# Help with upgrade from T3i?



## Hawk (Jan 23, 2015)

Hey all,

I am a long time photographer with film in several bodys like the OM-1. I used point and shoots for light work for awhile but loved shooting film.

Three years ago I got a T3i as a gift and grabbed the 17-55 F2.8 and 70-200 IS F4 for it. I mostly shoot Street Landscapes Wildlife and Cars. I have been happy with the T3i thus far but I am getting really sick of the noise at higher ISOs. I shoot in poor light quite bit which makes matters even worse. I usually resize for computer screens and anything past 1600 ISO is just a mess with this cam shooting RAW. Some of it I can fix in post with lightroom but at 3200 everything for me becomes unusable. If I correct in post it takes enough that the picture is now soft and looks like a painting haha.

Anyways I am looking at the 7D MK II or a 5D MKIII for a replacement. I am wondering if the high ISO performance is any better on the 7D MKII or if I should just got for a full frame camera and start over. I do shoot alot of low light it seems, so the T3i is just not working for me. Also sometimes I need a little more FPS for wildlife moving and the T3i is so slow.

Also the T3is focus or lack there of is killing me it has one cross type so you really can only use the center dot and then reframe on everything. 

I was also looking at a X100T as a kick around old school camera as I like manual controls alot more than the digital DSLR menus and stuff. I guess I am just old school and like that instead of digging through menus. 

I guess I am looking for any suggestions you guys might have for a next step. If I went for the 5D MKIII I would just sell my 17-55 EFS f2.8 and T3i body and put it towards that and probably another L lens.

Thanks for any help!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 23, 2015)

I would go FF. Add DxO, 6400ISO should be no problem in low light. Sell your crop gear and put that money toward new 24-70 f2.8 II.


----------



## Marine03 (Jan 23, 2015)

I went from an XSI to a 6D and do a fair amount of low light and say go with the Full Frame. However as we all know the Canon 24-70 costs serious money... i just got the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and love it.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 23, 2015)

I used to have a t3i and still use two cameras built around the same sensor and digic generation, the 7d and 60d.

I'm not saying don't upgrade, the tech has moved on for sure... but I find 1600 pretty good and 3200 usable enough in a pinch. I expose manually, favouring slight over exposure if anything, no more than a third, this seems to keep shadow noise under control a bit, and at the raw stage I am fairly heavy on the luma NR at all speeds and bring in some very slight chroma NR at 800 and above.

Of course, whilst f2.8 and f4 are nice bright lenses compared to the entry level kit lenses, I also use a trio of f1.4 primes, which gives me two stops over my f2.8 zooms, in occassions where I can cede the depth of field control.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 23, 2015)

Hello Hawk!

I am a FF user but that does not necessarily mean that this is the ultimate way to go. 
Going FF means spending a lot of money for a good lens. And that's only justifiable if you need the shallow DOF or the high ISO performance of APS-C is not enough to you. (or of course if you don't need to care about money  )
But if you decide to go FF get a kit together with a 24-105L. I am sure that it will give you the same or more than your 17-55. 

But as you already have that really good 17-55/2.8 AND the 70-200/4 IS I would say try out a 70D and/or a 7D2.
Try to find out if the IQ/ISO performance fullfills your desires and also find out if you really need that highspeed beast 7D2. 
If you could be satisfied with the 70D you could put some money into good prime or UWA glass, depending what you prefer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2015)

If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement. 

IMO, if you're shooting at ISO 3200 or higher, FF is the way to go.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 23, 2015)

I tend to agree with tinky,

I have an M and a T2i (basically the same sensor as the T3i). I find ISO 3200 usable if I need it, for "computer screen" resolution. Aka, for me that means resizing to the 2048 px on the long end and uploading to flickr, picasa, etc.

But since you do not find that ISO usable, I would probably echo others who have pushed you towards a FF.

For what it is worth... I've found ISO 6400 terrible on that sensor. Good only for truly capturing the snap shot in a pinch. However, I've found I can live with ISO 6400 on a 70D. Not preferred, but I see a large difference between the old 18 MP sensor and the newer 20MP one at ISO 6400.

This is all talking RAW btw.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 23, 2015)

Hawk said:


> I was also looking at a X100T as a kick around old school camera as I like manual controls alot more than the digital DSLR menus and stuff. I guess I am just old school and like that instead of digging through menus.



I've been giving that camera some serious looks as well. Or even getting the X100S since that can be had brand new for like 800 bucks now. I do struggle a bit to spend a grand on a camera with a fixed lens. And I was disappointed to see that there is no X-mount 23mm f/2.0 pancake lens from Fuji. I'd rather invest in the lens/glass and know I can swap out the camera down the road when the tech improves. With the X100 series it just bugs me to "throw the baby out with the bath water" sort of deal when you want a newer/better sensor.


----------



## canont1iuser (Jan 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.
> 
> IMO, if you're shooting at ISO 3200 or higher, FF is the way to go.



