7D v 5D3 low light

[stephen_bull]

<p>I have a 7D camera with a Tamron 18-275mm lens plus Canon 16-35, 24-105 & 100-400mm lenses which I predominantly use for travel photos which includes everything from landscape to portraits to close-up animal shots.<br>

I find that in low-light, especially if the subject is moving in any way that the shots don't always come out too great. Most of my travels tend to be countries with lots of sun so high contrast is often a problem but not always.<br>

My question is: would I get better results if I were to buy a 5D3? It sounds as if low-light shooting is much better on the camera but £3000 or $3500 is a lot to fork out just to find out that the difference is not that great. The 7D was definitely an improvement over the 40D I used to have but it still seems to have it's limits.<br>

Also, switching to FF would mean I couldn't use the 18-275mm EFS lens and the animal shots in trees etc. would not be so close up. <br>

I predominantly use the 18-275mm when travelling and very occasionally the 100-400. I have thought about taking the 16-35mm f/2 lens to use when the light is not so strong or I want to photograph in shaded areas.<br>

Maybe I just need better tips on how to take better travel photos with the 7D I am not sure.<br>

I rarely print - especially large format - though I have a large 2560x1440 Dell which I use to view the photos.<br>

I am thinking of heading off to Thailand and Indonesia again so any recommendations would be welcome.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Steve</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>w/ the 24-105 and 100-400, you'll have ~ the same focal range on a 5D as the 18-270 gives you on the 7D. Obiously the 100-400 on the 5D will be considerably shorter than on the 7D, but OTOH, The 16-35 will also give you proper UWA shooting (as opposed to on the 7D, where it's ~26mm eff FOV).</p>

<p>Both the 5D2 and 5D3 will give you significantly better high ISO noise than the 7D, with the 5D3 only marginally better than the 5D2 (shooting RAW -it's in camera JPEGs are considerably better) - but I'm not really sure what you expect out of the camera. Certainly none of them are magic machines, and they all have their limits. Perhaps you could more specifically say what it is you expect the mk3 to do for you?</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>The 5D Mk II is <em>no better</em> than the 7D at high ISOs, Marcus - God knows, we've beaten that one to death on here often enough.</p>

[stephen_bull]

<p>I just find that some of the images on the 7D haven't focused properly at times. Also the photos aren't always that sharp when taken in low light. I was hoping that a lot more of the pictures would be of better quality.<br /> I have read many reports and comments about how good the 5D3 is but still feel unsure as to how, in my circumstances, it might benefit me. As I said, going from the 40D to the 7D was a good step up but it isn't a panacea. And they are both a million miles away from the D20 I started out with.<br /> One problem I know is that I tend to take pictures fairly fast. I.e. the first shot since, when travelling and people are involved, the picture can be gone in seconds. <br /> What I cannot decide is whether buying a 5D3 would gain me a lot.<br /> There are other issues such as the weather proofing. Recently I was in Borneo, in the rainforest, and my 7D conked out because water had got inside. I never had that problem with the 40D even though I was in Iguazu falls and the air was totally saturated.<br /> I am just trying to come up with a balance of whether the upgrade is worthwhile for me. It is not just a question of image quality but other factors too and if IQ improvements would outweigh other factors such as weather proofing and losing the camera or it needing to be repaired - a very expensive outlay for the 7D.<br /> Thanks for your reply.<br /> Steve</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_bull]

<p>Sorry, I am sure this issue has been talked about a lot. But, I just needs to hear the issues from my own personal point of view. It is not always easy to distinguish between the 5D3 is great but I use it for taking portraits or it is being used for something similar to what I would use the camera for.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Steve</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Both the 7D and 5D3 have impressive AF systems but the 5D3 does it one better. But suspect you will see only minor improvement in low light speed and accuracy. However, no matter how fast or accurate the AF it can't defeat subject or camera movement induced blur, nor can it focus on a featureless void in dim light. Yes, the 5D3 allows at least a couple more stops of good quality IQ at high ISO over the 7D, but will that be enough for pin sharp low light shooting with slow zooms? Probably not. Add a couple ultra fast primes where you can shoot at F1.2 or 1.4 and I think you'll be in business. </p>

<p>Will all that said, I use my 7D in low light--twilight landscapes & dark bars--all the time and it rarely misses focus. However in low light it is paramount to selectively lock focus on points of contrast. For example, don't focus on a blank white wall but lock AF on a the border of a shadow or edge of a picture frame. If it's too dark to focus, use AF assist from a ST-E2 or Speedlite (disable flash/enable AF assist via CF).</p>

[nathangardner]

It's no contest, but how about a 5D2? It's much more affordable and a great low light performer.

[dan_south]

<p>Stephen, I believe that a thorough understanding of shutter speeds should be your first objective. If your subject is moving and if you want to freeze that motion so there's no blur, you'll need a relatively fast shutter speed, e.g. about 1/250s for walkers and 1/1000s for fast-moving athletes, for example.</p>

<p>Also, for any handheld shot of any subject, you need to have a moderately fast shutter speed. For wide lenses, 1/60s is a good speed to shoot for, but for telephoto lenses you might need 1/250s or higher.</p>

<p>Are you aware of your shutter speed when shooting? Are you aware of the practical speed recommendations mentioned above? Do you know how to maximize shutter speed when you need to?</p>

<p>When the shutter closes quickly, the sensor doesn't receive as much light. In order to get a good exposure we might need to open the lens by using a smaller f-stop (f/4, f/2.8, etc), or we might boost the ISO (higher number) to make the sensor more sensitive to light. Either will help, but both have trade offs.</p>

