many choices.

100-400 Mk2 is even better, fabulous lens, much easier to manage and very versatile - but it's rubbish at 600mm

 

[wardy07]

Thanks for the replies, really helpful.

I do agree that lack of reach is a problem. I don't think that the 7dMk1 image quality tolerates cropping well at all, which gets me thinking that FF might be a better option in that sense. With FF though, I'm 40% further away, if that's the right way to put it, from my subject.

So, after reading over the opinions here, the 7Dmk2 is now back in the running.

Bearing in mind that I already have a 7Dmk1, a 7Dmk2 can be gotten for just under £1k (grey) or almost £1.2k UK, but is a Mk2 £1k or so much better than a Mk1?

No decision being made yet on FF as oppossed to CS for me but another option the the Mk2 and get a wide angle lens as the widest I have is the 24-105 which isn't wide enough for landscapes and also, as suggested, the Sigma 150-600, which is earning itself a very good reputation.

The 7dMk1 is well known for being noisy, is the Mk2 significantly better?


Like I said, too many choices.

As you say, lots of choices and a lot depends on your budget but if I were you (and I have been many times!), I would probably go for a Siggy C, a decent wide angle lens, Siggy 10-20 maybe, and try them on your 7D. Nothing lost as you seem to want both anyway and you can upgrade to the 7D2 and still use these lenses if you feel the need to in the future.
The 7D2 is a huge improvement over the original model, much better AF, loads for focus points, much better high ISO results and f8 AF if you want to use extenders.
I haven't used the 300L on the 7D2 but the 400 f5.6 prime is great with it, as it also is on the original 7D, but the Siggy 150-600 is equal to both in IQ and you get an extra 200-300mm respectively on top.
There are quite a few UK stockists offering the Siggy C package with their 1.4 extender for £849 which is not a bad deal or LCE offer the lens with a half price dock.
Get the USB dock though as for an extra £39 (20 if you get the package deal), you'll be able to customise settings and get firmware updates when they come along. If you already have a Canon 1.4 mkii extender, that works well too.

I've been striving for the ultimate set up for a long time, cost me a fortune in the process and have had both the Siggy's, Tamron, Canon 100-400 mkii and have reached the conclusion that there's not much in it between any if them , they're all good lenses but I'm back with the Siggy C now as for the price, it's the bang for buck option.

Good luck in your choice whatever that may be.

 

[Gaz J]

One thing thats not been mentioned is weight. Saying you need longer lenses is all well and good but the OP may not want a 3 kilo lens hanging off his neck which would be another plus point for a 7D MkII.

300 f4 with a 1.4 is a great combination and gives 672 field of view. You should be able to do something with that and the improvement in the 7D MkII puts it as the one to go for if weight and portability is a factor.

Weight was the reason I bought a 7D MkII, to use with a 100-400 MkII. I sold it on after a while as I wasn't happy with it but, as I said earlier, I might get another one and give it another try.

 

[Phil V]

I'd have thought the better options were 7dII 80d or 1dIV?

 

[Gaz J]

I'd have thought the better options were 7dII 80d or 1dIV?

The 80D seems to be getting pretty good comments from people who own them. Just wonder if its too close to the MkII in terms of price but if you don't need the AF and customisation options then it might be worth a look.

 

[Jelster]

Personally, I have had a similar dilemma. Which has led me to the 7D2 & 150-600 combo. Yes, I would have preferred a 500mm Canon, but I couldn't justify it. I have even used this set up with canon's 1.4EX Mk2 and focus was fine.

It is a handfull if you are trying to shoot handheld, and it does get heavy after a day in the field, but my wildlife images have never been better. I also have a 6D which fine at zoo's etc, I even use that with the 150-600. I am now at a point where I think my 300 f4 is surplus to requirements, along with my 7D Mk1 (which may go to fund something else!).

I think, as Hoppy stated, this is the best VFM combo that will give you the range you want/need and deliver very good results.

 

[Dale.]

I really appreciate the input, thanks.

This thread might actually have saved me from a slightly expensive mistake. If the 7Dmk2 is significanly better when it comes to image quality than the Mk1, then I think it's my way forward. Being a landscaper too, I think that the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 would be a wise choice, as that gives me 16mm on a CS. If I went FF, 24mm would be my widest as my widest lens is the 24-105. I have a Sigma 17-70 but that won't work properly on a FF camera. If someone can recomend a 'better' lens than the Siggy for about the same money, that would be good. I have heard the Siggy is very good though.