Neuro - as someone who shoots JPGs, how much improvement are you talking about over a t3i? More than a 1-stop?


----------



## Tsuru (Jan 23, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Also the T3is focus or lack there of is killing me it has one cross type so you really can only use the center dot and then reframe on everything.



I was going to say 6D all the way up until I hit this point.
If your primary uses are landscape and cars then you can keep your methods the same as the T3i by using the central focus point of the 6D then recomposing. If wildlife is the larger portion of the pictures you take then upgrading to the 5DIII would not only give you better auto focus but faster shutter speeds as well. The price difference between the two could make a significant contribution towards some new glass.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 23, 2015)

Thanks for all the help so far guys! How much better would you say the FF ISO performance is? 2 stops? 

I only shoot RAW so its pretty noticeable at 3200 for me. Even whites seem to start getting this rainbow fringing going on.

I like that FF has better DOF aswell. I was leaning towards the 5D III with a 24-70 F4 IS L. Since I have the 70-200 already. Though I may just go with a fast 50mm prime. I always shot prime lenses with film and loved it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 23, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Thanks for all the help so far guys! How much better would you say the FF ISO performance is? 2 stops?
> 
> I only shoot RAW so its pretty noticeable at 3200 for me. Even whites seem to start getting this rainbow fringing going on.
> 
> I like that FF has better DOF aswell. I was leaning towards the 5D III with a 24-70 F4 IS L. Since I have the 70-200 already. Though I may just go with a fast 50mm prime. I always shot prime lenses with film and loved it.



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10201.0

Like I said, DxO Prime will take you even further in high ISO world


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 23, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Thanks for all the help so far guys! How much better would you say the FF ISO performance is? 2 stops?
> 
> I only shoot RAW so its pretty noticeable at 3200 for me. Even whites seem to start getting this rainbow fringing going on.
> 
> I like that FF has better DOF aswell. I was leaning towards the 5D III with a 24-70 F4 IS L. Since I have the 70-200 already. Though I may just go with a fast 50mm prime. I always shot prime lenses with film and loved it.



All of the 24, 28, and 35mm IS lenses are faster and sharper than the 24-70, and you will be able to get at least a couple for the same price. Yes, the 50mm at f/2.8 is sharper as well (or get the Sigma with fingers and toes crossed).


----------



## Hawk (Jan 23, 2015)

Great shots in that thread! 

Are people expecting a new 5D? Have read a few comments around this forum about it?


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 23, 2015)

With your low light requirement, I would agree you should consider a 5D III or 6D.


----------



## sulla (Jan 23, 2015)

Have you checked
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-ISO-Noise.aspx and
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3i-600D-Digital-SLR-Camera.aspx
for a comparison of ISO-performance of all current EOS cameras? This should give you an idea of the improvement of the 7D2 over your T3i. And also of the improvement of the 6D over the 7D2.

The AF system of the 6D is perhaps not so much better than the T3i's, if you need good performance for off-center points, then only the 5D3 offers great AF and high ISO quality.


----------



## chilakamarthi (Jan 23, 2015)

With your low light requirement and your shooting needs, I suggest going for 6D. You will be very happy with results for sure (I moved from Xti to 6D with same shooting needs and I am very happy)


----------



## Hawk (Jan 23, 2015)

I found this Clarkvision guys site and man learning lots. He has lots of counter ideas to the bigger is better thing. Been reading for like three hours. 

Seems like overall aperture through lens is more important than F-stop overall. And that ISO isn't anything but post gain. Hmm lots to think about. I do notice how much better my 70-200 was than my 17-55. He seems to think 200MM F4 is 50MM where as 55 F4 is 13.5MM so more size less noise. Lets in more light to sensor. 

He thinks pixel pitch and overall light plays alot more with less noise than just FF vs APSC debate.

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/exposure.and.upgrades/index.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2015)

canont1iuser said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.
> ...



Based on online samples, about a stop at higher ISO.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 23, 2015)

canont1iuser said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot JPG, the 7DII will provide some improvement over the T3i; if you shoot RAW you'll see oy marginal improvement.
> ...


JPEG shooting at ISO 3200 the improvement 7D Mark ii on the old T3i is something like one ISO stop.
However, there are things to consider besides noise. The sharpness and the colors look better in 7D Mark ii.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 23, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> > Hey all,
> ...



Thanks! Ya I love the old manual stuff feel like I should look at a Fuji x mount cause its old school like that. Thanks for the film suggestions, I will look those up. I haven't been to creative with film in a long time.

Looked at a Fuji XT1 as well as it scratches my buttons and dials itch.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 24, 2015)

Hey Hawk, it certainly is a *lot* to think about, and can be overwhelming without a solid technical understanding to begin with--that was a pretty advanced article, so it's totally understandable that it is a little confusing; less than a year ago it certainly would have confused me as well. I shoot events and science magazine stuff as well as some freelance PJ with dual 7D1s and 17-5/2.8, 70-200/2.8L IS, and a fast prime or two, recently upgraded from dual 550Ds (virtually the same as your 600D) so we are in pretty similar spots in terms of gear. 

