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

[odd jim]

I think he is thinking of BUYING the 600c

Ah yes, sorry confused! I remember recommending that to him now [emoji28][emoji28]

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'd go for the sport if possible at all.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Alternatively Canon 100-400 II will take 1.4x III coverter very well.

As a budget option 400mm f/5.6L prime is amazing if you can live without IS. The sharpness is incredible wide open.

Camera-wise I use 5D3 and the sharpness at pixel level is incredible. You might be looking at 100% crop and still think it is a full frame. If crop doesn't give you that then the "extra" reach is all but a myth

 

[mazdaman]

what are the views on Portus Digital and HDEW? Grey is an option for me

Bought an 80D from Portus last month very good excellent service they e mailed me and informed me due to currency exchange they would be reducing my 80D by a further £20. I had a 7D mark 1 and was noisy. I then decided that my next upgrade would be either a 7D mark 2 or the 80D. Happy the route I have taken

A review by DXO
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-80D-sensor-review-Dynamic-performer

 

[odd jim]

I'd go for the sport if possible at all.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Alternatively Canon 100-400 II will take 1.4x III coverter very well.

As a budget option 400mm f/5.6L prime is amazing if you can live without IS. The sharpness is incredible wide open.

Camera-wise I use 5D3 and the sharpness at pixel level is incredible. You might be looking at 100% crop and still think it is a full frame. If crop doesn't give you that then the "extra" reach is all but a myth

Optically there's nothing in it between the Sport and the C, I tried both, couldn't tell the difference between them for IQ but the Sport is much more expensive, and much heavier.

 

[Dale.]

Once again, thanks.

Jim, I am considering the 150-600.

I'd go for the sport if possible at all.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Alternatively Canon 100-400 II will take 1.4x III coverter very well.

As a budget option 400mm f/5.6L prime is amazing if you can live without IS. The sharpness is incredible wide open.

Camera-wise I use 5D3 and the sharpness at pixel level is incredible. You might be looking at 100% crop and still think it is a full frame. If crop doesn't give you that then the "extra" reach is all but a myth

Yep, more for consideration. The point about cropping on a FF (5Diii) as oppossed to the extra reach is the dilemma I have. My current 7d doesn't stand up well to cropping, which is what initially got me thinking about FF. A lot of the problem with my 7d though has been me underexposing, sometimes a full stop to the left, to control the highlights. There's more to it than that though, the 7dMk1 has a reputation for being noisy and if the Mk2 isn't much better, then it would to be FF for me. I am going to give my Mk1 another chance though before making the decision as it may have all been operator error on my part.

Terry, after a bit of research, Portus and HDEW seem very good. They are about the same as UK prices on lenses though so I would buy 'local' rather than import. Bodies though, are a different ball game, there's lots to be saved there.

Interesting review.

 

[Byker28i]

Optically there's nothing in it between the Sport and the C, I tried both, couldn't tell the difference between them for IQ but the Sport is much more expensive, and much heavier.

What's the weight difference?
If looking second hand ( and worth a look to keep costs down) then a few years ago when I looked at the 150-600 it was a lot heavier than the 100-400 canon, which as I was mostly sport based pushed me that way.

 

[wardy07]

Optically there's nothing in it between the Sport and the C, I tried both, couldn't tell the difference between them for IQ but the Sport is much more expensive, and much heavier.

+1 - I have had both and there really isn't much if indeed any difference in IQ and the Sport is a heavy beast, on a par with the original Canon 300 f2.8 for weight.
You do get weather sealing and a metal hood with the Sport but a decent rain cover sorts that weather problem.
I sold my Sport and have re purchased the C now with the Sigma extender & obviously dock and I feel a lot more comfortable carrying it on a Black Rapid and feel that hand held shots are a lot more practical with the C.
You will get plenty of Sport enthusiasts and that's fine but if you carry a lot of kit when you go out and about as I do, you would be more limited with the Sport in that situation.
I guess it boils down to personal choice but there isn't an awful lot of real world difference between any if the superzoom options regarding IQ inc the 100-400 mkii which I've also used.