At the moment, the longest lens I have is the 300L f4 and I have a Sigma 1.4xTC.

As it stands, I'm now thinking 7d2, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 and a longer lens in the near future, the big Sigma or a 100-400L.

 

[odd jim]

Personally, I have had a similar dilemma. Which has led me to the 7D2 & 150-600 combo. Yes, I would have preferred a 500mm Canon, but I couldn't justify it. I have even used this set up with canon's 1.4EX Mk2 and focus was fine.

It is a handfull if you are trying to shoot handheld, and it does get heavy after a day in the field, but my wildlife images have never been better. I also have a 6D which fine at zoo's etc, I even use that with the 150-600. I am now at a point where I think my 300 f4 is surplus to requirements, along with my 7D Mk1 (which may go to fund something else!).

I think, as Hoppy stated, this is the best VFM combo that will give you the range you want/need and deliver very good results.

I use my 6d with my 150-600 all the time, great combo! Its such a good combo this is what I'm taking to the British GP next weekend Gives me far sharper shots than my 'faster' crops and a much higher keeper rate, and yes, that's with fast moving subjects!

 

[big soft moose]

depending on how much landscape vs wildlife you do the 10-18 stm might be an option - its a little plasticky but I was pleasantly surprised by performance for the price and it would release more cash to spend on the long lens ... if you are sold on spending more on your WA i'd say give the tokina 11-16 a look

 

[Gaz J]

I really appreciate the input, thanks.

This thread might actually have saved me from a slightly expensive mistake. If the 7Dmk2 is significanly better when it comes to image quality than the Mk1, then I think it's my way forward. Being a landscaper too, I think that the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 would be a wise choice, as that gives me 16mm on a CS. If I went FF, 24mm would be my widest as my widest lens is the 24-105. I have a Sigma 17-70 but that won't work properly on a FF camera. If someone can recomend a 'better' lens than the Siggy for about the same money, that would be good. I have heard the Siggy is very good though.

At the moment, the longest lens I have is the 300L f4 and I have a Sigma 1.4xTC.

As it stands, I'm now thinking 7d2, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 and a longer lens in the near future, the big Sigma or a 100-400L.

Its hard to recommend a better lens than the Sigma for the money. Better lenses yes but not at that money. Whether the more expensive versions are "better" I've no idea. Sigma seems to have upped their game recently and are reaping the benefits it appears. Given the results my mate gets with a 300 and converter I would be inclined to go for the body change first and see how you get on. I dont see that having massive reach is the b all and end all. Most FF wildlife photographers are shooting with 500 and 600 lenses with/without converters and doing ok with them

 

[jerry12953]

just thought I'd mention - if its any consolation - that my 7d was also HORRIBLE with cropped images.

I think I may have read somewhere that the Mk 2 is about one stop better than the Mk 1 in terms of noise. Is that a worthwhile improvement?

Having gone full frame I can't see me going back to a crop for wildlife photography. I'd suggest that the 6d is not really suitable for wildlife. Too few focussing options and the frame rate is too slow.

 

[odd jim]

just thought I'd mention - if its any consolation - that my 7d was also HORRIBLE with cropped images.

I think I may have read somewhere that the Mk 2 is about one stop better than the Mk 1 in terms of noise. Is that a worthwhile improvement?

Having gone full frame I can't see me going back to a crop for wildlife photography. I'd suggest that the 6d is not really suitable for wildlife. Too few focusing options and the frame rate is too slow.

For sure, there are better AF bodies than the 6d, but I've managed more wildlife successes with my 6d than I have done with my 50/70d, inducing birds (static and in flight, and that was as a novice as I hadn't done much BIF before I got the 150-600). If you're competent, the AF shouldn't hold you back. The only problem I've had with the AF is when subjects track directly towards you, but for that many bodies suffer.

 

[big soft moose]

I find the lack of burst speed on the 6D restrictive for fast moving subjects , plus the tracking AF is in my view below par when using anything other than the centre point ( I generally keep the 6D for weddings and landscapes and use the 70D for wildlife )

If i wanted to go full frame (or 1.3) for nature and had the cash I'd be looking at second user 1DSmk3 or the 1Dmk4

 

[Dale.]

just thought I'd mention - if its any consolation - that my 7d was also HORRIBLE with cropped images.

