# First big job using FF - for all the FF nay-sayers



## LewisShermer (Feb 4, 2013)

So this is kind of in response to the nay-sayers of that canon interview where the dude is basically saying the future of canon is FF and everyones going off their tits about the future of 7Dii (or 70D if you're that way inclined)

I shot my first wedding with the paring of a 5Diii and a 5Dii (stepping up from last seasons 7D & 60D paring) and I coud not have had a more pleasurable time doing it. It was crazy just how nice it all worked out. I was originally a little bit anxious about it as the only other job for someone else I'd done with the 5Diii was a studio model shoot so I was out in the field without anything to fall back on.

I don't know if I'm slightly trolling here but just from what I've found this weekend, FF is the way forward... if you do own a 7D and you don't need the FPS then sell it and get a second hand 5Dii. The IQ and ability to frame is an amazing step up. I think I shot 90% of it with the 50mm 1.4 and just used the 24-105 for the group shots.

The colours, the image quality, the depth, the sharpness... I could go on

I wont put the pics on here as I've still to show the bride, but I have processed a couple of shots for testers and have them on my blog wentdownfighting.tumblr.com

I'm not the greatest photog in the world nor was this the most glamourous of weddings but I'm very pleased with the initial results ;D

I may even flippantly throw in my doubt that photog > equipment even applies any more...


----------



## steven kessel (Feb 4, 2013)

I very recently made the jump from a 7D to the 5D Mark iii and I couldn't be happier. It's a fabulous camera. The autofocus on the mark iii is much superior to that of the 7D especially in low light. And, the images just seem to be richer. That said, I still take a lot of pictures with the 7D. It's the camera I use when I want a bit of extra reach with my long telephotos.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 4, 2013)

Yep. I have no appetite to shoot Crop again but I do miss the reach sometimes.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2013)

Do you really find that the "extra reach" makes a significant difference? My main use is birding and I find that with a sharp 600mm lens the 5D III is just about as good for detail as the 7D (now my back up) and has all the advantages of much better focussing and lower noise. It shows what good value the 7D is but you are not losing out by not having its crop factor.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 4, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> So this is kind of in response to the nay-sayers of that canon interview where the dude is basically saying the future of canon is FF and everyones going off their tits about the future of 7Dii (or 70D if you're that way inclined)
> 
> I shot my first wedding with the paring of a 5Diii and a 5Dii (stepping up from last seasons 7D & 60D paring) and I coud not have had a more pleasurable time doing it. It was crazy just how nice it all worked out. I was originally a little bit anxious about it as the only other job for someone else I'd done with the 5Diii was a studio model shoot so I was out in the field without anything to fall back on.
> 
> ...



For bird photography, a 5D mk II is pretty hampered... A 5d Mk III would be ok, with a much longer lens than I own... to make a FF camera work for me, I would have to spend more than 12,000 by the time it would all be said and done... So, I still await the 7D MK II!!!


----------



## agierke (Feb 4, 2013)

i owned a cropped body for all of about a month before the 5D came out and when it did i scrambled to get it. i could never get over the crop factor killing the wide angle end of my lenses and hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future. i'm a full frame fool.

welcome to the world of FF!


----------



## weixing (Feb 4, 2013)

Hi,
I also shoot birds and using the 400mm F5.6L on 60D... can't afford anything longer or better than that, so IMHO, for budget birder, APS-C is still very attractive. 

Anyway, I plan to wait till May or June and look at the review of the 5D3 F8 implementation, if it's really good, reliable and AF not slow down by too much, I might change to 5D3... 400mm + 1.4x on 22MP FF DSLR will had very similar reach to 400mm on 18MP APS-C DSLR.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Krob78 (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm shooting with my 5DMK III and my 7D. I really don't find my 5D3 AF any faster than my 7D with it's f/2.8 lenses... Not when I'm shooting outdoors anyway. I do a lot of BIF and still find myself reaching for my 7d with the 100-400mm before I reach for the 5d3. In fact, I seem to have more AF issues shooting static outdoors in darker situations with the 5d3 and the 24-105mm f/4.0 than I do with the 7d paired with the 17-55mm f/2.8.