 

[odd jim]

What's the weight difference?
If looking second hand ( and worth a look to keep costs down) then a few years ago when I looked at the 150-600 it was a lot heavier than the 100-400 canon, which as I was mostly sport based pushed me that way.

It's very nearly an extra kilo, pretty significant as I do most of my stuff hand held.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

It's very nearly an extra kilo, pretty significant as I do most of my stuff hand held.

Still a child's play compared with my 600mm f/4 IS. The canon 400mm prime or zoom are very nice and light and typically get taken out more frequently

 

[odd jim]

Still a child's play compared with my 600mm f/4 IS. The canon 400mm prime or zoom are very nice and light and typically get taken out more frequently

What's child's play? An extra kilo? We're comparing the two Sigmas not long Canon primes, a kilo extra is about 40% heavier give or take, I'd say that's significant, especially for something that I found to be optically identical.

 

[HoppyUK]

The Sigma 10-600 Sport is very heavy, there's no escaping that, especially if you have the Sigma C and Tamron side by side to compare. The other thing is, there's a lot of weight in the front section and when that's zoomed out to 600mm there's a lot of leverage, too.

When it comes to image quality, the Sport is undeniably sharper at 600mm and while the difference is noticeable it's not massive. The biggest challenge to sharpness with these lenses is accurate focus and fast shutter speeds. If you can nail those two things on a regular basis you''re unlikely to complain about image quality either way.

 

[odd jim]

The Sigma 10-600 Sport is very heavy, there's no escaping that, especially if you have the Sigma C and Tamron side by side to compare. The other thing is, there's a lot of weight in the front section and when that's zoomed out to 600mm there's a lot of leverage, too.

When it comes to image quality, the Sport is undeniably sharper at 600mm and while the difference is noticeable it's not massive. The biggest challenge to sharpness with these lenses is accurate focus and fast shutter speeds. If you can nail those two things on a regular basis you''re unlikely to complain about image quality either way.

I specifically tested both at 600mm and I didn't notice any difference, both were spot on. The C is incredibly sharp at 600mm, surprisingly so, and it wasn't copy variation as the one finally delivered to me was just as good as the one I tried. The only real world advantage I could find with the Sport, and I mean the only one, is the zoom ring turn is a lot shorter, meaning you can change lengths quicker.

 

[Dale.]

This is an image I took a couple of months ago, it's just a jpeg conversion of the RAW file I took at the time, no processing at all. This is ISO 400 on my 7dMk1.




And this is a 100% crop of the same image, again, with no processing, just converted to jpeg from RAW.





Hopefully this illustrates my issues with the 7dMk1 when cropping. The grain is very apparent and there is a softness to it. It may be operator error, it may be pixel peeping but I don't think it should be quite this bad at iso 400.

First time I've uploaded files directly to the forum, hopefully they don't infringe any rules.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

This is an image I took a couple of months ago, it's just a jpeg conversion of the RAW file I took at the time, no processing at all. This is ISO 400 on my 7dMk1.

View attachment 68429


And this is a 100% crop of the same image, again, with no processing, just converted to jpeg from RAW.


View attachment 68431


Hopefully this illustrates my issues with the 7dMk1 when cropping. The grain is very apparent and there is a softness to it. It may be operator error, it may be pixel peeping but I don't think it should be quite this bad at iso 400.

First time I've uploaded files directly to the forum, hopefully they don't infringe any rules.

It really doesn't help that image is some 2 stops underexposed. Shadows are the most noisy part and that's mainly what you have. It is like shooting at ISO1600.

But sure the the original 7D was never highly regarded for its SNR.

You didn't tell us what the other settings were and what lens you've used so it is difficult to comment on sharpness other than it is certainly OK, but not outstanding.

 

[HoppyUK]

Under-exposure promotes noise and cropping throws away sharpness.

 

[odd jim]

This is an image I took a couple of months ago, it's just a jpeg conversion of the RAW file I took at the time, no processing at all. This is ISO 400 on my 7dMk1.

View attachment 68429


And this is a 100% crop of the same image, again, with no processing, just converted to jpeg from RAW.


