# Help me decide on my next camera purchase - full frame high end



## RChauhan (Jun 1, 2015)

I would appreciate any advice as I am deciding on my first full frame camera but there is no urgency in the purchase. I can wait for the release of the newer models but would like to plan the purchase and save up for the body and a big white to go with it. 

I like to shoot wildlife and landscapes but will also shoot anything that interests me. Photography is a hobby for me.

Here is what I am thinking so far:

The super resolution of the 5Ds & 5Dsr is nice but not essential
The metal bodies of the high end cameras is a big plus so I can travel without worrying
I have crop-sensor cameras so I want a full frame camera
Very good AF performance
weather sealing is VERY important to me as I work on a ship
High ISO performance so I can leave the flash off as much as possible

Here are the cameras I am thinking about:
-5D3
-5D4
-6D2 - depends if it has a good AF system because I tried the 6D and there aren't enough points 
-1DX - after the 1DX2 comes out
-1DX2 ;D just because - any guesstimate for the release/price?

Here are my full frame lenses, just to give you an idea of what I have so far:
-24-105L, 100-400L V1, 50/1.8 & I will have the 24-70/2.8 by th end of the year.


----------



## gary samples (Jun 1, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> I would appreciate any advice as I am deciding on my first full frame camera but there is no urgency in the purchase. I can wait for the release of the newer models but would like to plan the purchase and save up for the body and a big white to go with it.
> 
> I like to shoot wildlife and landscapes but will also shoot anything that interests me. Photography is a hobby for me.
> 
> ...


 which camera has your skills surpassed and choose the next one up 
few people do this !!


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 1, 2015)

My skills need a lot of work. My main concern is damaging my 70D while travelling so I was going for a metal body camera like the 5D3. But I figured some advice couldn't hurt.

I carry a 70D right now and my old T2i as a second body if luggage weight isn't an issue. Hence the full frame.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 1, 2015)

In a guessing exercise, I suppose:

6D Mark ii is great for landscape, but will continue to slow AF and low FPS. ???

5D Mark IV will be a slight improvement for photography, and price should be above US$3300. :-\

1DX Mark II will be the best for fast action, and price should be above US$ 6,500. 

Why not take the price of 5D Mark iii even now around $ 2000? 

Another great camera is 7D Mark II, which will well withstand extreme weather.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 1, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> weather sealing is VERY important to me as I work on a ship



The only camera that meets that one item in your list is the 1Dx or the 1DxII whenever it is released.

My guess for the 1DxII, if it is closer to a "1DsIV" would be near $8,000.00 USD. I would not expect it to be introduced for less than the 1Dx when it was brand new... and we could all be pleasantly surprised with one for $4,500.00  No one but a very small handful of people at Canon know.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 1, 2015)

Steer clear of the 1 series bodies at this point, if you have the time and inclination and the day in day out hands on experience to set them up exactly how you want them for each shooting situation then they are unmatched, but most of us don't have that time and what time we do have we'd rather spend taking actual photos than setting up gear.

Metal over plastic for 'durability' is a state of mind, modern engineering plastic is a far better material to make cameras and lenses out of for most parts, including the exteriors. Take a look at some of the destruction testing DigitalRev has done on their YouTube channel for proof. Besides, I have never had a metal body that hasn't suffered some kind of corrosion (especially 1 series bodies with salt water spray), ask regular here Macguyver who got a wetting down from a wave with his 1DX and a $350 bill for repairing it.

The best thing for you to do is buy a 5D MkIII now, they can be had for $1,999 new. That is a crazy good deal for the best 'all rounder' camera on the planet. A MkIV will be along who knows when when you have missed untold picture opportunities and will cost nearly twice as much and be in short supply.

