Upgrade Path

[Kayaker72]

Lots of thoughts out there. Just to get back to a different starting point what is your most demanding output format? If web or on monitor only then how much do you need for IQ in comparison to a 24x36" print? Had to ask the question even if I know that most people will base their answers on pixel peeping results instead of what they actually need...

I haven't yet printed to 24x36", but I have several 16 x 20" prints up at my office and around my house. Last time I made those prints was about 2 years ago, all from the 7D. I will be printing off my favorites from this year and updating a few of the pictures I have around. That said, I am not particularly demanding on the "print" level. They are mostly something I glance at and smile rather than taking a ten loop to exam the details.

So your point about most demanding output is a good one. So, to answer the question, my most demanding output is likely on the computer, as that is my most common output. I do get a certain thrill out of zooming in to 100% and seeing a sharp image. As I am a hobbyist, really, I am after any sort of thrill I can get from my hobby. But, I also think 1,000 x 1,000 crops that I publish online look better if the original file was very sharp. There is likely a point of diminishing returns on that, but so far, IMO, it holds true.

That said, sharpness is ony a concern in my focal ranges at 400 mm. The 24-105 f/4 (especially from f/5.6-f/8), 50 f/1.4 (~f/2,f/2.8-f/8) and 100 mm f/2.8 L (entire range) provide plenty of sharpness at their respective focal lengths. But, by IQ, I am also refering to color, contrast, distortion, etc. Just like I get a small thrill from a sharp image during post, my stomach sinks a little everytime I autocorrect for distortion on the 24-105 @ 24 mm. Final output is usually fine, but because of the autocorrect, my framing is off ever so slightly. But, mostly by IQ, I think I am probably looking for some "magic" as Peety put it. Which is likely a combination of all the above. Not to digress too far, but I've seen a lot of people be critical of the 50 f/1.2 L because it isn't sharp enough. Yet those that have it love it and a good number of the images I've seen from it certainly have something a little extra to them. So, I'd take it, but I can't justify the price over the 50 f/1.4. Ok, I am digressing, but I think sharpness gets discussed a lot because it is quantifiable whereas with most other parts of IQ quantification is either not as easily done or not possible at all.

But, in addition to overall IQ, I am looking for sharpness at faster apertures. I've really enjoyed the 50 f/1.4 at f/2 to f/2.8. I find myself limited with the 100-400L @ f/5.6 (sharper at f/6.3-f/8) for shutterspeed. I'd like a little more reach at a fast aperture at family events. This is both for shutter speed/ISO control, and for DoF.

Have had all of the lenses you currently have. 100-400 was the first to go. Replaced due to aperture limitations and slower AF. EF 50 was replaced with Sigma 50mm as the coma issue was a problem for me with my fondness for backlighting. 100mm macro was replaced with other macro lenses and tubes along with TCs. Once the 100mm f2.8 capability was met with another lens there wasn't enough unique about it to justify keeping it. 24-105 is still used as single lens on single body option for carrying almost everywhere I go. My main areas are sports, events, product shots, portraits, landscapes, and wildlife.

Current kit has 24-70, 70-200, and 300 as the main lenses swapped across two bodies. Do carry 1.4x TCs and tubes to provide longer reach and macro capabilities. Specialty lenses include TS, old manual macros, primes from 21 through 135mm, and a 17-40 for wide angle landscapes.

Light travelling is 24-105 on one body. Events are 24-70, 70-200, and possibly 300 with 2 bodies. Holidays add the 17-40 and 24 TS-e to the list with 300 being optional depending on destination. Primes are mostly used to supplement zooms for portrait sessions, product shots, landscape trips with selection of primes being based on what is on agenda. It gives me flexibility of high quality zoom with aperture and IQ of primes as an available option.

300 f4 and 400 f5.6 are similar in bulk to 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8. The 300 f2.8 is only slightly longer that the f4 version but the diameter difference is huge when it comes to finding a way to pack it especially with the hood on it which makes it just massive. For light weight small bulk travel the 300 f4 would be your buddy.