View attachment 68431


Hopefully this illustrates my issues with the 7dMk1 when cropping. The grain is very apparent and there is a softness to it. It may be operator error, it may be pixel peeping but I don't think it should be quite this bad at iso 400.

First time I've uploaded files directly to the forum, hopefully they don't infringe any rules.

I'm not surprised you're seeing noise here, its underexposed.

 

[Jelster]

I'm not surprised you're seeing noise here, its underexposed.

To be fair, that's part of the issue with the 7D, almost all my shots on the Mk1 need at least 2/3 stop +EV, Lightroom often pushes them up by over a whole stop...

 

[jerry12953]

This is a very interesting thread in a technical sense; I was shocked at how bad my 7d was when I started cropping the images. I can't imagine anything you do, Dale, will alter that. And as has been mentioned ETTR will reduce your usable shutter speed and that's not good when photographing wildlife.

In my experience a 5d3 can confidently be used at iso 1600 in any situation and the images can be cropped pretty drastically; image quality is still good. It puts the lack of reach argument into perspective.

But don't forget, photography is not about continually testing your equipment; you need to be able to rely on it to get the PHOTOGRAPHS you want. You may have to let your 7d go.

 

[LCPete]

I think Dale that you should get the lens that will enable to get the shots that you want without too much cropping as a starting point
this is more important than the body in my opinion
The 150 to 600 sigma zoom that the guys are recommending looks like a good idea
I use a 300 2.8 and use 1.4 and times 2 converters when I need more reach
I think that you should decide on the lens that you need first as well as practice using exposure compensation on your 7d mk1
Of course treat yourself to a new body maybe the mk2 7d or 80d but I think the the right lens is more important
There is nothing wrong with the mk1 7d I use mine up to ISO 800 on a regular basis and get noise free images

I have upgraded to the mk2 but still use my mk1 as a second body

 

[Byker28i]

It's very nearly an extra kilo, pretty significant as I do most of my stuff hand held.

Cheers, that's quite a lot. Do people with these use them with a monopod as with the big canon primes?

Last time I was on skomer and someone had just bought the 1dx and 600mm canon, with a monopod and was cursing the weight, and the fact he'd bought no other lens. I lent him one of mine for the puffins running around his feet, but he returned to the boat landing to take flying shots, as he said he'd had to stop three times on the way to the other side for a rest.

 

[Dale.]

Morning guys.

If I remember right, the image above was underexposed by 2/3rds of a stop. Enitirely operator error on that one as I had been taking photos of the lighthouse at Turnberry just a minute before and for those I was fighting a very bright sky. That's what prompted me to take the image above as the skies that way were dark and threatening and it was only a 90 degree swing to the left but I didn't change the settings as I knew it wasn't going to be a keeper anyway (says he 2 months after talking it). The settings I had on at the time were,Sigma 17-70 at 17mm, iso 400, f14 (seems to be the Sigma's sweet spot) and the negative exposure compensation I mentioned which gave me a shutter speed of 1/80 sec. I will admit, I sometimes do underexpose by upto a 3rd or even 2/3rds of a stop, which I now realise won't be helping.

Soooo, with that in mind, I am going to give my 7D another chance and get more into the habit of ETTR. I do intend to upgrade bodies in a while but if I can be sure of getting decent image quality from my copy, then the Mk2 should be even better. I am ordering a Sigma 10-20 f3.5 today, as one of the issues I had with my 7D (not it's fault) was that even with my 17-70, I struggled at times to get all I wanted in shot with landscapes. My widest lens after that is a 24-105L. I will be trading the 17-70 against the 10-20.

It goes against the grain of the thread a little buying a landscape lens but I'm a landscaper too. I'm also sure the 10-20 will see me well in the future as if I go FF, I will keep the 7dMk1. If I decide on the 7dMk2, then I will sell the Mk1, so I will always have a use for the 10-20, which won't work on FF.

Depending on how ETTR goes, it will give me my answer. If I'm still getting noise issues, then it will be FF, if it improves, I will be going for the 7dMk2. One thing I'm certain of though, is that FF is a leap up again in image quality compared to CS but I will have to consider all the trade offs when the time comes. The 150-600 will probably be purchased soon, as that will work on both CS and FF but for now, I need to get more familiar with ETTR.

