camera gear advise - wildlife to weddings

[paul_brogden1]

<p>Hello I need some advise can you please help? I have the following camera gear but need some advise. I own a canon 600d camera which is a crop. I have a 300mm f4, 24-105 3.5-4.5 canon lens,70-200 is 2.8, 18-55 efs. Also geting the sigma crop lens 2.8 17-50mm. I want to get a second camera but don’t know which one to get. I am looking at the 5d full frame mark one or the 7d and unsure. Most of my shooting will be wild life but want to be able photograph and do weddings if they come along what would you do? Is a full frame really that important I have 2 flash guns. I would like to get paid for weddings if they come along.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you get a 'full-frame' camera, remember that EF-S and other digital-only lenses will either not mount at all, or will not cover the full area.<br>

On the other hand, the 24-105 and the 70-200 will work 'better' on a 35mm-size sensor in terms of the range that they cover- <br>

Except of course, that the 200 on an APS-C ('crop') body will effectively be longer by the 1.6X cropping factor, so it is nice to have both formats, as many of us do.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Full frame importance depends.<br>

I think in the wildlife field the lenses are the limiting factor, i.e. all the fancy glas like 200 - 400 with built in 1.4x TC struggles to resolve enough pixels for a low count FF body on a good day and with a crop you get only a part of these few. - If I wanted to get something out of my m42 legacy lenses from 300 to 1000mm, I 'd have to buy some FF body to mount on them. They really didn't cut a cake on a crop. I am talking about a desired result in the 6MP range here. Your 300mm & 80 - 200mm might be better but the same principle should apply.<br>

From my understanding weddings are a battlefield for lowlight compability and contrast range. The 5D mk1 was a legend / "must have" in its days but in between some technical progress happened. DXOmark note a better high ISO performance of the follow up models. http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___795_483_176 . Getting a 5D Mk1 would make good use of your 24-105 and it should also have a tiny edge of high ISO performance over a 7D. I don't shoot Canon myself but assume getting more contemporary gear could give you less postprocessing hassle and I fear thats the way how money is really earned (or not) with weddings. Things turn "badly paid" when you need 4 days in front of your screen to deliver. <br>

Here I had a few half decent film lenses in M mount, bought a FF body for them and am quite happy with / confident about results. I'm not sure what I'll do next. My DSLR system (Pentax) only <em>announced</em> a FF body so far & I'm not rich enough for a spontanous big step. I might make one, when I feel hitting a wall of tech limits with what I have, but that would mean gettting involved with something that demands a lot of high resolution output under AF challenging conditions.<br>

Trying to walk in your shoes I suggest getting a FF body. - You can use it to substitute a 2nd crop one, can't you? - and it should make the best out of the better lenses you already have, if we talk maximum print size.<br>

Since 4 co-workers & my ex married without me, I am pretty confident that weddings won't come along. - I dodged one in 30 years.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Since you already have an APS-C body, I would get a full frame body, particularly since you are intending on shooting weddings. I recommend the 5DII over the 5D for its higher resolution and better high ISO performance. 5DII prices have really dropped lately. And the 7D has pretty much the same sensor as the 600D, so there'd be no gain in resolution with it.</p>

<p>Having a dual format kit gives you the best of both worlds: better IQ and low light performance with the full frame body, and more effective reach with the crop body.</p>

<p>As for lenses, I think you'll need a faster zoom, such as the 24-70, for weddings, though I'm sure you could get by for now with your 24-105. Perhaps a faster normal prime would suffice at present.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I would agree that you'd be far better served with a 5D2 than with a 5D. While I used the latter for years shooting weddings before upgrading to the 5D2s, the ability to shoot at ISO6400 in extremely poor lighting can not be undervalued (whereas the 5D is limited to ISO3200).</p>

<p> I would also add a 50/1.4 to your short list. You haven't specified any lenses faster than f2.8 which is also a considerable limitation.</p>

<p>While the 17-50/2.8 OS will serve most needs on your crop (and likely yield better results than even a 24-70/2.8 II on FF - due to it's stabilization - in extremely poor lighting), you've nothing to complement/capitalize the excellent high ISO performance of a FF body. </p>

<p>You haven't specified you budget for transitioning your kit. You also haven't specified your experience in this regard. With even a full appropriate kit, you can easily find yourself woefully under prepared if you lack a significant amount of experience.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I don’t think that there will be a lot of difference you using a 7D and a Sigma 17 to 50/2.8 or a 5D and the EF 24 to 105/3.5~4.5 as a the main working kit for “weddings if they come along”.</p>

<p>Given that your emphasis is in wildlife, then a 7D seems to me a more logical choice than a 5D.</p>

<p>I agree that a 5D MkII is a better choice than a 5D – and that’s a better all around choice not just “weddings if they come along”.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>In any case: your OP reads that you have already chosen to buy the Sigma 17 to 50/2.8: I suggest that you rethink that choice and do not act on it until you have chosen what camera that you will buy.</p>

<p>It seems illogical to buy that Sigma lens and then later choose to by a 5D or any other 5D Series camera.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>If you are moving toward marketing yourself for Weddings then that is a different matter and in that case a 5DMkII would be a good base as a main working camera. A fast standard zoom to match, though the 24 to 105 that you have would suffice. A fast Prime or two to that mix - I particularly like a 35 and 85 as a combination pair.</p>

<p>On the Wedding and Social Events Forum, there are many threads specifically about the use and design of Dual Format Kits for Wedding Coverage. I have a particular passion for using Dual Format DSLR Kits, not only for Weddings.</p>

<p>Note also that there is a tendency now to use/suggest Dual Slotted/Carded cameras as a fundamental for Professional Wedding Photography and that seems an argument which is difficult to counter, except for the the speed of buffer clearing which might cause an issue depending on one's shooting technique. So that means if you are serious about developing a Camera/Lens Kit for Wedding Coverages, you's need to seriously consider the 5D MkIII.<br>

