major spanner in the works!!!

stumac

stumac

Messages
3,369
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
At present I have a Canon 40d and Im wanting to upgrade it. I do wildlife,sports and alot of landscape photography and was toying between the 7d and the 5d mark2. I know they are different beasts altogether but both fall into the catergory that I like to photograph in a ideal world i'd have both. I had started a previous thread with regards to the 5d and i thought all my questions were answered and I would be doing some hard saving, may i add at this point i mainly would do landscape and may i also add i dont have much money to splash out on cameras. Upon reading a very well known and respected photography mag it stated in a landscape topic that the 7d was a fantastic semi pro camera for landscapes. Until i read this i had scrapped the idea of a 7d as it wasnt full framed but loved the fact of its high speed performance for my sports photography. Why would the mag be saying this? the 7d was in their top 6 choices of ANY camera whether full framed or cropped for landscapes. Hope some-one can help me decide and do you agree with the mag?
 
do you NEED to upgrade? or is it just a want?
because if you can take half-decent images now, then maybe just use the money to get some new glass :)
 
my main issue is when cropping.i dont have great software for stitching so i was really wanting more MP.i want to print some 16inch x6inch prints in the future to hopfully sell.when i crop with the 40d im just not happy with the results.my way of thinking is if im going to save over a grand for a 7d and the 5d is much better id rather hang out for a bit longer and get the 5d(of course to get the 5d may have its issues with focus speed for the motorsport,so im told anyway)im happy with my glass,ive a a 17-40l for landscapes and a 100-400 for sports etc
 
Well, to be honest, any camera can do landscape. If you browse the Calumet photo archives/photo of the week, you will find loads of fantastic landscapes taken with Canon 400D's, Nikon D60's etc. But from my own experience, I was shooting Race For Life this year with my 5D mkII and the AF was everywhere. It was okay taking shots of single runners, but group runners really confused the AF. I wanted to lock focus and track one runner but the AF kept going to the runner next to her and slightly behind. I've not had that problem with the AF on the 7D. So for me, I can do some PP on landscapes to optimise it's appeal. But if I mess up focus on a moving subject, no amount of sharpening in PP will bring that back.
 
im happy with my uncropped landscapes,its the cropped panos thats an issue,i use ps3 for stitching and hate the results,it lines the images up ok but leaves black marks where they join.im under the impression with a higher mp camera its just a matter of taking the pic(a bit wider than desired)crop it to whatever pano size and hay presto
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Well, to be honest, any camera can do landscape. If you browse the Calumet photo archives/photo of the week, you will find loads of fantastic landscapes taken with Canon 400D's, Nikon D60's etc. But from my own experience, I was shooting Race For Life this year with my 5D mkII and the AF was everywhere. It was okay taking shots of single runners, but group runners really confused the AF. I wanted to lock focus and track one runner but the AF kept going to the runner next to her and slightly behind. I've not had that problem with the AF on the 7D. So for me, I can do some PP on landscapes to optimise it's appeal. But if I mess up focus on a moving subject, no amount of sharpening in PP will bring that back.
Click to expand...

that 5d sounds a real bad camera,ill take it off your hands if you want and ill even give you a 40d for free:):thumbs:
 
The 40D you are using at the moment is around 10mp, the 5D mkII is 21mp. But take into account that the 7D is 18mp. that's only 3mp difference compared to the 5D mkII. Although the 5D mkII will give you a much wider angle of view with your 17-40mm, it will be a true 17mm.
 
stumac said:
that 5d sounds a real bad camera,ill take it off your hands if you want and ill even give you a 40d for free:):thumbs:
Click to expand...

Haha Stu :D It's already gone to a good home, I downgraded from the 5D mkII to the 7D I am currently using. Some may think I am insane, but I have owned both the Nikon and Canon full frames but in the end, have chosen to go back to the crop sensor :)
 
yeah i agree,getting a full 17mm would be good.3mp is not alot for image quality but will the full frame not make a big difference to my landscapes?
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Haha Stu :D It's already gone to a good home, I downgraded from the 5D mkII to the 7D I am currently using. Some may think I am insane, but I have owned both the Nikon and Canon full frames but in the end, have chosen to go back to the crop sensor :)
Click to expand...

may i ask you why you class it as a downgrade and why you think the 7d is better.this may answer alot of my questions
 
The full frame will make a difference, there is a different "look" to my pictures taken with the 1.6 crop compared to full frame. Mind you, I'm not bashing the 5D mkII, it is a very good camera. I am just sharing my experience and opinion, it is healthy I guess to look at both sides before taking the plunge. It is a lot of money to be laying down. The 17-40mm on full frame although nice and wide, does have quite a bit of distortion. Also on full frame, the corners may be soft but you'll be stopping down anyway.
 
