Considering changing from Canon to Sony or Olympus.

Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I know plenty of people have done this already.
I am also aware of the differences between my Canon DSLR's and mirrorless systems,, technically.

What I am keen to know is what are the differences using one in the real word. ie what will I miss or gain. How much is there to adapt to in using mirrorless (I know about the view finder etc)
Currently I have a 7D mk 2 and a 5D mk 3. I only use the 5D now, I've taken the 7D out once in the last 12 months.
I love the quality from the 5D - high ISO is no issue, and 6fps is OK but I'd like more (ie 10 or even 20) I love the 5D, it's a brilliant camera and the image quality from my lenses (esp 70-200 2.8L) is stunning. I have pictures printed at A3 taken at 12,800 iso that have taken first place in competitions.

I like taking nature, people and sport pictures, hence me looking to a higher frame rate and better auto focus system.

I'm not fully convinced I want to swap over, I guess the investment in the glass is a factor. I know I can buy an adaptor and carry on using my Canon lenses. But is that worth it? Surely if weight is an issue then you'd go with the mirrorless system lenses. Also I looked at the price of some of the Sony lenses and they seemed more than the Canon L series equivalents (24-105mm) This will only increase the cost of switching, another reason I am hesitant.

Last year I sold my Canon 500mm L prime lens and got the 100-400mm lens instead. I miss the 500mm but it was too heavy. My plan was to use the 400mm zoom on the 7D to give me the same kind of reach, but TBH the 7D just can't compete with the 5D quality wise, especially when you push the ISO in order to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze any action (which is why it is just sitting in the box.) I do get a lot more use out of the 100-400mm lens so it has worked out quite well. I just sold a 17-40mm L lens, the aim was to sell the 7D mk2 as well and get a sigma lens to give me the reach I want, ie 60-600mm.

But this is where I am now stuck. Do I buy a Sigma mega zoom and stick with the Canon system, or do I go mirrorless and get the Sony 600mm zoom.

My current set up
Bodies - 7D Mk 2 and 5D MK 3
Lenses
100-400mm MK 2 L IS - 70-200mm F2.8 L - 24-105mm IS L. - Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro - Tamron 90mm F2.8 SP DI Macro
Other
Metz 58 AF Flashgun. Various remote triggers.



I'm all confused as to what to do.
My wife has said I'm OK to go ahead and sell the Canon gear and switch. She recently had a Jessops day out at the track using the Olympus system and is convinced mirrorless is the way to go, but I'm getting some cracking images from my 5D.

HELP PLEASE.
 
Messages
4,497
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
For me ML bodies look to be too small and there's little in terms of weight if I continue to use my EF lenses, have you tried a body to see if it works for you?
 

West Camera

Can I be Frank?
Messages
166
Name
frank west
Edit My Images
No
#3
But this is where I am now stuck. Do I buy a Sigma mega zoom and stick with the Canon system, or do I go mirrorless and get the Sony 600mm zoom.
Your header asks about Sony and Olympus, but this quote from the body of the thread indicates you are only comparing the Canon and Sony. What happened to Olympus?
I'm all confused as to what to do.
Yes you do seem that - all confused. You can't make a level headed decision when '..all confused...'.

So, seems to me first you need to know exactly why you want to switch. My sense of you is that you really don't want to. You are very happy with the 5D. Nothing wrong with that. Good shooting.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
Your header asks about Sony and Olympus, but this quote from the body of the thread indicates you are only comparing the Canon and Sony. What happened to Olympus?
I've not tried the Olympus system out, but my wife has and really loved it, plus there are numerous members of our camera club that use it. So my first decision is do I go mirrorless. If so then I would try out the ones on the market, and pick the one I like best.

I really like the being able to see the actual image as you take it, unlike with a DSLR. My first digital cameras were the Nikon coolpix range with the swivel body. My wife was really disappointed with the way some of her sunsets came out on her dslr on holiday last week. I had a play with a Sony A9 outside a camera shop and thought the focusing was amazing, the way it tracked people around.