For wildlife the 5D MkIII is a great camera, sure it doesn't have quite the AF of the 1DX, but Canon were testing the 200-400 f4 L in Africa with the 5D MkIII's; as for landscapes, I can see no reason at all why anybody would shoot landscapes with a 1DX over a 5D MkIII, there isn't one, indeed there are 4 million reasons the 5D MkIII is more appropriate! Besides that the 5D MkIII can be small and light compared to the 1DX, it has a very nice 'silent shutter' mode, which the 1DX has too but is much louder, it takes much less setting up to use effectively but has the options to play with as you get used to each other.

Don't wait, get a 5D MkIII asap and start shooting.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jun 1, 2015)

Ultimately, it comes down to you and what you value most out of a camera. If I were in your position, I'd do the following (but ultimately, this suits me and my style of shooting, and you're not necessarily going to value what I value) 

If you had to buy right now, I'd say the 5DmkIII is the way to go. Good price, decent resolution, good autofocus, good weather sealing, good fps, good iso. All around a good camera. I'd stay away from the 6D since you wanted good autofocus and I'd stay away from the 1Dx due to its cost and not being much, if any, better for what you're shooting. 

But, since you said that time is not of the essence, I'd say wait until the 5DmkIV, 6DmkII, and 1DxmkII are released. If they're a lot better and/or have a feature that you really really want that current offerings don't have, then you get those benefits and will spare yourself the buyer's remorse if you buy now. If they're not a lot better, then you can pick up a 5dmkIII a year from now on the cheap and invest in some nice glass. You said you work on a cruise ship and in low light, so the money saved could go towards a nice 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8. to make the most of your camera. 

Personally, unless you really need need the best fps and weather sealing money can buy, I'd hesitate on the 1D series. Working on a cruise ship, I don't think the fps are going be worth it, nor do I think that the 1D weather sealing is so much better that it will make a noticeable difference nor justify the cost. I use my 5DmkIII in some pretty crazy weather situations for landscape shooting and the weather sealing holds up beautifully. I've been behind waterfalls being blasted with spray the point where my rain coat and rain pants were letting water through and I was soaked to the bone, yet my camera (with no rain cover at all) was perfectly fine. Unless you're shooting the Olympics in a hurricane, a 1Dx is overkill.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 1, 2015)

Thanks a lot for all the advice. All your thinking is confirming what I feel:

-As my reason/limitation is not technical, I can wait.

-The 5D3 still looks like the best option and may look even better (value for money) when the 5D4 comes out.

-I'm using my 70D so no missed pictures as I am not in a place where the differences of a crop to full frame will affect me in any real way.

-The 1D series is overkill, its main features are not essential for me and the savings can go towards good lenses (11-24 or a big white is the next plan).

-privatebydesign, Good point by about rust, really never thought of that. I honestly will have to rethink my reasoning.


----------



## FEBS (Jun 1, 2015)

I do follow the advice of another CR member. Do it step by step. If your skills really still need to move up, then buying a 1Dx might be nightmare as there are a lot of setup features in the menu.

After my 7D, I bought a 5D3. When I was used to the AF, as this was the biggest change outside the crop to FF, I really enjoyed that camera and still do today. It's my most frequent used camera. When I went on safari last year, I wanted 2 FF. So I did buy the 1Dx. Logical step. I was quickly used to that camera as all the setup of the 1Dx is basically the one of the 5D3 + some additions.

So my advice, go for 5D3. Price is good now, and it's a nice camera to learn. Afterwards if you even want to trade-in your 70D then look for a 5D4, 1DxII or ...


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 1, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> RChauhan said:
> 
> 
> > weather sealing is VERY important to me as I work on a ship
> ...


danski has it right.

I, too, am on ships and boats (at least 100 days a year) and find that nothing less than the 1D series is reliable enough for me. The robust construction is one factor, but even more important is the amount of weather sealing, noticeably above and beyond even the 5D3 and 7D2.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 1, 2015)

jhpeterson said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > RChauhan said:
> ...