Eventually I will upgrade to dual 5DIIIs and a 24-70/2.8L, but since most of what I shoot is destined for the web or magazine-format print, I've been able to get away with the limitations of crop format thus far, and picked up the 7Ds (one with only 15K shutter actuations) for a phenomenal price on Adorama ($400 for one and $500 for the other), as opposed to the ~$3000 you'd pay for an equivalently capable full frame camera and lens upgrade (5DIII plus a 24-70/2.8L). But if I was shooting landscapes, portraits, still-life, etc., then a single 6D (plus lens) would be a much more useful upgrade then two 7D1s, and likely be in better condition while not costing much more.

Clark has a good deal of interesting and highly technical material, and certainly delves deeper than just following the "conventional wisdom." And I do note, he doesn't just "think" things are a certain way, he demonstrates through reasoning how he arrived at that conclusion. However, it really helps to have a strong background in the technical side of photography before reading advanced articles like that on his site, as there are several caveats to the statement "image noise is independent of sensor size" that he expects the reader to be aware of, and without awareness of which can lead to confusion and misleading conclusions. Most notably that his examples, analysis, and conclusions only really hold true for "focal length limited" photography, where you cannot realistically get closer to your subject (and consequently make it fill more of the larger full-frame image circle). 

So, this certainly matters if you are interested mostly or solely in wildlife/bird photography, astrophotography, some types of outdoor open-field sports, surveillance, or anything that involves the subject being very far away from the camera, without the possibility of getting any closer. Let's assume we are comparing a 20 MP 6D to a 20 MP 7D2/70D (and roughly equivalent to your current 600D and the 7D1), both with your 70-200/4L IS (therefore the 6D has much larger pixels, but a lower density of pixels on the sensor). In cases like this, let's say your subject is smaller than your desired framing at 200mm (your longest focal length) on your 7D, you would be "focal length limited;" and your subject would cover fewer sensor pixels on your 6D as opposed to your 7D at that focal length. Therefore, cropped to a similar subject size relative to the frame, your 6D shot would be cleaner, but less detailed then your 7D shot, while if you then resized the 7D shot to the lower resolution of the cropped 6D shot, you'd get essentially the same quality image in both noise and resolution (all other factors besides pixel area being equal).

That being true, this analysis does *not* hold presuming the subject is within a "normal" distance range for most photography, and you can get closer if need be. Let's say you've zoomed the lens to 100m, which results in an appropriately-sized framing of your subject on your 7D's sensor. However, due to the field of view crop of your 7D relative to your full-frame 6D, on the latter the subject will be smaller relative to the size of your frame, resulting in fewer pixels covering the subject, and thus the same scenario as before. However, the important difference is this--here you have the option of either moving closer to your subject, or zooming your 70-200 to 160mm, which would result in an equivalent framing of your subject as the 7D (due to that latter's 1.6x field of view crop) and the subject will cover the same number of pixels on that sensor. However, the 6D's pixels are of course larger, which results in nearly 2 stops better (photon) noise performance (all other factors being equal) at the same resolution. 

Another way to look at it is that your 70-200/4L IS captures the same amount of light either way, but the larger sensor collects much more of that light that is "wasted" on the smaller sensor. Therefore, in non-focal length limited cases like this scenario, which can be 95%+ of many (or even most) types of photography, full-frame does offer a significant advantage in low light with the same lens (assuming it is full frame compatible, of course), equivalent in noise and depth of field to using a lens around 1.5 stops faster on a crop sensor (like upgrading a f/2.8 zoom to a f/1.8 prime, or a variable aperture kit lens at a middle focal length to a f/2.8 zoom.) 



Hawk said:


> Seems like overall aperture through lens is more important than F-stop overall.



Not quite sure what you are trying to say here; I think you mean the absolute aperture diameter of the lens (say 25mm) as opposed to its f-ratio (the focal length of the lens divided by that diameter, say f/2 for a 50mm lens with a 25mm aperture diameter). Which one is more critical depends on the context, so it's meaningless to broadly state that one is more important than the other. Don't worry about this for now; it's not vital to understanding the subject at this level.



Hawk said:


> And that ISO isn't anything but post gain.



Again, this is technically true. However, to understand the real significance and complexities of this requires some background in how sensors work, particularly where and how that gain is introduced. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. The key thing to understand is that there are two sources of noise in a photograph, shot (or photon) noise and read noise, differentiated by where the noise is introduced into the image. For purposes of low-light performance, shot noise is the more important, and in isolation depends strictly upon the amount of light hitting the sensor over the finite length of your exposure. It creeps in because light is transmitted by particles called photons, which each carry a discrete amount of energy that is detected by your camera's sensor, and have an element of randomness in their arrival. At high levels of light, where thousands or millions of photons are hitting each pixel, a few more or less aren't going to make that much difference. However, at low light levels, only a small number of photos may arrive at a single pixel over the time of your exposure, and so if one or two fewer hits one pixel as opposed to an adjacent one due to this randomness, this random fluctuation is observable in the final photo as noise. 