sorry to go on about this but do you think if you done a side by side comparison of a landscape scene with both cameras there would be much between it(full frame at 30mm say and 1.6 at 18mm or there abouts if my calculations are correct)
 
the 5d and 17-40 shine for landscape work,

either body will show the flaws in a 100-400 (you will likely bin it for a prime) - as an example I found a cropped 70-200 image sharper and nicer and better

I chose a 5d2 as it suits my shooting style, you need to work yours out ;)
 
stumac said:
im happy with my uncropped landscapes,its the cropped panos thats an issue,i use ps3 for stitching and hate the results,it lines the images up ok but leaves black marks where they join.im under the impression with a higher mp camera its just a matter of taking the pic(a bit wider than desired)crop it to whatever pano size and hay presto
Click to expand...

There are much better tools out there for stitching than photoshop...

What lens are you using to take your panos? Are you using a polariser? Other filters?

I printed a couple of 16" panos out of my 40D when I had it and the results were really good - this was straight crop. Have you seen any prints form your current setup or are you going by what you see on screen?
 
i take images and print at a3 for camera club comps . at 12 MP the results even after a crop are sharp , i would say that upgrading your glass would be the better choice.

i got a shot of a red arrow at about 1/8 of the area of my image and blew it to a3 no problem

Cheers Steve
 
wildlife, 7D
sports 7D
landscape photography 5D2

Or absolutely perfect would be used 1DS3, full frame sensor for landscapes, fast af for the first two. 5fps is fast enough

I don't rate the 7D's noise or IQ
 
really good feed back thanks,im judging the the 40ds image quality on a recent 16x12 i got printed,i suppose i should try a few more 1st.with regards to panos and stitching im usually using a lee nd grad and pol filter.
 
stumac said:
my main issue is when cropping.i dont have great software for stitching so i was really wanting more MP...
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I don't have a link for it, but can't you download a trial of Adobe PS3 and give its panorama-stitching a go?
I tried that and it was very easy with a good result.
Some people swear by certain free programs also, but I haven't tried them.
I'm sure your 40D would then serve you well for much longer.
 
stumac said:
may i ask you why you class it as a downgrade and why you think the 7d is better.this may answer alot of my questions
Click to expand...

Hmm, when I say downgrade, I guess I am talking in terms of price and not much else. Again, I am not trying to give full frame a bad name but personally, after I had bought into full frame, I was still left wanting. That's the feeling I got. I felt I had listened to all the hype, instead of listening to my heart and my style, then made the wrong choice, for me anyway.

There are things that I do miss about full frame, high ISO noise handling is one of them. I was scared when waiting for my 7D to arrive, thinking have I done the right thing. I had done a lot of reading before making my decision, there are a lot of horror stories about the 7D. Noisey images at ISO 400, AF issues, the lot. When it arrived I found none of those things. AF worked perfect on all my lenses with no microadjustment, images weren't soft. Sure the images are noisier than the 5D mkII, but not as bad as people have made it out to be. It's not so horrendous it will make you cry sort of thing, in real life shooting, it's more than acceptable. In fact I still shoot ambient light at ISO 3200 on the 7D sometimes, just like I did with the 5D mkII.

Another thing is depth of field. How the 5D mkII has a much more shallow depth of field so if you're into portraits, then that's the way to go. If you check my gallery, majority of my shooting is portraits. Again with the 7D, stick on a fast prime and you don't really miss out on the shallow DOF.

This is how it worked out for me Stu. With the 7D, I found that I can still shoot great landscapes and portraits (I'm sure you've read in places people using the phrase, "Landscapes, ambient light, portraits - 5D mkII. Sports, wildlife - 7D"). I still shoot ambient light at high ISO, but I have gained awesome AF tracking, wireless flash capability, an extra 1.6 reach without using an extender and losing f/stops (I'm not a big fan of wide angle, I'm more of a candid sniper :D ), I got 8fps, better movie mode and button layout. That's just of the top of my head.

So what I am saying is that for my style of shooting, I found that all the things I did with my full frame body, I could also do a pretty good job of doing with the 7D. But I also gained a lot more uses out of the 7D than I did with the 5D mkII. All of that benefited me, all in a cheaper body too. At the end of the day, don't listen to the hype. Look at your pictures, and ask yourself, "Will this camera work for what I want to do with it"? Then make your choice :) All the best!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top