What a load of rubbish. How much spray do you get on a typical ship? Next to zero, and certainly none in your cabin. We don't know what the OP is actually doing but many ships are completely air conditioned! How much corrosion do you get on the average polycarbonate body? Zero, yet very single 1 series body that I have worked with at sea (not ships but 100' sail boats) has shown signs of corrosion after six months, as have my metal bodied lenses like the 300 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS.


----------



## Northstar (Jun 1, 2015)

I'd say to go with the 5d3 mainly because it's a great all around camera at a great current price. Which will leave extra money for lenses.

1dx is about shooting fast action, that's it's main advantage. If you find yourself shooting alot of sports/fast action, then you should consider the 1d at some point.

Good luck,
North


----------



## jhpeterson (Jun 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> jhpeterson said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...


It isn't just the spray that's the problem. In fact, condensation is almost certainly a bigger one. Sure, it might not be a factor if you ALWAYS kept your equipment in air-conditioned spaces. But, if you took it outside just once, you're likely to come back with problems. The temperature differences will bring on condensation and, with that, corrosion.
Many years ago, I, too, thought non-metal bodies (i.e., polycarbonate, probably it was just plastic then) might be a solution. I suppose they could be, but what's much more important is how well the cameras (and lenses) are weather-sealed. Even fifty feet off the water you'd be amazed how much salt content is in the air.
I'm very familiar with 100' sailboats, and even more so with 20' ones. There's not a dry spot anywhere. Unless you keep it in a container at ALL times, a camera that isn't well-sealed is likely to show serious corrosion in a few weeks, never mind six months.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 1, 2015)

Spray would not normally be an issue as I work on large (250+ metre) container ships. The only time I foresee spray is if I see something interesting and take the camera out.

The actual problem is humidity and condensation which causes havoc even on our normal electronics. So I will eventually pair my camera with a weather sealed lens selection while I am onboard. Lens changes will only be done back indoors where at least blown salt will not be an issue.

I never change lenses in the open, even on a calm day as I have seen suspended salt deposit on the ship without any wind.

In fact, the weather sealing is a major factor for me on the Tamron 24-70/2.8 vs the Canon ver II as Canon never seems to quantify it.

I eventually see my travel kit as Body + general zoom (24-70) + 24/1.4 and accessories (tripod, clamp, filters etc).


----------



## NancyP (Jun 1, 2015)

I would be very interested in the existing Pentax APS-C camera or the anticipated Pentax full frame camera, and associated weatherproof/ waterproof lenses, if I were on that 20' sailboat. 

Invest in a lot of "dry-rite" or other drying agent in oven-bakable form (oven is how you regenerate it once it has absorbed the moisture).


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 1, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I would be very interested in the existing Pentax APS-C camera or the anticipated Pentax full frame camera, and associated weatherproof/ waterproof lenses, if I were on that 20' sailboat.
> 
> Invest in a lot of "dry-rite" or other drying agent in oven-bakable form (oven is how you regenerate it once it has absorbed the moisture).



Interesting but that would take a change to the whole system. I haven't read much about the Pentax full frame so I will look into that. However, Canons lens lineup along with their AF system is a big deal and any new system will be limited on glass at the beginning. Plus I can borrow Canon stuff from my family for short trips so there are a lot of disadvantages to changing the system.

I was actually planning to seal the seams with silicon paste before a trip. I figured it would be a little extra protection. I am planning to find a gasket or O-ring I can use on all lenses to waterproof the mounts as extra protection.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 1, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> I was actually planning to seal the seams with silicon paste before a trip. I figured it would be a little extra protection. I am planning to find a gasket or O-ring I can use on all lenses to waterproof the mounts as extra protection.



I am not sure I understand you here. Are you intending on squirting silicone paste on the junction between the lens and the camera body? You sure that would be a good idea? Especially since you mentioned borrowing lenses from family/friends 

I also don't know how you can retrofit a gasket on lenses without affecting the mounting.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 1, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> RChauhan said:
> 
> 
> > I was actually planning to seal the seams with silicon paste before a trip. I figured it would be a little extra protection. I am planning to find a gasket or O-ring I can use on all lenses to waterproof the mounts as extra protection.
> ...



