Stay with the 7D or Upgrade?

[cls]

Thanks for the various feedback. I mostly shoot family pictures, portraits and events at Church, interior and exteriors of vehicles, and a few manufacturing shots. A lot of times, I’m shooting indoors with available light, at ISO 1600-3200. So, improved IQ at low ISO settings would be helpful.

I assume you may have mixed it up a little in the end - I take it as you would like to see improved IQ at high ISO settings, and that's one of the things you would get with a full frame sensor. Though I would say that 7D noise up to ISO 1600 (or maybe even ISO 3200) still isn't too bad. Sure, if you zoom in to 100% magnification on photos without noise reduction applied, the difference between the 7D and the 5D3 will be big. Already after some noise reduction the difference will be reduced. And on a finished 6×4" print I'm not sure you would notice the difference.

If you shoot at high ISO settings and show your photos in large format you will see a significant improvement in IQ from a FF sensor. But if you keep ISO at low/moderate settings and/or view the photos in small size, the difference will be subtle. So if it's worth the upgrade or not is to a large extent a matter of your IQ requirements and how you use your photos.

(At least I see the crop/reach/DOF difference I already mentioned as a much more significant differentiatior between 7D and 5D/6D than ISO noise.)

[Mike McK]

The low light improvement and the depth of field differences (which I have never really considered) leads me to believe that a full frame camera is the way to go. Hopefully, I can sell my Mamiya 645 Pro and 3 lenses, along with my Nikon N90s with 2 lenses and a speedlight, to get the extra dollars needed to buy the 5DIII.

[memostothefuture]

I have a 7D and a 5D mkIII.

you will instantly notice the different button layout (zooming into images). that will confuse you for a while. the batteries are the same, which is nice. the 5D will show you more vignetting on many lenses, simply because it's full-frame. ISO beyond 16000 is unusable. AF is a bit nicer and images are a bit larger.

I think the 5d mkIII is a nice upgrade but it's not a total gamechanger for me apart from the AI servo mode, which helps me doing sports a lot. I kept my 7D and use it as a backup body and a remote trigger camera.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Some lenses behave quite differently. The 70-200 lenses seemed quite useful to me on a crop, but I'm not a big portrait guy (the family, etc is quite shy at posing for pictures) and the 70-200 range doesn't seem as useful as it used to be. Even at a college baseball game where I was able to get on top of the action it still wasn't quite long enough...

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

Some lenses behave quite differently. The 70-200 lenses seemed quite useful to me on a crop, but I'm not a big portrait guy (the family, etc is quite shy at posing for pictures) and the 70-200 range doesn't seem as useful as it used to be. Even at a college baseball game where I was able to get on top of the action it still wasn't quite long enough...

Interesting - I always found my 70-200 II to be 'awkward' on my 7D. It was too long indoors, and when I needed reach outdoors, it wasn't long enough so I'd always grab the 100-400. But on FF, it became my second most-used lens - great indoors and out for events, portraits, indoor sports, etc.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Interesting - I always found my 70-200 II to be 'awkward' on my 7D. It was too long indoors, and when I needed reach outdoors, it wasn't long enough so I'd always grab the 100-400. But on FF, it became my second most-used lens - great indoors and out for events, portraits, indoor sports, etc.

I don't think I've had enough time with it yet on FF to fully appreciate the opportunities. I can see how the 70-200 II would be excellent for indoor sports, but the f/4 version I'm using is too slow for that. I think the 70-200 range definitely seems more suited to people pictures.

Sports and wildlife type shooting on full frame seems like a tough proposition for the average Joe type. The lenses required to take images without a huge amount of cropping are very expensive and large. I can see why a lot of people who specialize in those areas tend to stay with the 7D to avoid so much cropping.

Dave

[Mike McK]

I agree, indoors the 70-200 f/2.8 II was too long most of the time. On my 7D, I used my 24-105 f/4L almost exclusively indoors. I was always pleased with the images, except in very low light situations (above ISO 1600). The enhanced low light capabilities of the 5D Mark III, is one of the main reasons that I want to upgrade. I don’t have 24-70 f/2.8L II or the cash to buy one, so I hoping that the 24-105 f/4L will still produce great results on a FF body.

[canoli]

Here's another at ISO 12800.

Wow KingB are you kidding me with these? ISO 12800? Incredible, just incredible. I've been out of the photography loop the past couple years. I keep up with the news but I haven't viewed many high-ISO shots from the newer Canons and Nikons. These shots really show off the capability of the newer sensors and architecture; probably old news to most of you who are shooting the newer bodies but to me these blow my mind. I barely get images this "clean" from ISO 800 on my 5D (or 40D).

Can you post a few details re: shooting parameters and body/lens? Also, did you do much PP on either of these?

Thanks for posting...gets me even more psyched for my next body!

[thekingb]

Wow KingB are you kidding me with these? ISO 12800? Incredible, just incredible. I've been out of the photography loop the past couple years. I keep up with the news but I haven't viewed many high-ISO shots from the newer Canons and Nikons. These shots really show off the capability of the newer sensors and architecture; probably old news to most of you who are shooting the newer bodies but to me these blow my mind. I barely get images this "clean" from ISO 800 on my 5D (or 40D).

Can you post a few details re: shooting parameters and body/lens? Also, did you do much PP on either of these?

Thanks for posting...gets me even more psyched for my next body!

It is indeed amazing. The new FF technology is startlingly good.

There's not much PP on either of those shots, but what I did was important. First, the WB was all wrong (typical orange color cast), so I fixed that. Really helps to shoot in RAW by the way. Also minor exposure modifications and a touch of Apple Aperture's built in noise reduction (but really not much at all). That's it! Both were shot with the 6D; one with the 85f/1.8 and the other with the 40mm pancake. Here's the exif on the shot you quoted:

[canoli]

It is indeed amazing. The new FF technology is startlingly good.

There's not much PP on either of those shots, but what I did was important. First, the WB was all wrong (typical orange color cast), so I fixed that. Really helps to shoot in RAW by the way. Also minor exposure modifications and a touch of Apple Aperture's built in noise reduction (but really not much at all). That's it! Both were shot with the 6D; one with the 85f/1.8 and the other with the 40mm pancake. Here's the exif on the shot you quoted:

Thanks KB - I appreciate it. The 6D seems like a real winner...a few compromises from the current $3K body and more than a few improvements over the older $3K body. I love that 85/1.8 too, one of my favs.

So...a little NR and few tweaks to the exposure/WB. Incredible...it really is incredible how clean those shots are. I sound silly going gaga over a couple casual shots... but I really am that amazed! The 6D - not even a 1-series body - at 12800 ...a little PP... and it leaves "acceptable" in the rear view mirror.

Thanks again for the details. Great to see these shots.