Yip, I can identify with that. It's comforting to know as I have often questioned my capabilities, not that I'm anything more than intermediate at best but the image quality with the Mk1 really can be rubbish, especially when cropping. Cropping an image off the Mk1 magnifies the problem more than it would/should. My 40D is better in that respect.

I'm pretty sure that I would get better image quality off a FF camera than I would off any CS but I would suffer with reach, even with 600mm on a FF, depending on circumstances of course. I'm still leaning towards the 7dMk2 now but there's still a niggling thought at the back of my mind about image quality when cropping.

 

[odd jim]

I find the lack of burst speed on the 6D restrictive for fast moving subjects , plus the tracking AF is in my view below par when using anything other than the centre point ( I generally keep the 6D for weddings and landscapes and use the 70D for wildlife )

If i wanted to go full frame (or 1.3) for nature and had the cash I'd be looking at second user 1DSmk3 or the 1Dmk4

I only ever use the centre point anyway (on all my bodies!) so I've not found it an issue - in fact the centre point is damn good on the 6d as its so sensitive. No doubt if I used a spread it would suffer but luckily that doesn't suit how I shoot.

 

[the black fox]

i was faced with the new camera dilemma a couple of months ago when my 1d3 gave up the ghost ,there are already a pair of 7d2's and a 7d1 in the household so i had plenty of time to try before i bought ,and TBH neither of those bodies impressed me in fact they left me feeling underwhelmed . i instead went for the 80d slightly slower 7 fps but higher dynamic range and a very large buffer ,so far its proved to be a very wise choice as i have managed shots in what i would normally call impossible light at high iso values ,and even at normal iso values shadow detail is very easily recovered with minimal noise to deal with .

 

[Gaz J]

i was faced with the new camera dilemma a couple of months ago when my 1d3 gave up the ghost ,there are already a pair of 7d2's and a 7d1 in the household so i had plenty of time to try before i bought ,and TBH neither of those bodies impressed me in fact they left me feeling underwhelmed . i instead went for the 80d slightly slower 7 fps but higher dynamic range and a very large buffer ,so far its proved to be a very wise choice as i have managed shots in what i would normally call impossible light at high iso values ,and even at normal iso values shadow detail is very easily recovered with minimal noise to deal with .

Thats interesting Jeff that you chose the 80D over the 7D MkII. Canon seem to have taken a step in closing the gap between Nikon/Sony and its own sensors in the 80D and 1DX MkII at base and low ISO which is were they were struggling to compete. I need to do a bit of research into the AF abilities of the 80D

 

[jerry12953]

i was faced with the new camera dilemma a couple of months ago when my 1d3 gave up the ghost ,there are already a pair of 7d2's and a 7d1 in the household so i had plenty of time to try before i bought ,and TBH neither of those bodies impressed me in fact they left me feeling underwhelmed . i instead went for the 80d slightly slower 7 fps but higher dynamic range and a very large buffer ,so far its proved to be a very wise choice as i have managed shots in what i would normally call impossible light at high iso values ,and even at normal iso values shadow detail is very easily recovered with minimal noise to deal with .

Interesting!

 

[Jelster]

Have a look at the following album, it was before I got the 7D2:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevejelly/albums/72157663441066272

this was taken at WWT Arundel with a 7D Mk1. At least one shot (the Great Tit) is at ISO 3200.... I think some models were noisier than others, as I have never really had an issue with the Mk1. If your problem is when you crop your images, maybe go for the longer lens first, see how that works, then change your body later ?

 

[LCPete]

I've got both the mk1 and mk2 7d both have excellent image quality very happy with both
I happily use my mk1 up to ISO 800 on a regular basis and my defult is 400 the same for the mk2
You do have to nail the exposure tho on the MK1 I always expose to the right
In my opinion if you are struggling for reach the mk2 7d is your best option

 

[Dale.]

Image quality seems much better on your copy than mine Steve.

Pete, do you find you have to expose to the right as much with your Mk2?

 

[LCPete]

Image quality seems much better on your copy than mine Steve.

Pete, do you find you have to expose to the right as much with your Mk2?

Not as much the metering does seem to be more accurate
On my mk1 I normally expose 2/3 to the right on the mk2 7d that much can be over exposed

 

[the black fox]

i,m stumped as my main lens is the sigma 150-600 sport so usually a minimum of f7.1 is required ,which makes a higher base iso a priority ,so far the 80d hasn't faltered in fact tonight i got some long range macro (flies) shots with that lens at 6400iso in a dark wood at approx 7.30pm .they look o.k in lightroom i will be doing the p/p later so will add to the thread when done .