;D no, not exactly. Silicon paste carefully rubbed over the seams on the body of the camera. Tape for lens seams that don't move. My lenses obviously. Planning to find/buy a junk lens to try this first.

As for the gasket - thin, compressible rubber ring that I can use around the rim of the mount. There was a kickstarter for something like that but I dont know what happened to it.

Actually, if you were sure you could go without changing a lens for a wet shoot, I would put a thin line of silicone around the mount after I have put the lens on. I don't see how it can hurt.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 1, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> Actually, if you were sure you could go without changing a lens for a wet shoot, I would put a thin line of silicone around the mount after I have put the lens on. I don't see how it can hurt.



Hopefully the material doesn't out-gas anything to interfere with optics or sensor coatings.

Not to mention getting all over your hands... and then dropping the camera.

In the end, you still have a camera body and lens that is marketed as "water resistant" with no official IP rating on either component.

A 1D series body would be the best choice, but given the environment that you are describing, I wonder if even that would be good enough for long term use. A teeny tiny saltwater intrusion would render the camera or lens junk.

Whatever you eventually decide to buy, I would view off the shelf and non-IP rated consumer goods as disposable unless you bought something actually rated to be used within the environment.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 1, 2015)

Ok, the spray/condensation concern may throw a monkey wrench into my response. I don't shoot in the same environment and can't say which body would be best for the environment. Are you seeing condensation in the 70D?

The weather sealing weak spot on the 5D3 is the mode dial. If you are seeing condensation inside the 70D, it may still happen with the 5D3 -- which would imply that only the 1Dx has the sealing that you need. Sealing issues aside, I do think the plastic bodies are tougher than may think. There's no doubt that the "pro-grade" bodies are better suited for combat use by professional media and sports shooters -- especially when used and abused by shooters encouraged to "do what it takes" to get the shot with company gear. But, for most of us, the plastic bodies hold up well.

Generally speaking, I don't recommend a body upgrade without citing a specific shortcoming of your current body. Finances aside, the best time to upgrade bodies is when your current body is holding you back. If the focus locking or focus tracking sometimes disappointing with the 70D, then it's time to consider moving up. If high ISO performance of the 70D isn't what you want, here's another reason to consider a change.

If the 70D is satisfying your needs but there's still a desire to shoot with a higher-end body, be sure that your expectations are properly managed. I will echo others in suggesting the 5D3. As a full frame body, it has lot to offer with better AF, better DOF control for more pop, better high ISO performance, and greater color depth.

However, high end cameras won't take better pictures for you, but they will give you more tools to help you capture better images. If you are comfortable with the manual "creative" modes and willing to explore the menus of the 5D3, then you'll get a lot out of it. If you prefer the auto modes of the 70D -- such as sports and portrait -- then you'll be disappointed. You won't find these on the 5D3. (I suspect this isn't an issue for you, but for others, it might be.)


----------



## NancyP (Jun 1, 2015)

Yes, I was just throwing the Pentax option out there, for those who may not need a huge lens collection. It would make a fine kayaking camera - tether it to you or the 'yak, but don't worry about babying it.


----------



## jcarapet (Jun 2, 2015)

I can vouch for 5d3 on being more than good enough. Plenty of autofocus points, plenty of FPS for most amateur wildlife shooting, and I can speak to it's weather sealing. Took a water balloon straight to the camera without issue. Only complaint is no dual pixel AF or it would have completely replaced my HV30 for video. 

The question is, what are you losing by not having a full frame camera? Better put, what are you losing by buying now vs. 5d4? Lot of if's there.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2015)

*Re: Help me decide on my next camera purchase *

Simple. Get both the 1Dx mkI and the 5d mkIII. Both are a steal right now. Sell the 70D to help fund it all and give the T2i to a deserving child.

Keep the 1Dx stored while aboard ship to avoid corrosion.

