7D to 5D... Should I do it, and lens question

<p>Hi All,<br>

So last week my apartment got broken into and all of my camera equipment was stolen. My insurance has been great to me, and I am getting my check tomorrow to get my new equipment. Formerly I shot a 7D, but because of the amount of equipment stolen, and the fact I'm not looking to replace some of it, I'm thinking about getting a 5D Mark III body to replace it.<br>

<br />My walkaround lens was a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 HSM, which was also stolen. I shoot sports for a local sport & social club on the side, and I shoot festivals for fun. This lens made it good for volleyball, but was a little crowding for festivals. I am considering the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM as a replacement... considering I was actually shooting 45-112mm on the crop sensor... how much is this going to change? I know the numbers are stating that my max zoom will be about the same as my minimum zoom... I'm a statistician... and I don't really believe that to be true.</p>

<p>So if anybody has any input, I really would appreciate it! Should I stay with a 7D? 70D maybe? </p>

<p>I'm not certain I understand your question. The 45-112 mm you were shooting on the crop sensor would correspond to 72 - 179 mm on a full frame sensor, so one of the Canon 70-200 family would be an excellent fit. All of them are excellent. I don't know as much about the Sigma lenses.</p>

<p>If you do go full frame, you should give serious thought to picking up the 24-105 as a kit lens. It's very affordable, and many photographers think it fits like a glove.</p>

<p>Since you're struggling with decisions about format, you might be interested in this article I wrote to address the numerous differences in format:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/fullframe.htm</a> </p>

<p>As for min and max zoom not being the same... I don't follow. You're saying the distribution would be skewed? Perhaps bimodal? I think there's probably some truth to a bimodal distribution of real-world focal lengths within a zoom range, but I've not actually crunched any numbers on this from my own portfolio. ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking about <strong><em>getting a 5D Mark III</em></strong> body to replace [my 7D which was stolen] . . .<br /><br />My walkaround lens was a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 HSM, which was also stolen. . . I am considering the <strong><em>Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM</em></strong> as a replacement...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assume you are looking at a Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS ?</p>

<p>That lens is a <strong><em>“DC” Lens</em></strong> and as such has an image circle suitable for an APS-C Sensor camera: it will vignette when used on a 5DMkIII.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Sarah, I think Russell meant his full frame equivalent of the 28-70 is 45-112. Maybe a good choice would be the 5DIII and a 24-105 as Sarah recommends if you can get by without f/2.8. If you stick with the crop sensor format, the Canon 17-55 IS f/2.8 is a terrific lens. It will get you the wider focal range you desire but you'll give up a bit on the long end. Have you considered renting a 5DIII and a lens to try before you make a decision?</p>

<p>I agree with Sarah, if you go with a 5D III the kit with 24-105mm makes a lot of sense, it's very good value for money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with Sarah, if you go with a 5D III the kit with 24-105mm makes a lot of sense, it's very good value for money.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I also agree. It's a no-brainer and amazing value these days for such a great lens.</p>

<p>I have the 5D3 and 24-105 combination. I agree: it is a great walk-around lens, and it is what I have on the camera when I don't have a specific reason to take it off. It has some warts--e.g., substantial vignetting at the short end--but it is very useful and a good bargain, particularly if you buy the two as a kit. (I wasn't smart enough to do that.)</p>

<p>Re the f/2.8 question: keep in mind that you can easily up the ISO by a stop on the 5D3 to compensate because it handles higher ISOs better. In addition, DOF at any given aperture is shallower on a FF.</p>

<p>Off topic a bit: if you do buy a 5D3, give it some time. It is an amazing camera, but if you want to take advantage of what it offers, e.g., the extensive customization of button functions and AF modes, you will have to spend some time with the 400 page manual. The manual is very clear for the most part, although I found the AF section a little too abbreviated, and the menu layout is superb, so it is not all that hard. It just takes time and practice.</p>

<p>I read Sarah's post on formats some time ago, and I agree: it is well worth reading.</p>

<p>Thank you all. <br>

William, thank you for that glaring insight... that lens is the DC version and won't fit. I was excited for the response from my insurance company and was just in the early stages of pricing. <br>

Sarah, I have started reading your article... very interesting... I will have to read it in parts behind my boss' back, lol.<br>

<br />I shoot a lot of sports, which is why I am interested in a 2.8. For the primary gym I shoot in, I have to use ISO 3000-4000 at 1/200 f/2.8-3.0 - I guess I just really am unaware of what the graininess in the ISO difference will be. What is generally seen as the highest ISO one can shoot at on a 5D3?<br>

Thanks!<br>

--Russell</p>

<p>[[What is generally seen as the highest ISO one can shoot at on a 5D3?]]</p>

<p>Only you can answer this question. The amount of noise you're going to see depends on how you process the images and how big the final product is. Shooting for the web or shooting for wall-sized prints will have different requirements and different levels of what is acceptable noise. </p>

<p>Web images, basically for facebook. When I get really good images they will be used for marketing materials, but usually never printed above 4x6 postcard size.<br>

This is about the most grain I'm comfortable with, after some post processing:<br>