I am hoping to do a safari next year and want the reach of a 600mm lens, preferably in a zoom. I want the best quality images I can get. I had a sigma 150-500mm lens many years ago and was disappointed with it, but the new lenses (60-600mm) are getting good reviews, especially at the 600mm end. The 5D mk3 is old tech now and the sensor in the Sony cameras is getting good marks, so I'm tending to lean towards that with the Sony 200-600mm zoom. If I decide I prefer the Sony to my 5D, at that point I'll look and see if any of the other systems beat the Sony (Olympus, Fuji etc)
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
For me ML bodies look to be too small and there's little in terms of weight if I continue to use my EF lenses, have you tried a body to see if it works for you?
I tried a Sony A9 out and didn't find it as comfortable to hold as my 5D. I'm 6ft and have sausage fingers ;-) but TBH it wasn't that bad. It is noticeably smaller though and would take some getting used to. The problem is I am comparing a camera I am used to and know where all the buttons are to something strange I've never held before so it's going to feel a little awkward at first I guess.

At the moment the 100-400mm lens is the biggest lens I have although I want a 600mm zoom. I use a sling type strap over the shoulder rather than on my neck and can carry the 5D + 400mm zoom around all day with no concerns.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I'm thinking best image quality especially at 600mm range, best auto focus system for tracking moving animals (birds in flight) cars and bikes, along with higher frame rate are what I would like.

I moved from a 6D to an older model 5D mk3 mainly to get the frame rate from 3 to 6 fps. 6 is OK, but 10 or 20 would be even better. I took some pictures recently of ospreys fishing and there were several shots I got where the birds wings obscured the eyes. You're thinking all the time that if I had a higher frame rate I would have got one where the wing had moved out of the way a bit and I'd have got the birds eye in the shot.

Whichever system I think I'll stick with full frame as they tend to be better with noise.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Shot at 12.800 iso 1/3200 sec
IMG_2304.jpg

I have the autofocus working well and the 5D rarely fails.

But the tech is 7 years old and technology keeps improving. Newer camera, better sensor, better autofocus system. I'm tempted.
 
Messages
1,301
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
a9 with grip and the new 200/600 would seem to be the way to go, I think that will be my next setup next month, Not to replace my Olympus but to run along side it .
Rob.
 
Messages
21,387
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#9
I am hoping to do a safari next year and want the reach of a 600mm lens, preferably in a zoom. I want the best quality images I can get.
One thing I realised years ago was that although I do like to pixel peep lovely files my pictures aren't going to be printed 2m wide and viewed with a magnifying glass on a gallery wall and my expectations should therefore be geared towards more real world needs. In the real world I mostly look at pictures on my pc and other people mostly look at them on phones and tablets. I do sometimes print but to a max of A3 and although I often take pictures intending to crop them later I do so realising the limitations and accept that a 100% crop whilst looking nice on my pc screen or even in an A4 print wont be good enough for that 2m wide gallery print.

I think you should have a think about the image quality you want and how your pictures are going to be looked at, on screen or in print, and what implications these things have for picture quality and the gear you choose and use. On the other hand even if you never print and only look at whole pictures on screen but love to pixel peep lovely files at 100% that's fine too and you can build that into your decision making process.

This may seem like I'm having a pop at Canon but I'm not as I owned the things (Canon DSLRs) for over 10 years but they're not the cutting edge these days and if you're happy with Canon quality maybe could you learn to be happy with MFT or APS-C quality? You'll have to think about that. I have a couple of later Panasonic MFT cameras and the image quality is very good, not as good as my Sony A7 but still very good.

All things to think about :D
 
Messages
14,872
Edit My Images
No
#10
For wildlife and sport I've swapped from the D850 with 150-600mm and 70-200mm f2.8 to the Olympus EM1 Mark II with 40-150mm (80-300mm eq) f2.8 and Panny 100-400mm (200-800mm eq), and for this past weekend at the Moto GP borrowed the Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm eq).

In terms of autofocus the EM1-II is more than capable and right up there with some of the best DSLRs, only when the light is really bad does it start to struggle a touch. In terms of sharpness I can't tell any discernible difference at 'normal' viewing sizes. The area where you do see a difference is in 'pop' due to the lack of shallow DOF with m4/3 (relatively speaking). This isn't an issue for panning sports shots obviously, but if you want that pop that you get from the 70-200mm f2.8 or 600mm f4 on FF you're not going to get it. Likewise for the 'portrait' type shots you're not going to replicate that 'look' you get from an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 on FF.