Yeah, like me, you are a hobbyist. But you like quality too. Get both. If I could, that is exactly what I would do... and right now. I just can't yet, and I am afraid the camera's at these prices will be gone when I can.

Humidity? Get a couple of dry bags and order some desiccant pouches. They work. Everything shipped from Asia comes with desiccant pouches. I ordered by the case when I lived in Florida (for my guns).


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 2, 2015)

Just stick with the 70D. Rather than getting a FF camera and shooting at higher ISO's, you'd get better results using a wide aperture prime and shooting at lower ISO's on your 70D. On paper, the AF performance on a 5Diii or 1DX might look better. But if you're not getting the right results with your 70D, you just need more practice, not a new body.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 2, 2015)

Hi Hillsilly. 
The op says he likes to shoot landscape and wildlife, therein lies the flaw with the wide aperture primes used wide open. 
Landscape needs a smaller aperture for some depth of field, and a wide prime 400 or 500 for wildlife is going to be about the cost of the 1Dx! (Or possibly the 1Dx and a 5DIII) ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



Hillsilly said:


> Just stick with the 70D. Rather than getting a FF camera and shooting at higher ISO's, you'd get better results using a wide aperture prime and shooting at lower ISO's on your 70D. On paper, the AF performance on a 5Diii or 1DX might look better. But if you're not getting the right results with your 70D, you just need more practice, not a new body.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 2, 2015)

In your opinion, what's better for wildlife - a used 300/2.8 on the OP's 70D or the OP's 100-400 on a new 5Diii?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 2, 2015)

Sounds like a case of G.A.E. to me 

Sailing is one of my hobbies - one of the reasons I try not to spend too much on photo gear ! When it comes to damage, in my experience there is a relationship between the size of boat and the time you are at sea. The worse case scenario for damp is a small boat at sea for a long time, the best case a large ship at sea for a short time. 

Even in the first case it's very much down to how you manage the photo gear. With modern electronic cameras the damage seems to be done _after_ the shooting is done - when it's stowed. The gear must be put away and stowed dry. 

Unless your container ship is a dire FOC derelict I don't see a problem with any camera as long as you are reasonably sympathetic with it.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 2, 2015)

The plan is to have a crop and a full frame camera. Depending on the place(s) I will travel to and how I will go, I will change things around in the kit I carry.

The 70D is perfectly fine and I have a lot to learn yet. This is more about making a plan so I can save accordingly. Like I said earlier, I eventually want a big white, most probably a 300/2.8 with both extenders for maximum versatility.

My list at the start was almost in order of my preferences so all the support for a 5D3 backs up my impression. A good camera will always be a good camera even when the replacement comes out.

My 'ship' kit will eventually be:
-body (crop or FF depending on where I'm going and what I reasonably expect to shoot) 
-_most probably_ the tokina 11-16/2.8 if crop, I don't have a wide angle for FF yet
-24-XX zoom, I have the 24-105 but am almost sure of getting the 24-70/2.8ii in a few months.
-24/2.8 STM walkabout lens if I am anywhere I don't want to attract attention (or the 40/2.8 STM which I will buy with the FF camera)
-_maybe_ a zoom, the 100-400 is too heavy to carry as a just in case lens, so might try a lighter/smaller zoom or prime.

The T2i and old 50/1.8 will eventually be given away to someone who can't afford a good camera if my wife doesn't start taking more interest in coming out of auto. She loves the G10 (so do I).


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 2, 2015)

The kit will also include:
-Tripod
-Ballhead
-Clamp(s)
-Filters
-Cleaning gear like air blowers and lenspens.

Another separate kit setup will be when I travel just for photography. Then I am thinking:
-Full frame with Wide Angle
-70D with telephoto
-other lenses and accessories depending on the nature of the trip.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 2, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> The kit will also include:
> -Tripod
> -Ballhead
> -Clamp(s)
> ...