<br>

<strong>I think really the first point that you have to clear up in your own mind is how serious are you in searching for and how frequently will be these "weddings if they come along” ? </strong></p>

<p>WW </p>

[dcstep]

<p>If you shoot Raw, for weddings or wildlife, I doubt you'll care one bit about dual format photography. I shoot Raw only. I took 800 images of eagles this morning before the sun had been up two-hours. I can't imagine why I'd want jpeg images when I know that my Raw images will please me more.</p>

<p>Since wildlife is a priority, I'd stick with a crop-sensor (upgrade to the 7D MkII, when you can afford). You've got the classic "wedding" lenses. To improve your wildlife results, you need to work on the long end of your kit. </p>

<p>Think about getting paid for all the shooting that you do. Are your wildlife images something that people might buy? If not, start considering how to make them more marketable. Landscapes are easier to sell than wildlife. Have you tried that. Weddings may be one of the easier sells, but I don't think that you should get into it casually. Many of us think of it as hell, but if you're good at it and can produce results that your clients like, then you might need to get more serious about it. I wouldn't do a wedding just because someone asked me and I wouldn't do it without being well paid. It takes real effort to do it right. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>If you shoot Raw, for weddings or wildlife, I doubt you'll care one bit about dual format photography.</strong> I shoot Raw only. I took 800 images of eagles this morning before the sun had been up two-hours. I can't imagine why I'd want jpeg images when I know that my Raw images will please me more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I don't understand how shooting <em>raw</em> excludes the consideration for a dual format kit. Would you please explain why you made that the link between those two.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Why would you want an in-camera jpeg if you shoot Raw?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>David, that doesn't address my question. But I think that I now understand what you meant.</p>

<p>I think when you wrote"<strong>dual format photography" </strong>that you mean 'capturing in both raw and jpeg', i.e. capturing in dual file formats.</p>

<p>I cannot note any previous comments in this thread about capturing in raw and jpeg. </p>

<p>However various responses, including mine, referred to a <strong>dual format kit</strong> (meaning having cameras of two different formats, being in this thread APS-C Format and 135 Format), so I thought that when you wrote "<strong>dual format photography"</strong> you meant what was previously being discussed - i.e. having cameras of two different formats. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Why would you want an in-camera jpeg if you shoot Raw?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Addressing this as another, stand alone question. I mostly always shoot raw + jpeg (L).</p>

<p>Two main reasons are, but not limited to: <br /> I can send and use the jpeg SOOC for quick turn around sample/previews especially when required on site.<br /> I can tweak the in camera jpeg processing so that I can fine tune the (post view) of the 'blinkies' and the histogram; mainly the 'blinkies'</p>

<p>WW</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The "blinkies" are based on in-camera jpeg, even when you shoot Raw. They're only a rough guide and a good Raw conversion program can produce way more margin, if exposed properly.</p>

<p>IRFANVIEW allow instant previews, if you've got a computer or similar device on-site to see your images. If your exposing to the right, I don't know why you'd want to even look at those files. They'll not represent a finished product. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>WW, you asked:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David, that doesn't address my question. But I think that I now understand what you meant.<br>

I think when you wrote"<strong>dual format photography" </strong>that you mean 'capturing in both raw and jpeg', i.e. capturing in dual file formats.<br>

I cannot note any previous comments in this thread about capturing in raw and jpeg.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There's no reason to have dual-slots unless you're going to copy dual formats. You can do it with one slot. Dual slots slow the Canon cameras to the speed of the slowest card, so they don't really make much sense, if speed is of any concern.</p>

<p>Of course, two bodies in two formats give more flexibility than one body. That's not what the OP asked. I have a FF and a crop-sensor body, but I know some pretty darn good photographers that use full-frame for birds and others that use crop sensors for weddings. </p>

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>There's no reason to have dual-slots unless you're going to copy dual formats.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree.</p>

<p>Another reason for Wedding Pros to use dual slot cameras is to have a back up card if one card or recording to one card fails. That was the reason I mentioned a camera with 'dual slots' to the OP, apropos his consideration of buy gear for Wedding Coverage. I also mentioned the slower speed might be another consideration, depending upon the particular shooting technique of the Photographer.</p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, two bodies in two formats give more flexibility than one body. That's not what the OP asked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was not my understanding of the Original Post.</p>

<p>I understood the Original Post to outline that the OP had a 600D and was asking for advice about what next camera to buy - the two the OP mentioned that were under consideration were a 5D and 7D. Those cameras are of different formats. The OP also mentioned output tasks, one of which was Weddings.</p>

<p>Intrinsic to that question, or at the very least closely related to it, is the consideration of the values and uses of a dual format kit as opposed to a single format camera kit: after all the OP did ask for advice and also stated that he was unsure choosing between a "full frame" and a 7D.</p>

<p>I think that the reasons others might have for choosing a dual format kit (i.e. APS-C and 135 Format) might give the OP food for thought in that choice between a 7D or a 5D; so I think providing information or comment along those lines is not deleterious in any manner. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>@ William W - "<a href="

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Wildlife and weddings are two different paths. For weddings I'd suggest 5D3-6D-5D2 in that order. For wildlife i'd suggest 7D2-7D-600D?. For a wedding lens something that covers 24-105mm. For wildlife a 100-400L, Mk2 - Mk1.<br>

It all depends on your budget and how keen you are. Having made these recommendations the main problems with weddings is low light indoors so your cameras and lens need to address this limitation (a quiet shutter helps too). For wild life it's all about reach, and crop +100-400L is about the minimum.</p>

<p> </p>