I'm really happy with the m4/3 though, having a 500g body and 900g 200-800mm eq FOV lens rather than a 1kg body and 2kg 150-600mm is a godsend. For me the weight saving more than outweighs the lack of shallow DOF. I could never afford, nor would I be willing carry a 600mm f4 lens anyway. The Olympus 300mm f4 (which gives you the look of a 600mm f8 lens on FF) is real quality and 'only' weighs 1.2kg.

Here's some of my recent efforts with the EM1-II and various tele lenses. Not the best images you'll see, but I'm no expert ;) Generally they look better viewed on Flickr.

1. 40-150mm f2.8

P6302247-Edit-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

2. 100-400mm shot through fencing

P7073523-Edit-2
by TDG-77, on Flickr

3.100-400mm shot through glass

P7145007-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

4. 100-400mm shot through fencing

P7145550-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

5. 40-1500mm f2.8 shot through fencing

Marc Marquez
by TDG-77, on Flickr

6. 100-400mm

P8248445-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

7. 40-150mm f2.8 shot through fencing

P8246817-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

8. 300mm f4

P8248996-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Messages
8,036
Edit My Images
No
#11
For wildlife and sport I've swapped from the D850 with 150-600mm and 70-200mm f2.8 to the Olympus EM1 Mark II with 40-150mm (80-300mm eq) f2.8 and Panny 100-400mm (200-800mm eq), and for this past weekend at the Moto GP borrowed the Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm eq).

In terms of autofocus the EM1-II is more than capable and right up there with some of the best DSLRs, only when the light is really bad does it start to struggle a touch. In terms of sharpness I can't tell any discernible difference at 'normal' viewing sizes. The area where you do see a difference is in 'pop' due to the lack of shallow DOF with m4/3 (relatively speaking). This isn't an issue for panning sports shots obviously, but if you want that pop that you get from the 70-200mm f2.8 or 600mm f4 on FF you're not going to get it. Likewise for the 'portrait' type shots you're not going to replicate that 'look' you get from an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 on FF.

I'm really happy with the m4/3 though, having a 500g body and 900g 200-800mm eq FOV lens rather than a 1kg body and 2kg 150-600mm is a godsend. For me the weight saving more than outweighs the lack of shallow DOF. I could never afford, nor would I be willing carry a 600mm f4 lens anyway. The Olympus 300mm f4 (which gives you the look of a 600mm f8 lens on FF) is real quality and 'only' weighs 1.2kg.

Here's some of my recent efforts with the EM1-II and various tele lenses. Not the best images you'll see, but I'm no expert ;) Generally they look better viewed on Flickr.

1. 40-150mm f2.8

P6302247-Edit-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

2. 100-400mm shot through fencing

P7073523-Edit-2
by TDG-77, on Flickr

3.100-400mm shot through glass

P7145007-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

4. 100-400mm shot through fencing

P7145550-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

5. 40-1500mm f2.8 shot through fencing

Marc Marquez
by TDG-77, on Flickr

6. 100-400mm

P8248445-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

7. 40-150mm f2.8 shot through fencing

P8246817-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr

8. 300mm f4

P8248996-Edit
by TDG-77, on Flickr
As @snerkler shows the Olympus mFT system is more than capable across s range of Photographic genre. But if you want further info in regard to it's usage in wildlife have a look at Petr Bambousek www.sulasula.com he is a full time professional in that field.
 
Messages
14,872
Edit My Images
No
#12
As @snerkler shows the Olympus mFT system is more than capable across s range of Photographic genre. But if you want further info in regard to it's usage in wildlife have a look at Petr Bambousek www.sulasula.com he is a full time professional in that field.
Yeah his work is stunning to say the least, I'd love to pick his brains as to how to get shots like this. Not just the shot but the final image. My shots are more 'realistic' though in that any old numpty can get them ;) :LOL:
 