 

[Dale.]

I use a 300 2.8 and use 1.4 and times 2 converters when I need more reach

Do you find your TCs affect image quality at all? I often use a Sigma 1.4xTC with my 300 and I have wondered if that too affects image quality.

 

[odd jim]

Cheers, that's quite a lot. Do people with these use them with a monopod as with the big canon primes?

Last time I was on skomer and someone had just bought the 1dx and 600mm canon, with a monopod and was cursing the weight, and the fact he'd bought no other lens. I lent him one of mine for the puffins running around his feet, but he returned to the boat landing to take flying shots, as he said he'd had to stop three times on the way to the other side for a rest.

I do it all handheld, the OS is very good. That said, at the F1 this weekend I will be bringing a monopod but only to ease the weight a bit as it'll be an all day affair.

 

[LCPete]

Do you find your TCs affect image quality at all? I often use a Sigma 1.4xTC with my 300 and I have wondered if that too affects image quality.

Hi its hard to see any difference between shots taken with my canon 300 2.8 with and without the 1.4 converter it's amazing
With the 2 times converter there is a slight loss of sharpness but still excellent
The problem that I have with using the 2 times converter is holding the camera steady enough to get sharp shots but that's operator error
I have only used them with the F 2.8 lens tho I haven't tried them with slower lenses

 

[Dale.]

at the F1 this weekend

I'm not jealous, at all, much.

 

[HoppyUK]

Morning guys.

If I remember right, the image above was underexposed by 2/3rds of a stop. Enitirely operator error on that one as I had been taking photos of the lighthouse at Turnberry just a minute before and for those I was fighting a very bright sky. That's what prompted me to take the image above as the skies that way were dark and threatening and it was only a 90 degree swing to the left but I didn't change the settings as I knew it wasn't going to be a keeper anyway (says he 2 months after talking it). The settings I had on at the time were,Sigma 17-70 at 17mm, iso 400, f14 (seems to be the Sigma's sweet spot) and the negative exposure compensation I mentioned which gave me a shutter speed of 1/80 sec. I will admit, I sometimes do underexpose by upto a 3rd or even 2/3rds of a stop, which I now realise won't be helping.

<snip>

Under-exposure and f/14! :thumbsdown:

F/14 is not the sweet spot for sharpness on any lens. Diffraction will be severe, causing loss of sharpness. On a cropper, don't go higher than f/8, on full-frame no higher than f/11 for best sharpness

You need to make sure you're getting every drop of image quality out of the 7D before jumping ship and with long lens work there is no room for anything less than best technique.

 

[Dale.]

Under-exposure and f/14! (n)

F/14 is not the sweet spot for sharpness on any lens. Diffraction will be severe, causing loss of sharpness. On a cropper, don't go higher than f/8, on full-frame no higher than f/11 for best sharpness

You need to make sure you're getting every drop of image quality out of the 7D before jumping ship and with long lens work there is no room for anything less than best technique.

With hindsight, I agree with all that.

 

[Dale.]

A few things I've learned from this thread and how my current outlook stands.

1, I've not been nailing the exposure with my Mk1 as I should have been. This is probably the biggest factor in my love/hate relationship with it. My 40D is much more forgiving in that respect and I may have got lazy or gottten into bad habits.

2, FF, whilst having better image quality all round than a CS camera may not be the way forward for me at this point. A lot of CS cameras are still capable of excellent image quality.

3, I think a 7DMk2 is probably my way forward when it comes to bodies but I think that it's more about lenses at the moment. I have already ordered a Sigma 10-20 f3.5 to help with WA imagery, which was one thing I found challenging with a 17-70 Sigma and a 24-105 L. So now I will have 16mm equivalent.

4, I will also be looking into the Sigma 150-600, probably the C as it seems it's almost as sharp as the Sport but with less weight, which is handy when hiking between hides. I will be keeping my 300 f4L though.

5, Every day is a school day when it comes to photography.

6, I will pull back on aperture settings and use f11 as my cut off point from now on.

7, I need to expose to the right more with my 7DMk1.