 

[Dale.]

Ok, I have come up with a plan, for now.

As I am in no huge rush to buy a new body, I am going to give my Mk1 a chance again and try exposing more to the right than I have been. I have normally been exposing as per metering but I am now going to try upto 2/3rds to the right and see if that improves the noise issue I have with my copy. This will then hopefully help me make a decision on whether or not to go for the Mk2 or a FF body. If there is an improvement with my copy by exposing to the right then a Mk2 should be better. Image quality is my main reason for wanting to upgrade, as I love all the Mk1 offers, except the pesky noise/grain. All the comments and suggestions have been noted and have helped and now, based on this, I am going to see how my Mk1 performs with the new approach and go from there. I do think I will be buying the 10-20 f3.5 though, as even my Sigma 17-70 isn't quite wide enough at times. It was very challenging the last time I was up at Glencoe and trying to frame 'that waterfall' and The Buachaille, even at 17mm.

So that's where I am for now, now to control those whites at +2/3rds.

thanks.

 

[HoppyUK]

Ok, I have come up with a plan, for now.

As I am in no huge rush to buy a new body, I am going to give my Mk1 a chance again and try exposing more to the right than I have been. I have normally been exposing as per metering but I am now going to try upto 2/3rds to the right and see if that improves the noise issue I have with my copy. This will then hopefully help me make a decision on whether or not to go for the Mk2 or a FF body. If there is an improvement with my copy by exposing to the right then a Mk2 should be better. Image quality is my main reason for wanting to upgrade, as I love all the Mk1 offers, except the pesky noise/grain. All the comments and suggestions have been noted and have helped and now, based on this, I am going to see how my Mk1 performs with the new approach and go from there. I do think I will be buying the 10-20 f3.5 though, as even my Sigma 17-70 isn't quite wide enough at times. It was very challenging the last time I was up at Glencoe and trying to frame 'that waterfall' and The Buachaille, even at 17mm.

So that's where I am for now, now to control those whites at +2/3rds.

thanks.

Good starting point You are of course effectively reducing ISO by pushing exposure with ETTR and the net result of that is longer shutter speeds.

Holding highlights will also be more difficult, but if you do a few tests, you may find there's more highlights headroom than you thought, if you shoot Raw. Using blinkies as a guide, they begin to flash as a warning that highlights are about to blow, but if you do some tests (tripod, series of shots increasing exposure by third-stop, noting when/where blinkies flash) and then run them though post processing to see exactly when/where highlights are actually blown, you'll find you have at least one stop above the point where blinkies begin to flash.

When doing this, bear in mind that blinkies (and the histogram) are generated off the in-camera JPEG and that is affected by picture styles. It's the Contrast setting that makes most difference so keep that constant.

 

[LCPete]

Ok, I have come up with a plan, for now.

As I am in no huge rush to buy a new body, I am going to give my Mk1 a chance again and try exposing more to the right than I have been. I have normally been exposing as per metering but I am now going to try upto 2/3rds to the right and see if that improves the noise issue I have with my copy. This will then hopefully help me make a decision on whether or not to go for the Mk2 or a FF body. If there is an improvement with my copy by exposing to the right then a Mk2 should be better. Image quality is my main reason for wanting to upgrade, as I love all the Mk1 offers, except the pesky noise/grain. All the comments and suggestions have been noted and have helped and now, based on this, I am going to see how my Mk1 performs with the new approach and go from there. I do think I will be buying the 10-20 f3.5 though, as even my Sigma 17-70 isn't quite wide enough at times. It was very challenging the last time I was up at Glencoe and trying to frame 'that waterfall' and The Buachaille, even at 17mm.

So that's where I am for now, now to control those whites at +2/3rds.

thanks.

Good idea to persevere with the 7d mk 1
I mainly shoot macro and wildlife and almost always at plus 2 thirds on exp compensation
If it's sunny or the bird has white areas then experiment a bit 2 thirds will possibly be too much

 

[Dale.]

Just to update, I have just put some of my lenses to MPB for quotes as p/ex on the 10-20 and 150-600C.

 

[odd jim]

Just to update, I have just put some of my lenses to MPB for quotes as p/ex on the 10-20 and 150-600C.

Why are you getting rid of the 600c? Plenty of 7d users using it with excellent results in the 150-600c thread?

 

[tonybassplayer]

I think he is thinking of BUYING the 600c