Messages
8,036
Edit My Images
No
#13
Yeah his work is stunning to say the least, I'd love to pick his brains as to how to get shots like this. Not just the shot but the final image. My shots are more 'realistic' though in that any old numpty can get them ;) :LOL:
Well, he is present on DPReview and does engage with other members there.......I think I will suggest he looks in here especially as we have a nice cohort of Olympus (and Panny ) mFT users here :)
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
I think you should have a think about the image quality you want and how your pictures are going to be looked at, on screen or in print, and what implications these things have for picture quality and the gear you choose and use. On the other hand even if you never print and only look at whole pictures on screen but love to pixel peep lovely files at 100% that's fine too and you can build that into your decision making process.
I'm in a camera club. I print at A3 size for print competitions. Judges do make comments about quality of print and about noise on occasions.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
Then you'll have to decide if what other people think matters to you.
If I'm spending money on top of what I get for my Canon stuff, I'd expect with the evolution in tech over the past 7 years to see a benefit, or I might just as well get the Sigma 60-600mm and stick with the 5D. I'm about 80% decided to make the move but it's a lot of money if I'm not 100% certain it's right for me
 
Messages
8,036
Edit My Images
No
#18
I'm in a camera club. I print at A3 size for print competitions. Judges do make comments about quality of print and about noise on occasions.
FWIW yes, my Olympus E-M1 MK2 had noise compared to my Canon 5D3..........but one key factor in my decision to sell almost all of my Canon kit (I still have the 5D3 and the 24-105mm f4 zoom.... though has not been used since I got the Olympus) was how well a different software handled it.

This is DxO Photolab 2, its Prime noise reduction was for me a revelation. I can only suggest you download some of the publically available raw files and also a trial of PL2 and see what you make of it as a whole package approach.

What got me on the road to mFT was the weight of my Canon gear I was lugging around......there are many Oly users who made the switch based on that motivation :)
 
Messages
2,266
Edit My Images
No
#20
Have a look at the thread about going back to a DSLR after mirrorless too. I am also not convinced that people new to photography should go low spec on their first camera, especially if they learn quickly.
 
Messages
14,872
Edit My Images
No
#21
Well, he is present on DPReview and does engage with other members there.......I think I will suggest he looks in here especially as we have a nice cohort of Olympus (and Panny ) mFT users here :)
Yeah I saw his review of the 2x Olympus TC, but I really hate the DPR forums, they just look cluttered and are often hard to follow.
Maybe check out the Olympus WOW offer of loan kit to see how you get on?

https://wow.olympus.eu/

Plus, they have nice offers in their own webshop ;)
https://shop.olympus.eu/en_GB/cameras/om-d
@Dave_Taylor absolutely this, try out the EM1-II 40-150mm f2.8 and 300mm f4 and see what you think before buying. The Olympus will seem alien compared to what you're used to but once it's set up it's superb, everything is at your fingertips and you can customise pretty much everything.

In terms of noise it won't be able to compete with the 5D3, however based on this it's comparable to the 5D (couldn't go above ISO 3200 on this comparison due to the 5D's ISO settings)
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1273693298797901&y=-0.9861072664359862
 
Messages
14,872
Edit My Images
No
#23
Had a play with a Sony A7iii today. Quite impressed.
If I change I will definitely stick with the full frame option.
Any reason why you wouldn’t stick with Canon, ie the EOS R rather than change to Sony?
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
Any reason why you wouldn’t stick with Canon, ie the EOS R rather than change to Sony?
Not really looked into any in depth, but just had a look at the specs and 5fps with servo tracking seems a little slow. My 5D mk 3 manages 6 in servo.
It does look quite impressive though apart from that.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
The main reason I am considering switching is I am into wildlife and want to buy a 600mm lens. I have the cash to be able to buy a new Canon 600mm F4 L prime lens, but the divorce that would follow would be much more expensive so that's out of the question.

This has left me looking at various Sigma options on my 5D mk 3. This would probably end up as either the 150-600mm sports lens or the 60-600mm lens which is supposed to be very sharp at the 600mm end anyway.

When looking at alternatives I came across the Sony 200-600mm lens. I am considering this, coupled to a A7iii to be my best option for wildlife/bird photography.

Had a look at some other makes today, but all had crop sensors. Crop sensors tend to suffer more when you push the ISO up. Given I need to be able to shoot at high shutter speeds to freeze the action at times I think I've ruled out going back to a crop sensor. I never use my 7D mk 2 these days at all.

I may sell my 100-400mm Canon lens to part fund the 200-600mm Sony one as my current lenses will give me 24-105, 70-200, then 200-600 on the Sony.