8, A cropped image off a FF camera is not necessarily going to give me a better image than a nailed image off a CS.


I also have a Fuji mirrorless sytsem and that is very forgiving. I had considered switching altogether as the images are much cleaner, even straight off the camera and require less processing, sometimes none. The Fuji 100-400 is very appealing but I don't think mirrorless is quite there yet. It's great for portraits and landscapes but when stuff starts to move, it can't quite deliver in the same way as a DSLR. Here is a file off my Fuji though, which is more or less straight off the camera apart from about a 50% crop and was shot in jpeg. Fuji jegs are very versatile. This is my Daughter and I caught her in a moment of concentration yesterday with the Fuji and the Fuji 18-135 XF.

Taken in quite dull light, iso 800, f4, 200/sec, no compensation.



Edit it has been softened a little by the upload, it's tack sharp originally.

 

[jerry12953]

Dale,

Having myself been in exactly the situation you describe with your 7d Mk 1, I have to say that in my opinion some of your conclusions are wide of the mark.

But it 's up to you!

 

[Dale.]

Dale,

Having myself been in exactly the situation you describe with your 7d Mk 1, I have to say that in my opinion some of your conclusions are wide of the mark.

But it 's up to you!

Please feel free to show me where, I'm open to constructive comments if it helps me to improve. It will all be considered.

 

[jerry12953]

Please feel free to show me where, I'm open to constructive comments if it helps me to improve. It will all be considered.

I just don't agree that persevering with the 7d Mk 1 would be in your best interests, or that the 7d Mk 2 would be a worthwhile upgrade (though i don't have any personal experience of this). It is only my opinion, but I've been exactly there myself with the 7d and using a long lens on a 5d3 was such an improvement. I'm not saying that the 5d3 is ideal for wildlife but coupled with the Sigma 150-600 that you say you're considering it would be big step upwards from your current set up. (I moved to the Tamron 150 - 600, by the way). 600 mm is a 12x magnification factor which would have been almost unheard of just a few years ago (unless you were made of money). you can crop in from there with a full frame body.

Well, I 've had my say now. It's over to you.......

 

[Dale.]

I just don't agree that persevering with the 7d Mk 1 would be in your best interests, or that the 7d Mk 2 would be a worthwhile upgrade (though i don't have any personal experience of this). It is only my opinion, but I've been exactly there myself with the 7d and using a long lens on a 5d3 was such an improvement. I'm not saying that the 5d3 is ideal for wildlife but coupled with the Sigma 150-600 that you say you're considering it would be big step upwards from your current set up. (I moved to the Tamron 150 - 600, by the way). 600 mm is a 12x magnification factor which would have been almost unheard of just a few years ago (unless you were made of money). you can crop in from there with a full frame body.

Well, I 've had my say now. It's over to you.......

All noted and appreciated, thank you. It brings me back to my original dilemma, which is fine as making the right decision here is what it's about. I am happy to reconsider my conclusions. One major drawback of the 5Diii is of course the price, currently over £2k and that's a big consideration for me. That said, you get what you pay for.

I will persevere with my 7dMk1 for now, just to prove to myself if I can get better image quality from it than I have been and maybe learn something along the way, with a view to upgrading in the near future. I understand that image quality, ie, 7d at it's best, might not be 5diii territory though. As it stood, the 7dMk2 was in the running but I am happy to amend that in order to make the right choice. Persevering with the Mk1 for now and improving my operation of it might help me better understand what it and the Mk2 are capable of. Then I can make my final decision on CS or FF.

At the moment though, lenses are my priority, as the 150-600 will work on either a 7d (1 or 2) and the 5diii, so I can buy that lens soon and then make a body choice at a later date. If I go for a 5d, I would be keeping my Mk1 as a second body and the 10-20 that's about to arrive will be compatible with that.

 

[Gaz J]

I'm with Jerry here. You've got a 300mm f4 which is a cracking lens and even with a 1.4 gives excellent results. Its got the reach. If you're trying to overcome the 7D Mk1 limitations by getting longer lenses to reduce cropping it might not work out as well as you hoped. Long lenses need good technique, faster shutter speeds (increased ISO). Its not just a case of "I'll get one of those and that will solve my problems" I know from my own experience that having a big heavy lens doesn't guarantee good results.