As far as the value of what you are carrying on your back goes I can only tell you that it takes a bit of time to get used to it. Having insurance coverage helps as will making sure that you have carry on sized bag(s).

Additional thoughts: Zeiss vs Canon will be ongoing debate for a long time. Suggest comparing on lens by lens basis. There are some made by both companies that I would rather drop kick down the hall than own as well as some from both that I would very much like to have in my collection.

Honestly, I think I am going a very similar route. Thanks for the thoughts and tips.

I saw this thread in CR. Great set up and close to what I may eventually want. Except, I don't think I'll ever consider myself "done" without a 500 mm or 600 mm lens.

If you are really determined to get the maximum reach possible with your lenses have you reconsidered using a cropped body? One question I have is regarding "2 stops better IQ". As you used this phrasing a couple of times I am just wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me as I don't understand how a larger aperture opening relates to image quality?

Never mind. Figured out the missing comma. He eats shoots and leaves. He eats, shoots, and leaves. Such a small thing a comma is with ability to change meaning entirely.

Ha! Yep, I just edited the post to make that more clear. My favorite about use of commas is "Let's eat, Grandpa" vs "Let's eat Grandpa"....

Reach vs IQ. I've thought about keeping my 7D. I actually still technically have it, but just sent it and all my EFS lenses to Adorama to get a quote. This is part of the motivation for this thread, I may get the most value for my gear in a trade with Adorama, but need to decide what I want. But I more consistently like the images I am working with from the 5DIII, even when I've needed "reach." The final test happened this summer photographying loons while kayaking. I try to keep my distance, so reach is needed. This year I used the 5DIII. When I compared the images to previous years, taken with the 7D, I preferred the images from the 5DIII. So, the 7D has sat on a shelf since March. It still takes great images, but my body set up is going to be 5DIII and EOS-M. That said, there is a certain threshold price where I'll just keep the 7D.

[Busted Knuckles]

As I am a hobbyist, really, I am after any sort of thrill I can get from my hobby. But, I also think 1,000 x 1,000 crops that I publish online look better if the original file was very sharp. There is likely a point of diminishing returns on that, but so far, IMO, it holds true.

Well said.

I was having this type of conversation last night with my Nikon buddy who was lamenting Nikon's last move. We chased ourselves in circles for awhile, the observation we came back to is looking at the photo experience in a fashion similar to how one describes the flying parameters of a plane - a "flight envelope." IQ, weight, size, features (FPS,Video, weather proofing etc), focal range, iso range. The idea was to do map out the maximums, 90th percentile, etc of our expected shooting experiences. For example, not withstanding Jonathans wonderful Aurora shots, I don't see myself hanging out in sub 0 F environments tacking pics.

As a hobbyist looking for thrills, the goal isn't to pick a limiting set, rather to see where my interests don't match up with the parameters of my equipment and where there is overlap. This last summer I rented the 24 & 90 T/S, glad I did. T/S will remain a rental vs. owned item.

What was an interesting "aha" moment was the breadth of capabilities already in place - and the weak link is the 24-105 on the FF. I have been reticent to swap it out for the 24-70 F4 for the range issue, so the solution would be the 24-70 2.8 on the crop body (M2 is in my future if it has the dual pixel sensor). ( I really don't care how it looks - and I hold the lens far more than I hold the camera and my right hand doesn't cramp).

Once the M2 comes out, I am hoping Canon brings out a true wide prime for it - the imaging horsepower of an M2, 5dIII, 22-M, 24-70,70-200, 2x TC,50 1.4, M-wide prime or adapter wide EFS, ext tubes, and 600 ex, all of which fits in my small back pack - is just pretty darn amazing. I am "ok" w/ not have a super tele and relying on the 2x,70-200,adapter & M, the few times have to reach out to 640mm - I know it will look "odd" but my only real concern is how the image looks.

Everyone has their own "photo envelope" and I don't expect anyone to share mine, just a concept that might help others.

The other "aha moment" was that I am working WAAAAAYYYY too much and need to get out of the office.