It'll be best to figure out how you'll use your 70D and your FF camera. After switching to FF, it's very hard to go back to the crop sensor. The shallower DOF is appealing and so is the better high ISO performance. I find that I'd rather bring another lens than a second body, but your circumstances may be different. The 70D will be a fine backup option, but if it's not your primary option does it make sense to retain EF-S lenses (like the Tokina 11-16 rather than switching to a Tamron 15-30 or Canon 16-35 f/4 IS). Another option is to retain the 70D and use it as video camera (with STM lenses) with a secondary role as a backup to the FF.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 2, 2015)

Remember that a crop sensor effectively adds a 1.6x extender to the lens without loss of IQ by added glass, in fact as I understand, the center crop uses the better controlled part of the lens.

The crop on a telephoto is a benefit in my view since I will not get multiple telephotos for various reaches. Additionally, we do not lose any f-stops on fast glass.

So both have their own places. Weight is not a factor I am considering in the kits as backpacking is not a big plan. 

I saw two Americans travelling together in Ladakh two years ago and they had this setup - 1 FF with 24-70/2.8 & 1 crop with 70-200/2.8. Looked pretty good to me from a versatility point of view. Even in the old monastries, one was taking full scene shots and one was zooming into details. I've been thinking about it since then actually. Its only now that I feel I am serious enough about photography that a FF will not be a waste or an impulse buy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> Remember that a crop sensor effectively adds a 1.6x extender to the lens without loss of IQ by added glass, in fact as I understand, the center crop uses the better controlled part of the lens.



No it does not. It is just the same as enlarging and cropping the center section of a FF shot (thereby saving the weight and cost of the crop camera), and every single comparison test I have ever seen of same generation sensors has shown that even though the smaller sensor puts more pixels on the subject the actual real world realisation of additional detail is insignificant.

I have asked many times for people to show me same generation crop camera and cropped ff camera images that actually show a meaningful difference in resolution and nobody ever has, they think they have but when you process both images to their full potential, ie not the same, then there has never been a significant difference.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RChauhan said:
> 
> 
> > Remember that a crop sensor effectively adds a 1.6x extender to the lens without loss of IQ by added glass, in fact as I understand, the center crop uses the better controlled part of the lens.
> ...



+1 in real world use.

Ideal conditions, perfect lighting, tripod, live view and so forth to make that perfect image, yes more pixels matter.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 2, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RChauhan said:
> ...



Wonder if soon we'll be saying the same thing about the 5Ds :-X.


----------



## JWMilton (Jun 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RChauhan said:
> 
> 
> > Remember that a crop sensor effectively adds a 1.6x extender to the lens without loss of IQ by added glass, in fact as I understand, the center crop uses the better controlled part of the lens.
> ...



So if you have a 5DIII and crop the picture from the 22 MP to the equivalent APS-C crop it will be 8.5 MP (like a 20D). So a current model 7D Mark II should have a better resolution for a pic that a 5DIII cropped to the same aspect ratio.

Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2015)

JWMilton said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RChauhan said:
> ...



No you are doing nothing wrong, common wisdom says the 7D MkII should absolutely blow the cropped 5D MkIII away for detail and resolution, but real world results across same generation sensors actually show that isn't the case to any meaningful degree. If you already have a 5D MkIII and a 100-400 MkII don;t think a 7D MkII is going to get you a meaningful 'reach advantage', it isn't.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'd hope not but actual results from similar density crops so far have not supported much difference. I would hope to see a meaningful difference between the 5D MkIII and the 5DSR, but having done many uprezzing and crop tests (on other cameras) I think the differences are going to much more modest than most people expect.

Studio lighting is going to be the biggest differentiator, but then it already is.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> JWMilton said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Asking for clarification - so pixels on target does not have an effect when shooting birds etc?

The crop sensor will make a better enlargement than the cropped full frame, correct?

On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd hope not but actual results from similar density crops so far have not supported much difference. I would hope to see a meaningful difference between the 5D MkIII and the 5DSR, but having done many uprezzing and crop tests (on other cameras) I think the differences are going to much more modest than most people expect.
> 
> Studio lighting is going to be the biggest differentiator, but then it already is.