But its your money and your decision but I wonder, now that you're obviously not happy with the 7D. whether any results from the camera will be good enough.

 

[Dale.]

now that you're obviously not happy with the 7D. whether any results from the camera will be good enough.

You're probably right about that but I will give it another go. I've got it down to 2 options, a 7dMk2 or switch to FF, neither has been ruled out. I appreciate the sentiments and comments here very much, they've all helped and provoked thought, but to a point, there seem to be 2 camps on which is best. So, I will suck it and see with the Mk1 for the (possibly very) short term before deciding. Either way, I think I will need the 150-600 but even that decision isn't fully made. No huge amount of money has been spent yet, apart from the 10-20, which is a lens I've wanted for a while and would serve either 7d well.

To sum up, the jury is still out, even if for a while I was leaning towards CS.

 

[MadWoman]

If it is any help, I upgraded my 7D to a 7D2, then added a 5D3. The 5D3 is my go to camera for portraits, flowers etc, but for wildlife I almost invariably pick up the 7D2. With a 100-400 Mk2 and a 1.4x Mk3 it is light, versatile and very good quality. I use that combination more than my 500 f/4 now.

My 7D used to almost permanently be on +2/3 EC, my 7D2 tends to be either 0 or +1/3.

 

[Dale.]

I just don't agree that persevering with the 7d Mk 1 would be in your best interests, or that the 7d Mk 2 would be a worthwhile upgrade (though i don't have any personal experience of this). It is only my opinion, but I've been exactly there myself with the 7d and using a long lens on a 5d3 was such an improvement. I'm not saying that the 5d3 is ideal for wildlife but coupled with the Sigma 150-600 that you say you're considering it would be big step upwards from your current set up. (I moved to the Tamron 150 - 600, by the way). 600 mm is a 12x magnification factor which would have been almost unheard of just a few years ago (unless you were made of money). you can crop in from there with a full frame body.

Well, I 've had my say now. It's over to you.......

Jerry, could you post a 100% crop of an image off the 5d please?

If it is any help, I upgraded my 7D to a 7D2, then added a 5D3. The 5D3 is my go to camera for portraits, flowers etc, but for wildlife I almost invariably pick up the 7D2. With a 100-400 Mk2 and a 1.4x Mk3 it is light, versatile and very good quality. I use that combination more than my 500 f/4 now.

My 7D used to almost permanently be on +2/3 EC, my 7D2 tends to be either 0 or +1/3.

Thanks.

 

[Dale.]

Decided to rule out the 6D, I don't think it's quite there for wildlife. Landscapes yes but wildlife, no.

 

[odd jim]

Decided to rule out the 6D, I don't think it's quite there for wildlife. Landscapes yes but wildlife, no.

Must admit, I've got some pretty good results with wildlife shots with my 6d, more so than the 50/70d!

 

[jerry12953]

Jerry, could you post a 100% crop of an image off the 5d please?



Thanks.

Give me a while and i'll get on to it.........

 

[Dale.]

Must admit, I've got some pretty good results with wildlife shots with my 6d, more so than the 50/70d!

I have little (no) doubt that the 6D is capable of stunning images and also has better (if that's the right word) image quality than a crop sensor but I am wondering about the fps rate and the focusing system with only 1 cross type AF point. It's still a cracking camera and great VFM, especially for landscapes. If I weren't into wildlife, this would all be too easy.

I'm sticking to my guns for now and will try to improve my technique with my Mk1 and try to get the best out of it. One thing that has become apparent is that I have not been using as it needs to be used, especially when it comes to exposure.

I'm in no rush, I have to get this right. By the time I decide, the 5dMkiii might well be down in price with the introduction of the Mk IV . Then I'll want a Mk IV.

When crunch time comes, it will be between 7dMk2 and 5diii.

I may head to Glencoe early hours tomorrow, it's suppossed to be potentially dramatic lighting with a very light breeze, great for reflections. I'm hoping to give my new 10-20 f3.5 a run out this weekend.