I wanted the 5d3 mainly for portraiture, wedding and landscape work, although I've had no issues with my 7d and landscape work, I have had with portraiture and weddings. My 7d is consistent with regard to high noise in the shadows in most of the portrait work I do, resulting in considerable time in post to resolve it effectively. Having numerous requests for evening weddings and then outdoors on top of that has created a very frustrating experience with my 7d and those types of shoots. The 5d3 is a welcomed change for me regarding those very frustrating low light portrait or wedding shoots. Coupled with the 85mm it's wonderful, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, it's engaging and much more fun! 

I really love having both cameras. I've been complaining about my 7d for night or indoor weddings and other events for some time along with the noise issues even in some outdoor portrait work. The 5d3 is wonderful for that. 

I still tend to reach for my 7d in birding and wildlife. It seldom misses the mark and on a recent outdoor wildlife shoot with both, the 7d was bringing home the winners over the 5d when the reach was needed, even being able to crop the ff images more. I find the 6 fps quite different over my 7d's 8fps. I didn't think I would but it's definitely different. Not quite as satisfying for me... When I bought the 5d3, I did so with every intent on selling my 7D, alas it still resides with me and in it's bag with the 5d3 now residing comfortably beside it in the same bag... I am considering some new teleconverters to use with the 5d3 though, that may be all I need to go FF only... 

In the end, I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon does with a 7D MK II. If it's FF, so be it. I'm positive it will be awesome whether it's crop or FF. I've often thought a FF 7D would make a very useful and flexible option to cover many areas of photography, rather than just sports and wildlife... It may be a very well rounded option...


----------



## Krob78 (Feb 4, 2013)

agierke said:


> i owned a cropped body for all of about a month before the 5D came out and when it did i scrambled to get it. i could never get over the crop factor killing the wide angle end of my lenses and hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future. i'm a full frame fool.
> 
> welcome to the world of FF!


Agierke, I couldn't agree more with this one statement: "hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future." That has always bothered me! Hence I buy mostly EF lenses for my 7D! Now they work for both! 8) I haven't had the crop factor "kill" any of my wide angle work though...


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 4, 2013)

I own and use both a 7D and 5D3, which replaced a 5D/40D pairing. One thing that needs to be said is that, yes, the 5D3 focusing is better that the 7D's but the 7D focusing is by no means bad. When shooting race cars in daylight, the 7D with a 70-200, a 100-400 or a 300 f/2.8 with or without TCs still works just fine.


----------



## robbymack (Feb 4, 2013)

FF is great, the 5diii in my opinion is the best FF all around camera ever made, i own one and think it's a pleasure to use. That being said aps c has its place, and offers a compelling advantage in total system cost when paired with equally good Efs lenses. Someone mentioned a 600mm lens on ff, for a lot of folks sinking $13k in a lens is a bit steep, and yet with aps c you can get to 600 with the relatively affordable 100-400. Sure it may not be the "same", but for anyone who is somewhat price conscious that is going to be a consideration. If I was still an aps c shooter I would certainly be concerned canon may abandon the high end aps c model especially if I didn't feel the advantages of FF were worth the trade off in higher cost.


----------



## Krob78 (Feb 4, 2013)

robbymack said:


> FF is great, the 5diii in my opinion is the best FF all around camera ever made, i own one and think it's a pleasure to use. That being said aps c has its place, and offers a compelling advantage in total system cost when paired with equally good Efs lenses. Someone mentioned a 600mm lens on ff, for a lot of folks sinking $13k in a lens is a bit steep, and yet with aps c you can get to 600 with the relatively affordable 100-400. Sure it may not be the "same", but for anyone who is somewhat price conscious that is going to be a consideration. If I was still an aps c shooter I would certainly be concerned canon may abandon the high end aps c model especially if I didn't feel the advantages of FF were worth the trade off in higher cost.