Agreed. Greater output size will be the first impression, beyond that in practice..... I think you'll need a pretty stringent set of conditions to get the most out of it.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 2, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.



If I could answer that, being something of a panoramic specialist; they used a combination of 400mm focal length and crop sensor due to the size of the format that they were creating. Remember that on a 10 x 8 camera the "standard lens" focal length is 300mm ( that is equivalently to 50mm on FF). 

In order to get the field of view that they wanted for the (ridiculous) file size that they wanted to create if they had used a FF camera they would have needed to use a 640mm lens. Also they specifically wanted the 'biggest' file size, so more smaller crop frames at 20mp does it for them. It has nothing to do with resolution. In fact it would have been better on a 5D with 600mm lens, but the overall file size would not have been as big.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> Asking for clarification - so pixels on target does not have an effect when shooting birds etc?
> 
> The crop sensor will make a better enlargement than the cropped full frame, correct?
> 
> On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.



Can you see a meaningful difference?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25321.msg502225#msg502225


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 2, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> RChauhan said:
> 
> 
> > On this point, why was a 70D used with a tele for the new Panorama record? Serious question, not being sarcastic.
> ...



So the challenge was about the biggest file size - most giga pixels and not so much the subject, etc?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 2, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > RChauhan said:
> ...



I think the intention was to create a larger picture than the one done over London in 2013. Did the subject matter ? They bothered to take a 400 / 2.8 up into the mountains ! If you have a look at the full picture you may agree with me that it's too wide an angle, and that there is too much foreground and the main subject is too far away and small in the whole picture, but they broke the record and I guess they were happy about it. 

When it comes to landscape you can't beat greater magnification. This is why larger formats are better in this field; larger format needs a longer lens, pro rata.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Can you see a meaningful difference?
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25321.msg502225#msg502225



Thanks for those images! It's a good visualization.

I think we are talking about slightly different things or my understanding of the concepts is wrong. I'm not expecting major differences between the cameras. Its more about putting each camera where its greatest strength is - FF for landscapes, crop for tele. I am NOT saying one is better than the other, just how I would use them as per my understanding.

Let me put it this way:

I'm out with a friend and we are carrying a 70D and a 5D3, both with the 100-400. We see a bird in good light and both zoom out to 400mm. As I am using the 70D, i get the whole bird wingtip to wingtip. He gets the bird a little smaller in the frame due to the longer effective reach.

Wouldn't the 70D image require less enlargement to print at a large size with the same composition? 

More to the point - this is about planning out my purchases. To put it into context, here's my roadmap:
I have: T2i & 70D, 24-105/f4, 11-16/f2.8, 100-400v1.
Purchases planned over the next few years:
-FF camera (since I have 2 crop sensors)
-24-70/2.8ii - will replace the 24-105
-11-24 or 16-35/4 landscapes and night skies
-a Tele for wildlife, probably 300/2.8 & extenders.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 2, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Can you see a meaningful difference?
> ...



No. The bird is reproduced on both sensors the same size (the fact that it covers a larger percentage of the smaller sensor is irrelevant) therefore to get two pictures with the bird the same size and composition the enlargement is the same from the different sensors.

Look at it like this, the lens projects an image onto the sensor, the lens doesn't care or know if it is front of a crop sensor or a ff sensor, the image is projected the same size. Ergo, to get the subject printed the same size (and composition) from different sensors the enlargement ratio is the same, the fact that the ff image gets cropped is again irrelevant.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 3, 2015)

Maybe a better way to think about it is the size of the "full frame" sensor is 1.6x larger in area than an APS-C sensor. 

You do not get 1.6x the mm's of the lens out of APS-C. Your field of view (framing) changes. 

Whatever "reach" or "teleconverter" you get is dependent on the pixel size between the two cameras. 