<p>A wider aperture (smaller f-stop) yields narrower depth of field, and a higher ISO value yields more noise in the image. Cameras like the 7D and the 5D series handle this noise better than most other cameras, but it's still a factor that you should strive to minimize.</p>

<p>When we hear someone speak of a camera being better in low light, they usually mean that images shot at high ISO have lower noise content. But in fact almost any camera will work well in low light when the ISO setting is low and the camera is stable (i.e. tripod mounted).</p>

<p>For handheld shooting (or when shooting subjects that are in motion) where a higher ISO setting can help to boost your shutter speed, cameras like the 7D and the 5D3 are exceptional. However, we need to understand what our shutter speed target is and how to get there before we can get the most out of these extremely capable machines.</p>

<p>I don't think you need to sell your 7D. Practice boosting your shutter speed by controlling the f-stop and the ISO value, and you'll gain confidence before returning to exotic locales with your camera.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<blockquote>

<p>The 5D Mk II is <em>no better</em> than the 7D at high ISOs, Marcus - God knows, we've beaten that one to death on here often enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yours may not be. Mine is.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I have a 7D and a 5DmkII and from my experience the 5DMkII is the hands down winner in low light. Now.. if there is a consensus that it is "no better" as it is suggested I would like a reference to the thread(s). I would suggest it is just the opposite... that there is a consensus the mkII wins the low light contest every time. But like Robin says... maybe it's just mine that is better and maybe I haven't kept up. (not)</p>

[cjk]

<p>Stephen: maybe you can give us some more information about what does NOT "come out too great" in the problematic shots? This would help us better help you. Maybe ISO performance is not the issue. Maybe it's really low shutter speeds like Dan suggests. <br>

Examples would be great. </p>

[stephen_bull]

<p>I think Dan may be right. I take a lot of the shots relying on the camera to determine shutter speed etc. Not always but when I feel pressured for time. Taking pictures of people is a particular problem as, unlike family, most are not happy about having to take multiple shots until I get the exposure correct.<br>

I am attaching a picture of a Burmese lady that I took. It comes out pretty blurred. Fortunately on about the third attempt I managed to get a good, decently sharp, picture.<br>

The photo was taken in a hut with mostly indoor lighting. The jpg shows that it was taken at f/4.5 1/60 sec ISO-400 and at 55mm.</p>

<p>The good picture was at f/5 1/60 sec ISO-400 and at 59mm.</p>

<p>Flash mode: Compulsory in both shots.</p>

<p>I don't believe that my hand was any steadier in the good shot than the bad. Maybe I was quicker to press the shutter in the 1st shot and it didn't focus properly before firing. I am not sure.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies.</p>

<div></div>

[pbalko]

<p>Tough to tell from the small jpeg, but it looks to me like the focus is somewhere along the back wall Stephen. Zoom in on your original file and let us know what you find.</p>

[stephen_bull]

<p>Yes, the back wall is what is in focus. This photo was taken in P mode while the other one, the in focus one, was taken in fully automatic mode. I don't know why the back wall should be in focus. Maybe the focus point was just below her chin and in my haste to take the picture I did not take enough care. At least this was one photo that I could at least retake.<br>

Thanks for pointing that out,<br>

Steve</p>

 

[angkordave]

<p>It does look to be a focusing issue rather then a subject movement one.<br>

Curiously enough I recognized the lady in the Inle Lake village of Ywama. I was in Myanmar (Burma) late May.<br>

I was shooting A 5D2 at 400 ISO 1/200th sec at F 6.3.<br>

You needn't have rushed! These ladies are well used to photographers as they are working in a tourist environment.</p><div></div>

[stephen_bull]

<p>It is in this case. But I do have photos with movement issues. It can be a problem because even in bright light people tend to stay in the shade and it can become overcast. For example taking pictures of the nuns in Burma is a moving target and not easy to maintain focus and take the picture when the best picture presents itself.</p>

<p>Also, maybe I should in these cases be more knowledgeable on what the best setting is to use to get the best picture. I notice your setting is quite a bit different from mine. Should I, in these cases, make sure that I have a faster shutter speed and not rely on what the camera says?</p>

<p>A big problem is that I take the vast majority of photos while travelling and they are quite different from what I would take while in the UK or NY. Figuring out the problems is not always easy 2 months later wading through thousands of pictures.</p>

<p>Yes, these ladies are very accommodating and it probable reflects more my problems than hers but not everyone is quite so accommodating as they are - even the most friendly of people. And, Burma is very friendly.</p>

 

[angkordave]

<p>In the case of the ladies working on weaving looms it is necessary to keep shutter speeds high. 1/60th/sec at 50mm is enough to keep a static subject sharp. I consider 1/200th sec as a minimum in this case.<br>

A 7d should be adequate for most situations; however you might consider a fast 30 or 35mm 1.4 lens for low light situations. it will cost a fraction of a 5D3 and weighs little. However you will need to be even more careful with focus as DOF at 1.4 is extremely shallow. You can see in my example F 6.3 has kept the subject sharp with a mild fall off of focus . FYI I was using a 24-105 F4 for this shot.</p>

[stephen_bull]

<p>Thanks for the reply.<br>

I have a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 lens which I will probably take with me when I travel next time. Hopefully it will help me take better shots when the light is failing a bit or the subject is in the shadow.<br>

And, I will try using the Tv mode a bit more. Especially in these cases.</p>

<p> </p>