<img src="https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q77/s720x720/549602_752330711451584_1111132938_n.jpg" alt="" width="541" height="720" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is generally seen as the highest ISO one can shoot at on a 5D3?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can only speak for the 5D2 but, from what I've read, the ISO performance of the 5D3 is only marginally better. I never hesitate to shoot anything up to ISO 3200. Only when you go above that do you need to think about serious noise reduction. ISO 6400 is definitely usable but anything higher is a waste of time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot a lot of sports, which is why I am interested in a 2.8. For the primary gym I shoot in, I have to use ISO 3000-4000 at 1/200 f/2.8-3.0 - I guess I just really am unaware of what the graininess in the ISO difference will be. What is generally seen as the highest ISO one can shoot at on a 5D3?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />For the sport, even indoor, on FF a 70-200 may be a more useful FL. Maybe you can live with f/4 on 24-105 and invest on a 70-200 f/2.8 on top of that.<br>

As for ISO, let's use 7D as a reference. I have both the 7D and 5DIII, with the 7D I feel fine up to 1600/2000, on the 5DIII I feel the same up to 3200/4000.<br>

Now, as Bob said, the amount of noise you are willing to tolerate depends on factors that are unique to you, your needs and your tastes. Still, I would say that in term of noise the 5DIII is at least one stop better than the 7D, maybe even a bit more than that.<br>

Hope it may help.</p>

<p>Difficult to know what is satisfactory for you, but with the 5DII and 6D (presumably the same + or - as the 5DIII) I find 3200 or 6400 fine for these kind of shots - make sure that you don't underexpose though.</p>

<p>Thank you both! I actually do have a 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma HSM lens that I use for a lot of sports, but some (like volleyball) I just can't use that much of a zoom. I just ordered the 5D3 body, and I am going to rent a f/4 lens and try it out (if I was shooting at f/3 before on the 7D I probably can handle f/4 with better iso).<br>

Thanks!<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>but some (like volleyball) I just can't use that much of a zoom.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand, please explain.</p>

<p>What's the ISO in that picture, Russell?</p>

<p>I ask because I have <em>no</em> problem with my 7D at 3200 ISO and well above - and I like detail and hate noise...</p>

<p>http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/maul_exif.jpg</p>

<p>This wasn't a well-lit scene (low noise at high ISO is easy enough in good light): it was filthy, dull weather, and the image needed a lot of "light added" in PP.</p>

<p>The point being, this is a proper example of low light photography - it's the equivalent of 1/20 at 100 ISO.</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/_sigma/front_focus_test_2.jpg">This</a></strong> is 5000 ISO: again, not much light here, as the Exif in the image will confirm - <strong><em>1/0.8</em></strong> of a second at 100 ISO equivalent. Handheld at 420mm, too.</p>

<p>No complicated post processing here, either, just good - and easy to make - conversion and processing decisions.</p>

<p>I own both the 7D and the 5D MkIII and much prefer shooting action and wildlife with the 5D MkIII. The 5D has observable improved DR at ISO 1600 and above, with a widening advantage as you go up.</p>

<p>The 5D3, with a 24-105mm or a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, plus at 1.4x and a 2.0x TC-III will give you incredible flexibility. If you can't afford that right out of the box, then plan toward it over a year or two. All of Canon's 70-200mm lenses are excellent, but there are other options at Sigma, if that's what you prefer.</p>

<p>If you decide to stay with a crop sensor, the 7D may lose a little high-ISO performance to the 70D, but it's a much faster camera. Too bad that the 7D MkII isn't available. The 7D is getting long in the tooth and its AF system is not up to the 5D3's level, by a long shot, IME, but I think it'll still be preferable to the 70D for action.</p>

I have both cameras. I really like the autofocus on the 5, particularly for its customizability. I'd say it's at least a stop better than the 7 for

low light work. I've been happy with ISO 12800 on the 5, and would characterize the noise at that level as similar to Tri-x. If I could have

only one of the two cameras, I'd pick the 5 for sure.

<p>5d3, tamron 24-70/2.8 vc.</p>

I just got the 5D Mark III and 24-105 package deal over the holidays, and I couldn't be happier! To supplement the manual, I got David

Busch's Compact Field Guide for the 5D3, and it really helps break things down into easy to read bites. I also got the 85mm 1.8 for

Christmas, and it focuses really quickly.

<p>I have a 7D and 5DII, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 5DIII. However, I have also had the 24-105/4 L IS, and was underwhelmed with its performance. While it is a decent and versatile lens, it just doesn't have the sharpness or contrast of my primes, my 24-70/2.8 L II, or my 70-200/4 L IS.</p>

<p>I'm just trying to point out that with just a little bit of conversion/processing nous, and maybe spending a few quid/bucks on new software, the OP might be able to get the results he wants without blowing a hefty lump of money on a new body.</p>

<p>Don't you think we need to explore current options before spending a few grand of the OP's money for him? This is definitely a situation where new hardware might not be the only - or necessarily the best - answer.</p>

<p>So Russell, what ISO? And how did you convert/process that file? I suspect (no, I <em>guarantee</em>) that there's <em>considerable</em> room for improvement here without the <em>need </em>to throw cash at a 5D Mk III.</p>

<p><em>I'd love to have a crack at the Raw file that image came from...</em></p>

<p>I appreciate it all,<br>

Keith, that was at ISO 3200. I did basic processing in LR5... if you would like, feel free to grab the image at www.redheadpix.com/transfer/raw.zip and have at it. I would LOVE to learn more about noise reduction, and really appreciate it! You can shoot me a note directly at Russell@RedheadPix.com. </p>

<p>Improve the performance of your 24-105mm by turning on Digital Lens Optimization during Raw conversion. It'll give you much better sharpness and contrast.</p>

<p>Keith, I thought his equipment was stolen.</p>