I've just listed the bodies for sale - I'll see what response I get.

Thank you everyone that chipped in with their thoughts.
 

West Camera

Can I be Frank?
Messages
166
Name
frank west
Edit My Images
No
#26
Maybe I am being bit naive. But it seems to me no one here can make the decisions for you that you need. So, I have a suggestion that maybe of a bygone era when there were many camera shops and all developed many services for photographers. Why not rent each mirrorless camera and a good kit lens for a weekend each, and work with it. This could take several weekends to accomplish since you want to take enough time with each camera to get a real feel for it. That way your own experience with the various kits available will tell you far more than anyone here can help you with. Good luck.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
Good idea. The next event when I MUST have a camera for is October, so if I manage to sell my kit in the coming weeks it will leave me time to have a play. Jessops were great today - I tried several out and the guy was in no rush to get rid of me, even knowing I wasn't buying today. Really good service.
 
Messages
1,848
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
#29
I'm in a camera club. I print at A3 size for print competitions. Judges do make comments about quality of print and about noise on occasions.
I’ve used m4/3 for over 10 years. I’ve also won numerous print and dpi competitions at my local camera club using my m4/3 equipment. In my experience, if the photographer has done their job properly, then print quality and noise shouldn’t be an issue.

Simon.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
I’ve used m4/3 for over 10 years. I’ve also won numerous print and dpi competitions at my local camera club using my m4/3 equipment. In my experience, if the photographer has done their job properly, then print quality and noise shouldn’t be an issue.
I recently shot some ospreys fishing. The session inside the hide ran for 4 hours, from 4.30am and finished at 8.30am. The bird showed up at 5.15am to fish. In order to freeze the action and get a sharp picture I had to increase the shutter speed, (I think to around 1/2000 sec may have been a little higher) The only way I could achieve this was to push the ISO up to 12,800. On the mk 3 the images were fine, I never did any post editing for noise reduction. I doubt there is a crop sensor camera that could match that, but I am no expert. But this is why I feel more confident in sticking with full frame.

If you can suggest a crop sensor camera that can shoot at high iso with very little noise, at least as good as my mk3 (I don't want to go backwards in terms of quality of image) I would gladly give it a try as the extra reach would be an advantage for wildlife.
 
Messages
1,848
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
#32
I recently shot some ospreys fishing. The session inside the hide ran for 4 hours, from 4.30am and finished at 8.30am. The bird showed up at 5.15am to fish. In order to freeze the action and get a sharp picture I had to increase the shutter speed, (I think to around 1/2000 sec may have been a little higher) The only way I could achieve this was to push the ISO up to 12,800. On the mk 3 the images were fine, I never did any post editing for noise reduction. I doubt there is a crop sensor camera that could match that, but I am no expert. But this is why I feel more confident in sticking with full frame.

If you can suggest a crop sensor camera that can shoot at high iso with very little noise, at least as good as my mk3 (I don't want to go backwards in terms of quality of image) I would gladly give it a try as the extra reach would be an advantage for wildlife.
When you're getting up to extreme ISO levels like you mention above, then no crop sensor camera is going to compete against a full frame one, and M4/3 most certainly won't. I hadn't realised that you were needing to shoot at ISO as high as that when I replied - my apologies for that. If that's how you need to shoot, then it is absolutely pointless considering anything other than a full frame camera in my opinion.

Simon.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
When you're getting up to extreme ISO levels like you mention above, then no crop sensor camera is going to compete against a full frame one, and M4/3 most certainly won't. I hadn't realised that you were needing to shoot at ISO as high as that when I replied - my apologies for that. If that's how you need to shoot, then it is absolutely pointless considering anything other than a full frame camera in my opinion.

Simon.
It's no problem at all - I prefer NOT to shoot at such high ISO, but on this occasion I had NO choice. Full frame got the the shots I'm convinced I wouldn't have got with a crop sensor. I just thought for a second with new technology etc you were aware of something that could rival this.

Lower ISO produces better images and I prefer this. But sometimes needs must.
 
