Extender or APSC camera?

[sravan]

I am doing a dance event today and when I went to check the venue yesterday (it was a last minute change in venue) I realized that the

seats are too far from the stage and the stage is large as well. This means that my lens (70-200 mark II canon f 2.8) is too short for doing

close ups of the face during some dances with my 5d mark III

So I was wondering if I should rent a 1.4x extender or a 7D camera?

The lighting will allow me f3.5 to f4 at iso 800.

Which will work better? On my 5dmark III, I am comfortable upto ISO 1600 with respect to noise though most of the dances I stay near

ISO 1000 and go to ISO 1600 only during spotlighted sequences.

I am happy with the lens quality at f 2.8, but I am not sure how the 1.4 extender will degrade the picture vs using 7d at ISO 1600.

 

I cannot use f2.8 directly because the depth of field is too thin and so even with 7d I cannot go to f2.8 and have to keep the ISO high.

[jim_j2]

<p>If it were me, I'd rent the TC before I'd consider a different camera body. Although I read that the controls on the 5D and 7D are pretty close, the're still different and you don't have much time to set up and familiarize yourself with the 7D's settings. Who knows what could be set on a "rental body" from the previous user.</p>

<p>The 70-200 has a reputation of very good performance with a TC, and the 5D's low light capability is known to be very good!</p>

<p>That's what I'd do! But, others mileage may vary.<br>

Best wishes today,<br>

Jim j.</p>

[scott_ferris]

100% theTC.

[joel_tomaneng2]

<p>Ha, I just sold my 1.4 teleconverter! It worked well, but I just wasn't using it as much anymore. Anyhow, I 'd go for the extender, between the two options. There may be some dimished capabilities regarding autofocusing since you are slowing the lens to roughly f4, but I don't think it will be an issue for the 5d MkIII. This only other reason I'd consider the 7d is if I was more familiar with the 7d than the 5d MkIII.</p>

<p>One other option you may want to consider is just going to 200 with your original setup, then cropping. 22.3 MP is almost double the pixel count compared to the original 5d. </p>

[zml]

<p>Rent a 300/2.8 lens, or a 200/2 + the extender. A 300 mm f/2.8 lens will perform better (sharper, better contrast, less flare, better color rendition, faster AF) at f/4, or even wide open, than the f/2.8 zoom/extender combo at the same effective f/stop.</p>

<p>And if you say "f3.5 to f4 at iso 800" (at what shutter speed?) it is more likely to be ISO 1600 or even 3200 IMO at a decent shutter speed, unless you are going for special effects (movement.)</p>

<p>A crop camera gives you no benefit here (a smaller sensor registers only a part of the image projected by the lens, nothing else changes.)</p>

[sravan]

Micheal, fixed lenses will not work as I have to take full shots and close ups very quickly after each other.

 

Shutter speed is min 160 to 200 any thing lower causes movement during the speed sequences. I need to capture the

stance at the top of the movements. I don't like the fingers blurred when the finger positions are an important part of the

dance. The dance is Indian classical dance for reference.

 

The lighting has been tested and the lighting is enough for f3.5 to f4 at 200 shutter speed at ISO 800. I tested it with light

meter and with test photos during practice.

 

Crop sensor has higher spatial resolution. That means the part of the picture where the face is will have more pixels in it

which means I can do full page spread of the face on a 12x12 inch page without doing any resolution increase aft the

picture is taken.

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sravan,</p>

<p>Don't fall into the "pixels on duck" fallacy, it is only true if all pixels are equal, and it has been shown time and time again, smaller pixels are not as good as bigger pixels. MP's are a numbers game that does not add up.</p>

<p>Here are two unedited images, shot with the same lens from the same place under totally optimal conditions, one contains over twice the number of pixels and should add up to a major increase in resolution. There is a difference, but not anywhere near as much as the numbers say there should be. Both are considerably over 100% crops, that is a human hair from 45' away and other than upressing and cropping I haven't touched them, the one with more detail also has a lot more noise, if you reduce that in post and up the contrast on the other one it makes them so close it is much more difficult to tell them apart. And remember, this is totally optimal conditions, if you were using AF then the differences would be non existent.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Buy the TC. Besides increasing focal length, they're great for increasing macro magnification. Combined with a 25mm Extension Tube, the 70-200mm becomes an exceptional macro lens.</p>