+1


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 4, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> ...if you do own a 7D and you don't need the FPS then sell it and get a second hand 5Dii.


But what if you do? Or need good/fast AF? Or if you are somewhat weak (sick, old...) and want a smaller setup? Or if you are into birding/wildlife/telephoto? And, most importantly, if you are low on funds?


LewisShermer said:


> I may even flippantly throw in my doubt that photog > equipment even applies any more...


I would not even go there 

Seriously though. FF is great. I have tried the 5D and like you say, the "depth" is what makes it stand out from the APS-C pictures. I do not see any conflict between APS-C and FF. It is like debating if a Humvee is better than a BMW. For what?


----------



## Ricku (Feb 4, 2013)

There is no going back after you go FF.  FF is indeed the future.

-Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people *think* they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them.  .. Oh, those lost years.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 4, 2013)

robbymack said:


> FF is great, the 5diii in my opinion is *the best FF *all around camera ever made



Oh it isn't the 1DX?   

While more and more people keep talking about the extra reach ... do you guys print like ... super large? Otherwise, the crop magnification is a myth and the cropped 5D3 pics will better or at least equivalent to the APS-C. 

Personally, I sold off my 7D because it was hardly getting used once I picked up the 5D3. Don't think I'll get the itch to shoot APS-C again - That said, I would buy an APS-H camera with the 5D3 AF in a heartbeat, if it were to be released in the future.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 4, 2013)

Of course, we are comparing older technology to the most recent technology. I am very curious regarding the 7DII and what a crop sensor is capable of. For example, can the accomplishments of the D800/Sony sensor be scaled up to the equivalent of 45 FF MPs and then cropped down and put into an 18 MP APS-C sensor? How would that cropped sensor compare to the current canon FF sensors?

Not trying to bring up Nikon/Sony, etc....just pointing out that we've seen technology that with a few more advancements could make APS-C a lot closer to FF.

But....it may never come to fruition........


----------



## Jay Khaos (Feb 4, 2013)

Ricku said:


> -Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people *think* they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them.  .. Oh, those lost years.



I agree... I was one too lol. I don't understand the "reach" arguement. Your lens is what gives you reach. A smaller sensor doesn't magnify what's in the frame, it crops. Even if the cropped image is made up of more megapixels than the same frame cropped from a full frame image, wouldn't the full frame image still be better in terms of IQ, bokeh, etc ?(assuming all else is constant...)


----------



## emag (Feb 4, 2013)

I saw a Brownie Hawkeye at the flea market this weekend. That was my first camera a 'few' years ago, takes me back to the 'darkroom' in a bathroom. I wonder if there will be a similar degree of change in photography in the next 50 years - full sensory recording wired to the brain or some such. 

Okay - getting back to the FF/crop discussion. Again? Haven't we hashed this out enough? You say tomayto I say tomahto.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 4, 2013)

You are preaching to the Choir, bro. I agree FF is the future. Crops were stop-gaps.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 4, 2013)

As for reach, extenders are getting better and better. Yes, probably there is a smidge of IQ trade off, but I am sure that also happens when they squeeze 22 Kazillion pixels into an APS-C sensor.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 4, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> Jay Khaos said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



when the crop and the FF sensor are both from the same technology cycle.


----------



## PaperTiger (Feb 4, 2013)

I run a 5DII and a 7D, which works really well. Get different properties out of the same lenses based on the body used. For example, the 85L is a great portrait lens on the 5DII but the focus speed is horrendous. With it paired to the 7D it nails focus quickly at F1.2. I was shooting snowboarding all day yesterday with both bodies and got great shots with both.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2013)

emag said:


> I saw a Brownie Hawkeye at the flea market this weekend. That was my first camera a 'few' years ago, takes me back to the 'darkroom' in a bathroom. I wonder if there will be a similar degree of change in photography in the next 50 years - full sensory recording wired to the brain or some such.
> 
> Okay - getting back to the FF/crop discussion. Again? Haven't we hashed this out enough? You say tomayto I say tomahto.