Messages
21,387
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#34
I recently shot some ospreys fishing. The session inside the hide ran for 4 hours, from 4.30am and finished at 8.30am. The bird showed up at 5.15am to fish. In order to freeze the action and get a sharp picture I had to increase the shutter speed, (I think to around 1/2000 sec may have been a little higher) The only way I could achieve this was to push the ISO up to 12,800. On the mk 3 the images were fine, I never did any post editing for noise reduction. I doubt there is a crop sensor camera that could match that, but I am no expert. But this is why I feel more confident in sticking with full frame.

If you can suggest a crop sensor camera that can shoot at high iso with very little noise, at least as good as my mk3 (I don't want to go backwards in terms of quality of image) I would gladly give it a try as the extra reach would be an advantage for wildlife.
If you're not doing any noise reduction on ISO 12,800 pictures from a Canon I suspect you're not looking too closely. Canon aren't at the cutting edge these days and you have an older camera. It may still be competitive against the newer smaller format cameras or it may not. One way for you to assess this would be to process some pictures from smaller format cameras and see if you're happy with the results or not.

Maybe you could hunt around the net and find some higher ISO wildlife / BIF raws to download and process or maybe someone here would agree to send you some? That seems a reasonable way forward to me. If you can find something that meets your noise and wider image quality requirements you can look at lens availability, focus performance, prices and all the rest.

Good luck choosing.
 
OP
OP
Dave_Taylor
Messages
690
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#35
There is some noise, but not a lot. It's only really visible on the smooth bits of the water in the background.
All I do with my images is crop, tweek levels where needed and a touch of sharpening. takes me usually 30 seconds. I'm not that proficient with editing images.
Also I have not searched for software to deal with noise, my experience from many years ago before going full frame was that is softened the images.

Is there any free software I should be looking at for noise reduction? (or post editing.) I only have photoshop.
 
Messages
14,872
Edit My Images
No
#36
I recently shot some ospreys fishing. The session inside the hide ran for 4 hours, from 4.30am and finished at 8.30am. The bird showed up at 5.15am to fish. In order to freeze the action and get a sharp picture I had to increase the shutter speed, (I think to around 1/2000 sec may have been a little higher) The only way I could achieve this was to push the ISO up to 12,800. On the mk 3 the images were fine, I never did any post editing for noise reduction. I doubt there is a crop sensor camera that could match that, but I am no expert. But this is why I feel more confident in sticking with full frame.

If you can suggest a crop sensor camera that can shoot at high iso with very little noise, at least as good as my mk3 (I don't want to go backwards in terms of quality of image) I would gladly give it a try as the extra reach would be an advantage for wildlife.
The only crop camera that I think would be comparable to the 5D3 at 12800 is the D500.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1273693298797901&y=-0.9861072664359862
 
Messages
81
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
Seems like a lot of trouble just to end up with a f6.3 lens to me. You will just be increasing the need for higher ISO's.
 
Messages
1,301
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
#38
There is some noise, but not a lot. It's only really visible on the smooth bits of the water in the background.
All I do with my images is crop, tweek levels where needed and a touch of sharpening. takes me usually 30 seconds. I'm not that proficient with editing images.
Also I have not searched for software to deal with noise, my experience from many years ago before going full frame was that is softened the images.

Is there any free software I should be looking at for noise reduction? (or post editing.) I only have photoshop.
I would highly recommend Topaz Denoise it has a feature called AI clear and you work between the 2 to see whats best .it takes a few hours to get you head round whats best but it is quiet amazing how it gets rid of noise and can sharpen the main subject at the same time you can get a 30day free trial .
Rob.
 
Messages
13,324
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#40
The only crop camera that I think would be comparable to the 5D3 at 12800 is the D500.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1273693298797901&y=-0.9861072664359862
I had a play with that just to see how the Fuji X-H1 stacks up against the D500, and there's nothing in it. In fact depending on where you move to on the test image the H1 sometimes looks better in terms of contrast, sharpness and finer detail. The noise seems about even for both, just slightly different pattern. I wouldn't have suggested Fuji in this case as for wildlife options are very limited without going the adapter route, but interesting for me all the same. Both look better than the 5DIII which surprised me more so - the Canon has much more colour shift going on in the noise from 3200 onward

I threw in the Z6 here at 6400 [the most I personally like to go] just to have something strong in there for comparison: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.12483554672955192&y=-0.8579501295336788

I think you'd have to agree the Fuji is the closest to the Z6, with the 5DIII looking poorest
 
Last edited:
Top