[zml]

<p>Sravan: In addition to the Scott's answer there is another consideration (at least as of now, perhaps it is going to change someday.) In the world of DSLR cameras, FF (24x36 mm sensor) cameras are simply "better" overall than crop bodies thus producing "better" results than crop bodies (note the quotes) apart from the "smaller pixels - larger pixels" issue.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Tongue in cheek, but Michael is right IF (big IF) you have enough lens to shoot full frame. For the situation you're talking about and knowing that you've got the stunning 5D MkIII (which will blow away the 7D at higher ISOs) FF is actually better for you situation.</p>

<p><em>Pixels on a duck</em> are actually important in focal length limited situations. Say you're using a 500mm lens at ISO 400 and still cropping the image 50%. That's a situation where the crop-sensor might be superior. There's a trade off between noise and detail, but a minor application of Chromanance in post will not destroy detail. Many people are not bothered by low levels of noise that can only be seen at 200%. That said, that's not your situation.</p>

<p>BTW, I own the 7D and the 5D MkIII and I've pretty well decidedto make the MkIII my main bird and wildlife camera due to superior AF. It's much more accurate than the 7D, yielding a much higher keeper rate for me.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>David,</p>

<p>My example above is a perfect demonstration of being focal length limited. Start cropping your 5D MkIII images to the size of your 7D images, and more, and you will see there is practically no difference. AF is far more important.</p>

<p>My example is from a 7D and a 1Ds MkIII, I did it for my own benefit to see if a 7D would compliment my ff camera. My testing showed even in focal length limiting situations, where the 7D could put more than twice the number of pixels on the duck, the crop camera wouldn't actually give me any more detail once I used AF. There are other reasons for using a crop camera in focal length limited situations, the better viewfinder magnification being the main one, but from an image point of view "pixels on duck" does not translate to empirical results, well it didn't for me and I didn't buy a 7D.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Scott, your example has no dark green bokeh or shadow areas or blue sky bokeh, typical of focal length limited nature photography. Those elements will emphasize noise more than your well lit example. Also, notice that I said at ISO 400. With a 7D the noise starts raising its head at ISO 800 and gets unruly at ISO 1600, but at ISO 400 it performance is stellar. If any noise reduction is needed a light touch of chromanance is usually enough to control it. Your "test shot" is well lit and you don't specify an ISO. </p>

<p>It's not the sensor crop that adds "reach", it's the pixel-pitch. The smaller and tighter the pixels, the more detail resolving power, but it's often at the expense of noise. The 7D has smaller, denser pixels than any of the 5Ds, so it's got more reach, but it IS NOT 1.6x as much reach. All that is complicated by the noise trade off. A 12MP APS-C sensor will have less reach than a 5D MkII or MkIII, because the later cameras have higher pixel density.</p>

<p>Back to the OP, use your MkIII and a 1.4x TC.</p>

<p>Here's around a 70% crop from yesterday, using my 5D MkIII, 500/f4 and 1.4x TC, hand held and shot at ISO 800 with +1EV:</p>

<p><a title="Get away by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7673753740_7d35000991_b.jpg" alt="Get away" width="683" height="1024" /></a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>David,</p>

<p>I made my set up to give the 7D the biggest advantage possible. They are both 100 iso, Live View manual focus, heavy tripod, flash illuminated, mirror lock up, cable release. Both shot from the same place and same lens, a 300 mm f2.8 IS with IS off, the lens was tripod mounted and I just changed the bodies.</p>