I was started on the Brownie as well, it was the early 1950's, then a Yashica TLR, and then a Argus C3 before buying my First Canon FT-QL in the 1960's. Just between 1998 and 2013, the camera world has been turned on its head, I expect that in the next 20 years, we will see big changes, and yes, there will be things that seem like crazy dreams now. Quite a bit of work is being done to link up cameras to the brains of people who are blind, for example, and that research will start to pay off sooner than we think.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 5, 2013)

LewisShermer said:


> I shot my first wedding with the paring of a 5Diii and a 5Dii



The 5D2 was generally accepted as THE camera for wedding photographgers.... until the 5D3 came out and took the spot... One would hope that it worked better than a general purpose intermediate camera and a sports/birding camera......


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 5, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > -Rant- And there is no such thing as a FF nay-sayer. Some people *think* they prefer crop cameras over FF, but they just don't realize that their dinky toy sensors is utter crap in comparison to FF. I know this because I used to be one of them.  .. Oh, those lost years.
> ...


The APS-C sensor is sampling the central part of the image with 1.6 times the pixel density of the FF sensor. If the glass is up to it and you are in the lower iso ranges you get better resolving power and equivalent noise out of APS-C (assuming same generation of sensors.... can't compare new to 4 year old...). Use poor glass and the FF outresolves... and at high ISO FF has less noise. Sampling the smaller area is problematic for wide angle shots but benificial to long shots... Lenses can be made smaller, cheaper, and lighter for APS-C, but at the cost of resolving power.... There is no easy answer, just a bunch of tradeoffs.


----------



## dlleno (Feb 5, 2013)

+1 that is a real good summary. not many appreciate that with the higher pixel density there are greater demands on the resolving power of the lens, which will also approach its diffraction-limit at a wider aperture. 

the interesting tests are yet to come, i.e. new generation APS-C sensor (presumedly) compared to cropped images from 5D3, for example. and then the leap frog games begin, i.e. the 7D2 will live for another 4 years, during which time the 5D4 will emerge and make a new challenge to the high density sensors.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 2, 2013)

;D Still loving both!


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 2, 2013)

Practically it all comes down to whether your uses require more reach than your glass can give you. As soon as you're too far away to frame the subject properly crop sensors are superior (for now. Some day all sensors will at least be available in the same pixel density. At that point crop sensors will only be better at costing less).
Of course if you can get close enough we would be better off with even bigger sensors. At some point in the future medium format and 35mm users will be having the same conversation we're having now (if they aren't already).


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 3, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Jay Khaos said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Clarification on the highlighted bits above:

APS-C pixel density relative to FF depends entirely on the number of pixels. A 7D has more than twice the pixel density of a 5D Mk III. A Nikon D800 (FF) has a higher pixel density than a Canon 40D (APS-C).

If an FF image is cropped to match an APS-C image (i.e. the same subject taken from the same distance with the same lens, focal length and aperture), the two images will have identical bokeh.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 3, 2013)

+1...FF is the way to go.

Off optic: I tried X100S and I didn't like the look of 1600ISO in lower light. I took 20 shots at the parking lot. too grainny for my taste. I'm glad I got the RX1 as my P&S camera


----------



## rifz (Apr 3, 2013)

I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 3, 2013)

AdamJ said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Khaos said:
> ...



Glad that there is SOME sense in this thread... (eg the above 2 posts). And a few others that state that the 7D (and even other APS-C cameras) are really decent. If people have issues with the 7D's AF, they've probably not learned how to use it. I have used both FF and APS-C, and know the benefits of both, and when to use what. Just because a FF is generally superior for eg landscape, portrait, etc doesn't mean it's 'useless' or 'a toy'. 