While sensors of higher efficiency are theoretically possible (ie fewer photons are "lost" somewhere between the lens and the detector), we are already nearing the practical limits of this, so the main ways to decrease shot noise are either to have a longer exposure time (shutter speed) allowing more photos to be collected (but risking motion blur), a wider aperture lens to gather more light for the sensor (more expensive) or making the pixels larger, either on the sensor (each gather more light due to their larger area) or downsizing images in post, "averaging out" image noise over multiple pixels. If this were the only source of noise, there would be no need to set an ISO on your camera, and you could merely digitally "gain up" in post to brighten the image to your satisfaction, with no more noise than you would have gotten amplifying the signal on the camera. Some of the very newest sensors approach this property, which is called "ISO Independence," such as the Sony sensors Nikon uses in the D800/10 and D750. With these sensors, ISO 200 and above, there is minimal difference in noise whether taking a photo at a higher ISO to exposure properly or shooting at ISO 200 regardless and raising the exposure of the RAW file by the same number of stops in your RAW converter.

Unfortunately, for most other sensors a major consideration is read noise, which is introduced by the camera's electronics after the signal from the sensor is amplified, but before/as the analog data is converted to digital. This mainly affects darker areas of the image at low ISO, particularly if you try to brighten them in your RAW converter. Read noise stays at a constant level relative to the final signal strength before digital conversion, so if you amplify the signal before you digitize (raise the ISO), you amplify the shot noise along with the good signal but not the read noise, and thus you raise more of the useful signal above the constant low-level read noise. 

Of course, if you amplify it enough so that all the useful signal is above the read noise level, you gain no better quality since you are still limited by shot noise, and risk bright areas of the image being amplified all the way to white (which cannot be recovered in post). On most Canons, this limit falls around ISO 3200 (at least for crop frame) and on the best Nikons, as low as ISO 200. However, again, in low-light you are mainly limited by shot noise, since after amplification the signal is sufficiently noisy that read noise is a negligible factor. And, as stated above, larger pixels on a larger sensor (or wider aperture, or longer shutter speed, with their respective tradeoffs) will increase the amount of light you collect at the source, raising the signal further above shot noise.



Hawk said:


> I do notice how much better my 70-200 was than my 17-55.



If by this you mean the images from the 70-200/4L IS look sharper/etc. than those from your 17-55/2.8, this likely has little to do with what Clark discussed (unless you are shooting the same subject at the same distance with both, and then cropping the 17-55's image to the same subject size, which would be absurd). Rather, the 70-200/4L IS is a very sharp lens, significantly sharper across the field on crop frame at every focal length then the 17-55 at its sharpest, as well as with less distortion, vingetting, etc. both due to its more modern and high-quality construction, and the fact that since you get better images from the center of a lens than its corners, you are only using best portion of the image on your 600D from the full-frame 70-200 (as opposed to the crop-frame 17-55). 

Furthermore, many would argue that the subjective qualities (bokeh, contrast, color rendition) of the 70-200 are superior, and due to the longer focal length you get greater subject isolation and more background blur, which many find to be more pleasing. Finally, there is the fact that lenses generally perform better at smaller apertures, and since the 70-200/4's max aperture is narrower than the 17-55's, you would likely be using it closer to it's peak performance than the 17-55, at least some of the time. Of course, "better" could mean any number of things, so describing one lens as definitively "better" than another without qualification or context can, again, be somewhat meaningless.



Hawk said:


> He seems to think 200MM F4 is 50MM where as 55 F4 is 13.5MM...



I assume you are discussing the actual/physical aperture diameter, in which case your first statement is certainly true. Again, he doesn't "seem to think" this, it is objective fact. You can easily verify this for yourself. As you probably know, your f-number is the ratio of a lenses' physical aperture diameter to its focal length, so therefore f(focal length) / f-number = Aperture diameter (That is why aperture is given as f/[f-number], as in f/4). So 200mm / 4 = 50mm, and 55mm / 4 = 13.5mm. 



Hawk said:


> ...so more size less noise. Lets in more light to sensor.



This is true...but ONLY for a given focal length, so this would not hold for the example you gave. Optics dictates that a lens of 4 times the focal length would need four times the light (4x the aperture diameter) to produce an image of equivalent brightness on the focal plane (the sensor). Therefore, both lenses would produce images that are of roughly equal brightness, as we would expect given their equal f-ratios. That is one reason why we use f-ratio to compare the apertures of different lenses, rather than the raw aperture diameters. It is interesting to note, however, that increasing aperture diameter with focal length to maintain the same f-number (brightness) is the reason longer focal length lenses with the same f-number have shallower DoF, since DoF is determined by the aperture diameter, not (directly) by the f-ratio.