<p>Like I said, I didn't do this to post in threads, I did it because I wanted to know what resolution advantage a 7D would actually give me as I was interested in buying one and couldn't get straight answers from owners via posts here, lots of opinions, but no images. <strong>My</strong> conclusions from <strong>my</strong> tests were that in even the most optimal conditions the resolution advantage of the 7D over the 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII was very small, in real world use, AF, no control over light etc, even those small differences were not realisable. In that instance, with those two cameras, "pixels on duck" didn't equate to anything. I have never had anybody post actual images contradicting these findings, again, lots of opinions, but no actual images.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Some of us are more easily satisfied than others. I much prefer the image on the right in your "test". Even without magnification, it shows much sharper details. If that difference doesn't matter to you, then that's your choice.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I am not emotional about it, I have no preference, I wanted to see detail, but before I tested for myself everybody said the same thing, the 7D resolution would be much higher then a cropped 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII. The truth is, even under optimal conditions, it isn't. You can process the left image to look pretty much identical to the right image (but then you can process the right image to look better), however, when you get to the real world shooting situations rather than bench testing and use AF, for example, even the small potential differences can't be seen at all.</p>

<p>I am <a href="00W414">not easily pleased</a>.</p>

<p>Here is the entire 1Ds MkIII image with the 7D image laid on top of it, you can see how small the crop is, it is extreme, but the much talked about resolution advantage of "pixels on duck" just isn't there. You might "prefer" the right hand image, I am confident that with processing I can make them look the same (sharpness is one of the easiest to deal with), but even if you "prefer" it, it does not hold much more resolution, certainly nothing like the numbers would suggest.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>I didn't say anything about emotions.</p>

<p>I much prefer the image on the right. Which camera was it shot with?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"I didn't say anything about emotions."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Prefer" is an emotional word, "it has more resolution" is a technical observation. As both are unprocessed but for resizing there is a lot of processing leeway in the files.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Which camera was it shot with?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is my entire point, it should be obvious, blatantly obvious, it is the 7D. If the results can be this close, and I freely admit in ideal and contrived circumstances the 7D does resolve better then the 1Ds MkIII in a focal length limited situation, it rather blows a hole in the "pixels on duck" meme. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>LOL, so me preferring the 7D image made you emotional. I find that extremely funny. I said "it shows much sharper details" and I didn't even have to blow it up to see that. That's significant in my book. You may chose not to care about such things, but that's individual preference at its best. You demonstrated that "pixels on a duck" does matter, at least to me.</p>

<p>In defense of full-frame technology, the 1Ds MkIII is old technology in comparison to the stellar 5D MkIII. I'd still suggest to the OP that he get a 1.4X TC for his full-frame body. The kinds of differences that you and I are talking about are only important with heavy crops of a subject that's small in the frame. At ISO 800 and above, my 5D3 blows away my 7D because the noise level on the 7D gets out of hand at that point and the DR difference starts growing. As in your test, the results are really close at ISO 400 and below.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>If you interpreted what I said as being emotional then I'll get you a dictionary for your birthday.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"and I didn't even have to blow it up to see that"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is because I already did it for you, to well over 200%, the 1Ds MkIII image is over 300%. If you need to blow something up to over 200/300% to see the differences in optimal conditions then there isn't going to be a noticeable difference in real world shooting at normal sizes. If you want to continue down your "pixels on duck" meme then go ahead (even if you now want to limit that to low iso and extreme crops), I don't care, I proved to my own satisfaction it wasn't worth me buying a 7D to put more pixels on the duck because in real world shooting those extra pixels gave me nothing.</p>

<p>That is why I answered unequivocally to get the TC to Sravan second in the thread, lets not forget in his original post he talked specifically about 1000-1600 iso.</p>

<p>I only posted my images in reply to this comment he made:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Crop sensor has higher spatial resolution. That means the part of the picture where the face is will have more pixels in it which means I can do full page spread of the face on a 12x12 inch page without doing any resolution increase aft the picture is taken."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even you agree, in Sravan's situation of shooting at 1000-1600 iso, that is not accurate, he might have more pixels, but he won't have more resolution.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

[dcstep]

<p>You're the one that brought up "pixels on a duck" and then posted a 100 ISO example that proved that an observer (me) can tell the difference. That seems to have upset you somehow, but I've simply been responding to your statements and making observations consistent with my own experience and your nice little demonstration.</p>

<p>At least we answered Sravan's question, I believe, get the TC.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Condescension won't make me upset, or emotional, either :-)<br>

I believe we did..........</p>