I'm glad the original poster (OP) humbly admitted that he's not the world's best photog. He's not. (And note, neither am I - though I have some photos that have won awards and been greatly appreciated) Some of the OP's photos are quite good, and I'm sure various viewers genuinely appreciate them. 

However to suggest that equipment is more important than skill isn't true. It seems that the OP has managed to compose with his new FF DSLR and 50mm f/1.4 Kudos, but very similar images could have been produced on an APS-C with eg a good 35mm lens. The difference isn't as great as some people think.

I've seen people take stunning photos with point and shoot (P&S) cameras. Knowing how to capture light AND how to use one's equipment to maximum benefit is very important. Of course having great equipment helps, and there are some types of photos one can't do with a P&S.

And then there was the person who wrote: "i could never get over the crop factor killing the wide angle end of my lenses and hated the idea of getting lenses that couldn't migrate to any body i would get in the future."
Well it's a shame that people get EF lenses and don't realise there are so many great, dedicated lenses for APS-C. I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.

And someone else wrote that they couldn't compose with a APS-C - but could with a FF. Hmmm... again it seems people don't understand that you NEED the right lens for the job. I have used eg a 24-105mm on a 5D, as well as a 15-85mm on a 7D. Get and use the lens you need, but don't complain if you are using the wrong lenses on a crop body.

I've been both impressed with the 5DmkIII and 6D as recent FF cameras, and I'm also certainly interested to see what Canon will release with a 7DmkII... Different cameras for different purposes. As someone else had stated, it's also important to remember that building both APS-C bodies and lenses to match saves significant costs. So again, there is place for both FF and APS-C, in terms of the target market / budget, etc.

Cheers, all.

Paul


----------



## Pi (Apr 3, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.


At equivalent or equal apertures?


----------



## brad goda (Apr 3, 2013)

8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
bigger is better... or used to be.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 3, 2013)

brad goda said:


> 8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
> bigger is better... or used to be.



If they made an 4x5 sensor or 8x10 sensor that behaved just like film. We wouldn't even be talking about d800s.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 3, 2013)

Pi said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I have used various UWA lenses on eg Canon's 7D - and let me say that wide open at equivalent of 14mm and 16mm (in FF comparison) - the Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20mm's or Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm, etc really shine. Often they're much sharper in the corners than FF can do with eg a 17-40mm or 16-35mm.
> ...



At equivalent apertures *1, and definitely at equal apertures *2.

1) eg Sigma 10-20mm @ f/5.6 vs Canon 17-40mm @ f/8 or f/9. I've seen so many shots of FF with good L glass zooms - even stopped down they don't match the crispness of APS-C. Not ALWAYS, but often! These pages give you an indication / comparison (which is matched up by my real work usage):
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/427-canon_1740_4_5d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1

2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....

Paul


----------



## Pi (Apr 3, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > pj1974 said:
> ...


AT equal apertures, it is not even of academic interest. At equivalent, I can see only the 10-22 beating the 17-40 at the wide end. This is the only example I know when crop beats (somewhere across the frame) FF, and this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 actually contradicts PZ in that case. 


> 2) eg Canon 10-22mm at wide end at f/5.6, even with the Canon 16-35mm, I've seen an advantage to the APS-C 'cutting off' the corners of the lens....



It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 4, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > pj1974 said:
> ...


I loved the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 IS at 12mm on my 7d and at 16mm on my 5d3! I couldn't believe I could use it on my 5d3 but at 16mm it's excellent! Kind of a neat surprise since I was going to sell it since I bought the 5d3. Using it at 16mm has worked out well for my Real Estate Photography work... still looking for a good uwa for my 5d3 in an L lens though...


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 4, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> brad goda said:
> 
> 
> > 8X10, 4X5, 617,612,69,68,67,66,645,35
> ...