Hawk said:


> He thinks pixel pitch and overall light plays alot more with less noise than just FF vs APSC debate.



Not exactly, as I've tried to explain above, but he does make the point that total sensor size is not the only thing that matters. At any given resolution, pixel pitch (and thus light-gathering area per pixel) is directly related to sensor size, and with the same framing, a FF sensor of a similar generation should always produce a cleaner image at the same resolution. Once the desired framing is tighter than that projected by the lens on the smaller sensor (focal length limited), then a full-frame sensor of the same pixel density (ie same size pixels) will produce a final cropped image no better than that of an equivalent APS-C sensor with the same lens. 

However, for many types of photography, these situations are rare; it all depends on what sort of photography you do. Furthermore, this assumes a perfectly resolving lens above the diffraction limit, both of which further tilt any advantage away from a higher density APS-C sensor, since our modern sensors are at least partially limited by what the lens can resolve, preventing higher-density crop sensors from having as much of an advantage in FLL situations since the lens often can't resolve the extra detail anyway.

Sorry for the huge infodump, but hopefully it helps clear up some of your understanding on this issue! As for what camera to pick, this really depends on what type of photography you plan to use it for, as described above. Of course, if you have questions or still don't understand something, please don't hesitate to ask.

Good luck!

C. A. M. Gerlach


----------



## Hawk (Jan 24, 2015)

Well first off thanks for taking the time to type all that! I understand what he is saying now since he can't get any close to the stars etc so he's at his Focal Length Limit. I have to admit that I was torn between the 7D II and 5D III as I could keep a lens and its cheaper but I don't wanna end up in same boat with the noise. Though the Digic 6 seems like it may be pretty good with higher ISO.

I mostly like to shoot car shows, wildlife (Birds), landscapes and trips. The T3i was a gift and its a great camera but the noise past 3200 ISO is just not usable for me. I use alot of my shots on bigger screens so its obvious. Once they are resized down of course they look fine. Doing a 100% crop on any of them at that ISO renders them a noisy mess or I have to add enough post the detail gets cooked. I guess I could shoot jpeg but feel like that defeats the purpose of a DSLR to some extent. So I have also looked at getting a monster lens so I never have to crop. I really like subject isolation that you get with long lenses.

I almost feel stupid saying it but however it ends up most my shooting is on cloudy days or in twilight to night some how. I use my 430EX but most of the time don't have it on me. I don't know how it always ends up that way but it does.

I just wish I could get another stop or two of clean ISO and I would never complain again haha. Something about the T3is noise is very blatant. I am not sure how to explain it as I am no pro. But its just very colorful bright noise. Some of the tests show it better than I can explain. Grain doesn't bother me but rainbows do haha. I typically lock my camera at 1600 and just deal with slowing the shutter down to get away from it.

I guess the 5D III looks like the answer unless they come out with another refresh. I am also looking at a X100T just as a daily. I am tired of throwing my DSLR in my car and lugging it everywhere, and people look at you like you are bonkers with it if you drag it into a restaurant etc.

I am thinking have a great DSLR like the 5D III and a good carry like X100T and be good on gear for awhile. I wish there was something like the the X100T that competed with a DSLR to some extent but I know there isn't. Just find DSLRs big and ugly and people are always intimidated by them it seems. Still love my 35mm film cameras.

I agree with what you said about how sharp the 70-200 is. Makes sense that I am right in the sweet spot of it with the crop. I was hoping the 17-55 was super sharp too but even being fast its not quite as good even F4 or a little lower. Friend of mine said it was amazing but I found it underwhelming.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 24, 2015)

No problem, glad it helped you! From what you've said in the last post at least it sounds like you now have a good grasp on the specifics of the situation. This does sound like a pretty difficult choice given you shoot both car shows (I presume cars that are farily stationary?), landscapes, and trips, mostly in low light, all of which would greatly benefit from the extra ~1.5-2 stops you get with the 5DIII, presuming you have around $500-1000-ish extra depending on where you buy (which I would consider 100% worth it compared to the 7D2's marginal noise improvement over the 600D). On the other hand, birds/wildlife and certain types of trips would be focal length limited and thus tilt things somewhat in favor of the 7D2, with it's higher pixel density (meaning better large prints in good light, though equalizing with the 5D3 in poor light due to the need to de-noise/downsize) and possibly better 3D AF Tracking in AI Servo (for BiF, if that's your thing). 

The AF, body style, controls, and features are all fairly similar, with a few small things in favor of either, but it really comes down to the sensor. Ultimately, it comes down to how much you are going to use it for focal length limited applications (birds/wildlife) versus pretty much everything else. Even in the former, I'd say the difference in favor of the 7D2 is significantly less dramatic, especially when it comes to noise (which you keep stressing your concern with) compared with what you get in return for everything else with the 5DIII, particularly in low light. 