When the 5D3 came out, there were many comparisons to the 7D, and essentially the 5D3 cropped to the FOV of the 7D was better in most real world shooting conditions. In the same way, the 1dx loses nothing to the 5D3.

A full frame camera gathers much more light than an APS-C camera and will provide higher useable ISO than the same generation APS-C sensor. 

In order to get sharp output from APS-C or even a 22mp+ FF sensor, you need to be at least 1.5x(focal length) for a minimum shutter speed- which runs up ISO quickly. Those that do that get sharp images.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 3, 2015)

Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to explain this to me. It's a huge help. 

So, in any given generation of sensors, the FF beats the crop, generally speaking. There's no teleconvertor effect (I had that totally wrong) - the crop sensor is like a forced crop on every image.

So here is my thinking right now:
-There is no urgency, I can wait. The 70D is a very good camera especially with Magic Lantern.
-Wait for specs on the 5D4. If it has a killer feature I want (wifi), get that. 
-6D2 with a better AF might also do the trick but wait for the 5D4.
-otherwise get a 5D3 which will only get cheaper.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jun 3, 2015)

It comes down to the best camera available at the time.

I have found that the few hundreds of dollars between the price of the bodies you referenced (there is a couple of thousand between them and the 1DxI/II) and the differences become more function than IQ. So get the most functional camera you can afford. It is unlikely you will regret the extra cost a year later, but you may regret not having functionality.

As to reach of FF to Crop, I have seen pretty exhaustive analysis which puts the reach factor at 1.2 vs 1.6 from an overall IQ stand point. Which to me really draws in the 5Ds resolution gain question as alluded to earlier


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 3, 2015)

Busted Knuckles said:


> As to reach of FF to Crop, I have seen pretty exhaustive analysis which puts the reach factor at 1.2 vs 1.6 from an overall IQ stand point. Which to me really draws in the 5Ds resolution gain question as alluded to earlier



Could you explain that part? The effective reach is 1.2 if IQ is considered - so usable IQ on the 5Ds would be lower?


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 3, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> Thanks to everyone who is taking the time to explain this to me. It's a huge help.
> 
> So, in any given generation of sensors, the FF beats the crop, generally speaking. There's no teleconvertor effect (I had that totally wrong) - the crop sensor is like a forced crop on every image.
> 
> ...



How many pictures will you miss by waiting?

There is ML for the 5D3.

Who knows when the 5D4 specs will be outed, and then when will it be available to the general public right away?

Look how great built-in WiFi works in current Canon cameras... drains the battery right quick.


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 3, 2015)

RChauhan said:


> Could you explain that part? The effective reach is 1.2 if IQ is considered - so usable IQ on the 5Ds would be lower?



Way too soon to tell because no production cameras are out yet. So many think that the 5Ds/r are simply scaled-up 7D2 sensors, but what if they aren't? We already know that the CFA's are different.


----------



## kaswindell (Jun 3, 2015)

I upgraded from a 50D to a 5DIII earlier this year - sooo much nicer images from the 5DIII and it focuses much better than the xxD cameras too - I wish I had switched sooner so I recommend that you don't wait.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 9, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> When the 5D3 came out, there were many comparisons to the 7D, and essentially the 5D3 cropped to the FOV of the 7D was better in most real world shooting conditions. In the same way, the 1dx loses nothing to the 5D3.


+1.

I have all three bodies and did the same comparison -- especially when migrating from the 7D to the 5D3. I had to know if and when it was advantages to bring the 7D. 

During indoor situations, cropping a 5D3 image is definitely better than a full 7D image. Outside, with lots of light, the differences fade some -- especially when pixel-peeping. However, last fall I shot a kids soccer game with the 70-200 2.8L II as my primary lens and used both the 7D and the 5D3. I was expecting some "reach benefits" of the 7D. But, after culling the best shots of the day, the vast majority were from the 5D3. Other factors, including small DOF and greater color depth gave these images more pop. I see no real benefit with the so-called extra reach factor of crop bodies.


----------