+1


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 4, 2013)

rifz said:


> I upgraded from the 7D to 6D. The noise in low light on the 7D was ruining my portraits. I'm amazed at how nice the 6D high ISO noise looks, like film grain instead of a blotchy mess. I miss the 7D AF a little bit, but it's well worth giving up for much better images. love full frame.


I didn't get rid of my 7d when I made the jump to a 5d3, I did make the jump however due to the same issues. Some portraiture was ruined with the 7d in low light, good off camera lighting always helped in those situations though. My issue was that most of the noise issues in portraiture required much more processing time than those I'm now getting with my 5d3... It was a workflow issue for me. I still use my 7d a fair amount for birding and sports, albeit not as much as I used too.. The 7d may still end up going sometime in the near future but not just yet, I still love it!


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.



Is there not something to be said for a more even resolution across the frame and less vignetting? The Canon 10-22 also has much better barrel distortion than the 17-40 used on crop or full frame for that matter. You might be able to use your 'garden variety' zoom on FF to do better, but that FF body you are using will have cost you more in the first place. Cost is not irrelevent. I would be using FF for landscape if I could afford it, but even the 6D is out of my reach at the moment. Couple that with the cost of a decent wideangle lens to use with it. I own the 17-40 but at it's wide end it's not a fantastic performer on FF unless stopped down a fair bit. So just looking at Canon glass, because I PERSONALLY don't want to use third party lenses, what are my options?

Canon 14 and 24 L primes. 24-70 f2.8/4 L Zooms, all way in excess of £1000. Same for the 16-35 L which isn't massively better than the 17-40 at equivalent apertures. The only other option is the 24-105 which is cheaper I grant you, but not ultrawide.


----------



## Wilmark (Apr 4, 2013)

Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it. I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!


----------



## Pi (Apr 5, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > It is hardly an advantage. You take an expensive UWA and convert it to something like 28mm with lower resolution everywhere but better borders. On FF, you can just use your garden variety zoom to do much better.
> ...



The 17-40 stopped down? You should consider the fact that in equivalent terms, the 10-22 is already stopped down quite a bit. It is an excellent lens, I owned it. 

If you want to go to 16-17mm eq., then the 17-40 is not great in the borders but I doubt that it is really worse than the 10-22 both at equivalent settings. For anything else, it is no contest. Any reasonable recent lens on FF will beat by far the best L on crop, away from that UWA range maybe.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 5, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it. I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!


The 7D doesn't suck at all, it's been a very relevant camera in it's class and still is. I have very usable images all the way up to ISO 3200 with my 7D and have posted some in this forum before. The simple answer to any low light issues with a 7D is OCL, if you're doing portraiture. My 5d3 is a great low light performer, interestingly enough, I use OCL with it for portraiture as well... Sometimes it's not neccesarily the gear... The 7d has served thousands of photographers quite well for the last several years, despite the yacking about low light issues...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 5, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it. I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!



I'm going with you on this one. However, at ISO 640 and lower, the 7D is very capable. You can ETTR at ISO 3200 and manage it in RAW format in Lightroom or Camera RAW. But again, it's nothing like the 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, or 1DX. But it isn't supposed to be. As an aside, I do briefly miss the 7D on my 400 f/2.8. Man that was a monster 640mm equivalent!

I did end up getting rid of it though. I sold all at once my 7D, 5D2, 1D4, and 1Ds3 for the cameras I own today.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 5, 2013)

Wilmark said:


> Is there such a thing as FF nay-sayers? I really doubt it. I think there are FF owners and those who would like to be be FF owners. And the 7D? I used to own one before - its low light performance was really discouraging. I hate to be blunt but the 7d (and the rest of canons line crop line up) sucks and any kind of low light. And those who say they like the 'reach' of the crop sensor cameras, reminds me of the day when people thought that Digital zoom was useful!



Ahem.


> Practically it all comes down to whether your uses require more reach than your glass can give you.



If you crop an image shot on full frame you are using "digital zoom". If instead you switch to a good crop sensor, you can get much more detail on the subject.


----------