Compared to your current 600D, each would be a huge leap up in terms of build quality, controls, AF, etc. However, if the main thing you want is "another stop or two of clean ISO" like you say, the 7D2 will more than likely leave you wanting in most situations. You do get about 1/3rd of a stop or maybe a little more of better low-ISO performance in RAW, but otherwise the sensor will deliver about the same results as your current 600D, and the same is true of the 70D (which itself is basically a 7D1 in smaller/lighter body style with a 7D2 sensor). You'd really need to step up to the 5DIII to get the performance you say you are looking for, at least for non-focal length limited situations.

*Some other considerations:*

• The newer DIGIC 6 helps clean up JPEGs better but does little if you're shooting RAW, which you probably should be since JPEG noise reduction messes with fine detail that you can preserve with a careful RAW conversion, and can't do ever really do much better at eliminating noise than good RAW conversion software. So really not much of an advantage unless you shoot JPEGs, which as you say there is no real reason to do anyway, since RAW will almost always be equal or better.

• You could end up getting a super-tele prime (presumably for birds/wildlife), and on one hand, the 7D2 would get you somewhat more "reach" out of it for a given subject distance. On the other, for lower-light situations you'd get only a moderate mount less noise out of a 400/2.8 and 7D2 than a 400/5.6 and a 5DIII, while the former costs about 5x as much. Of course, the former would also be a good deal sharper if the light was good. Also, note that at the same equivalent subject framing and aperture, you get around a stop or more equivalent of background separation with full-frame, though if you're focal length limited with a given lens this effect doesn't really come into play.

• I know what you mean, the world never seems to want to cooperate with one's photography. I own a 550EX and nearly always have it mounted on one of my bodies, but rarely end up using it except in extremely low light. For anything focal length limited, even the more powerful 550EX is almost certainly going to be useless due to the subject distance.

• A final point to consider would be your lens selection. You could probably sell the 17-55 for about $600-700 used, depending on condition and your patience. For full frame, you'd have 3 main choices if you want something as good or better and buying new--the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and 24-105/4L IS and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, plus the Canon 24-70/2.8L I and 28-70/2.8L buying used. All of them are of significantly higher build quality then your 17-55 (with the Tamron perhaps not quite as high as the rest, but still definitely above the 17-55) and the first two are weather-sealed against environmental hazards. However, all of them except the Tamron and the 24-105 lack IS, which can limit you if you are shooting still or even slow-moving objects (and hence the potential of using a shutter speed slower than 1/60-80 at their longest focal length, or < 1/30 at their shortest). Of course, the extra ~2 stops you can raise your ISO makes this much less of a disadvantage. All go a bit wider than your 17-55, though are a tad less on the long end except for the 24-105, which offers a bit more range (but with a slower aperture). AF--wise they all should match or slightly exceed your 17-55, except for the Tamron which was reported to have occasional AF inaccuracy wide open. 

• Compared to your 17-55, the 24-70 on full-frame is by all accounts a huge improvement in sharpness especially wide-open, and performs considerably better than even your 70-200. However, even after selling your 17-55, it's still going to cost around $1000 or more new, and lacks IS. The Tamron, while not quite as sharp as the Canon, comes close especially stopped down, and still should meet or exceed your 70-200 in most respects, and it is the only 24-70 with IS. You can find it new for $1200 from B&H, about $500 or so over your 17-55 used. 

The 24-105/4L doesn't have quite the same reputation for sharpness, but should still match your 17-55 on full frame and gives you a somewhat wider focal length range to play with, tempered with a one stop slower aperture (though you'll still pick up a net gain in noise performance and DoF on the FF sensor). And where price is concerned, it only costs $600 extra in a kit with the 5DIII, which is about the same or perhaps even less than you sell your 17-55 for. Used, you can also go for the 28-70/2.8L and 24-70/2.8L, which offer everything the Mark II version does except for sharpness around equal or slightly better than your current 17-55, for a price around (28) or a couple hundred more than you could sell that lens for.

• One final thing to note where lenses are concerned is that, in general, a full-frame lens (particularly a Canon L, all of these except the Tamron which doesn't do bad either) is going to hold it's value better than a crop frame one, just due to the ever increasing popularity of full-frame cameras, the fact that they are usable on both full and crop frame, and the reputation and durability/build quality of Canon L glass.

So, in the end, I would agree with you that a 5DIII is probably your best bet, unless the great majority of what you shoot is birds and other FLL limited situations and you just can't afford the extra cash. But if you the latter is true, you might consider holding off until the 5D Mark IV comes out (a few months max if you believe CR) and the 5D3 takes a significant dive due to greater supply and lower demand/value--I'd imagine the used price would drop to close to that of a new 7D2's MSRP, at least on Adorama, and the new price would take a few hundred $$$ cut as well, at the minimum. Another thing to keep in mind is that you can get a 5D3 now, and then if you still aren't satisfied with its FLL performance you could eventually get a 7DII to complement it once the price comes down and you get more money. They have almost identical controls and features so make a great team. But when it comes to noise performance for all but FLL situations, it's not even close--5D3 by a mile.

On your small cam purchase--I can't really speak from experience unfortunately since I've never owned anything but a DSLR (my 550D that I still keep around was my first ever camera of any kind). But for the same price of a X100T, you can get a Sony a7 that will absolutely demolish the former in terms of all measures of IQ, and even best the 5DIII in good light (and around equal when the light's low). Except for the very latest Nikons and its own successors (and only by a hair), it has one of the very best sensors in the world. Size and weight-wise its a very close match to the X100T, quite surprisingly for a full-frame camera. The one big thing to note is that it is an MILC, which means that you can upgrade the lens to something faster or with a much wider range than the Fuji, and even use your Canon lenses on it almost seamlessly with a $300 adapter. Of course, this begs the question--why even get the 5DIII at all haha?


----------



## Tinky (Jan 24, 2015)

War & peace.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 24, 2015)

Is the A7 image quality that good? I have been looking at the A7 II for awhile and watching some reviews. Maybe I should spring for that. I guess I could go third party lenses if Sonys aren't any good. I like that it can take some nice lenses that have manual controls more old school.

I had no idea it could compete with a DSLR.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 24, 2015)

Tinky said:


> War & peace.



Eh, I try...

Regarding the A7, I've never actually used one of course. But by every almost every objective measure, the sensor IQ is equal or superior to anything Canon has, and is bested only slightly by the latest Nikon offerings and its own big brother, the D8xx-matching A7R. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Sony makes most of the best sensors that Nikon uses anyway, which right now have cornered the market where low-ISO IQ is concerned, so you'd expect the sensor in the A7, being Sony's flagship full-frame MILC offering, to at least come close to its Nikon brethren.

Not so sure about in other respects; I know it is no slouch but I can't really speak to its competitiveness in terms of AF, ruggedness, controls, speed, etc. But I'd imagine it is a better performer on the video side, should you need that, compared to a DSLR. You might consider the A7 as well as its direct successor; you get $400 off the price plus some extra goodies and the potential for additional savings. The big thing you miss out on is IBIS, but the sensors appear to be identical which means virtually identical IQ.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 24, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > War & peace.
> ...



There are a couple of problems with the a7s. No internal 4k recording. It's not an EF mount. There aren't the lenses.

I don't like rigs. They defeat the main benefit of dslrs, which is portability and compact form. You start adapting you have more connections to fail, more batteries to forget to charge etc... 

Really glad that Sony are pushing the technology as Canon etc will need to respond... but would I a tually want to buy one... nope.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 24, 2015)

Hey Tinky,

You make some very good points regarding the A7s with regards to video, which I'll certainly keep in mind in the future should I consider the line for video purposes. However, do note that we were discussing the A7 and A7 II, and for stills, not the A7s for video, so I'm not sure how meaningful your comments are to the OP. He never mentioned anything about video in his use cases or elsewhere so I limited my discussion to stills, particularly with regards to his main camera, and the A7/II was intended to be just his convenience camera so I figured I'd just mention the video in case he was out and about and needed it in a pinch. And for that sort of use, I'd imagine it would offer convenience advantages over most DSLRs, namely at least semi-usable AF, EVF with various aids, and better performance. But again, that never really entered into the discussion, it was mainly a passing comment.

I'm not sure where you got all this about rigs and 4K. Again, this was just supposed to be his convenience camera, and he never even mentioned a need to shoot video of any kind, so I just figured I'd bring it up as a possible option. And to be honest, as someone whose background is in pro video (I'm guessing you may have some experience as well?), personally I've considered 4K on consumer/prosumer cams to be mostly just the new 3D, at least for my purposes. And regarding rigs, I don't use them either, but for the opposite reasons--I use my HDSLRs mainly for locked down shooting of interviews and the like, and specific B-roll shots where I need the shallow DoF or the use of a particular lens, which I'd consider to be the main reason/benefit of using them. I personally consider the form factor to be the main drawback of DSLRs for anything portable where you have to move/operate the camera without support, so I end up using my trusty AC-160A 90% of the time for that. Really, though, it all depends on what you're shooting. But I digress...

I do agree that, still or video, the limited selection of native lenses is perhaps the biggest reason why I too would probably not use one as a primary production camera. Sure, you can always get a metabones and adapt, but it removes a lot of the benefits of it being small and mirrorless to begin with. However, given the OP wants something small, light, and inconspicuous, something with big white lenses is exactly the opposite of what they want, nor is D8xx quality something that's really necessary. 

But this got me thinking--if the OP is going to use it as a convenience camera, something like a A6000 might be a much better choice. First off, the body is less than half the price of the A7 (and the X100T) and a third the price of the II, which makes it less of a big investment and leaves a lot more money left over for one or two good (and given the APS-C format, cheaper and more) lenses--even with the kit zoom, its still half the price of the A7 body only. On top of that, it's considerably smaller and lighter than either the A7 or X100T, and given the APS-C format, lenses could be potentially even smaller as well, which serves the OP's purposes quite nicely. 

Furthermore, it shoots faster, has a built-in flash, likely lasts longer on a single battery, and its AF system apparently has a better reputation than at least the original A7--all nice benefits for the OP's use. Of course, you do miss out on that sweet full-frame sensor, but given the one in the D6000 scores at least as well as any high-end Nikon APS-C and offers superior quality to any crop sensor Canon (including, of course, the OP's current camera) I'm sure the OP would be more than happy with it for a second take-anywhere camera.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Hawk (Jan 24, 2015)

Ya I dont do much with video. I could just keep the T3i regardless of what I upgrade too.

At this point I am very intrigued by the A7 II and maybe the A7 S since its low light performance is pretty amazing from the shots I have seen. 

I mean if its close to the 5D MKIII and some of the reviews seem to indicate that its close I don't see the point of having the 5D III and the A7 or X100T or whatever I would give a little image quality up to save $1500 on the body alone and just go to a more do it all setup.

Guess I got alot of reading to do haha!


----------



## Tinky (Jan 24, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> Your thoughts?



As I said. It's not an EF mount. There aren't the lenses.

Sony change tack every couple of years. Alpha. NEX. Now A7. There just aren't the lenses. Unless you go down metabones. Put up with all the caveats and compromises.

The a7 looks great on paper. It's not a systemic camera or, for my needs, be they video or stills.. a keeper.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 24, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Ya I dont do much with video. I could just keep the T3i regardless of what I upgrade too.



I'd prolly keep the 600D, but it's up to you. Its sensor is close to the best Canon's got in the crop department (not that great, but still useful in many situations), and while speed and control are lacking, it can certainly work well as a second camera, backup camera, or for locked down work. Whether or not that is worth $300 to you is your decision to make.



Hawk said:


> I mean if its close to the 5D MKIII and some of the reviews seem to indicate that its close I don't see the point of having the 5D III and the A7 or X100T or whatever I would give a little image quality up to save $1500 on the body alone



Like I keep saying, the sensor IQ, particularly at lower ISO, puts the 5DIII to shame, and is up there with the best Nikons. Sensor IQ is the big thing you'd be getting with the A7, not giving up, along with lighter weight. But in the end, I'm going to have to agree with Tinky here. The A7 is probably not the right choice at this time for your primary body (or your always-with-you cam for that matter). Sensor IQ is only one component of image quality; the other main one is lenses and at this point not only is the A7 nowhere close compared to the vast array of Canon glass, it may never be and given Sony's history that Tinky mentions, is a risky investment at best. 

Like it or not, best in class or not, Canon's got 100 million EF lenses floating around along will all the other components that make up a camera system, and that ensures that despite their present fortunes (not looking great atm) they are still going to stick around for a long time. For your primary camera, you need a system--and the Sony E-mount really isn't. And for all its low-ISO faults, the 5DIII is still a solid system camera with a galaxy of lenses behind it, and most certainly won't let you down. Plus, the ergonomics of the A7 for any kind of serious use are a bit questionable--I just feel far more comfortable with a 5DIII or 7D in my hands then one of those. Plus, to really get the most out of the A7, any way you cut it you are going to have to put big lenses on it to really get the most out of the body, diminishing its utility as a go-anywhere machine.

However, I still recommend you consider the A6000 as your go-anywhere camera. It's pretty inexpensive compared to most of the competition, even with the kit lens, and while it's not a system camera you don't really need it to be--just one good lens will do since for that purpose, you aren't going to be wanting to mess with changing lenses, and given you can get away with a single fixed focal length in an X100T (at double the price), surely a single good zoom will do the trick for you. And if worst comes to worst, you have invested a whole lot less in the camera, and particularly in the system, then with a A7. You might also consider other large-sensor advanced compacts like these to see if they fit your needs better, though most are as expensive or more so than the A6000 with the kit lens and don't offer a ton of advantages in comparison.


----------



## Triggyman (Jan 25, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> However, I still recommend you consider the A6000 as your go-anywhere camera. It's pretty inexpensive compared to most of the competition, even with the kit lens, and while it's not a system camera you don't really need it to be--just one good lens will do since for that purpose, you aren't going to be wanting to mess with changing lenses, and given you can get away with a single fixed focal length in an X100T (at double the price), surely a single good zoom will do the trick for you. And if worst comes to worst, you have invested a whole lot less in the camera, and particularly in the system, then with a A7. You might also consider other large-sensor advanced compacts like these to see if they fit your needs better, though most are as expensive or more so than the A6000 with the kit lens and don't offer a ton of advantages in comparison.



a6000 is under serious consideration by yours truly. I'm looking for another camera to carry when I'm lazy to lug around a 5D3. a6000 sensor size/resolution, and body size are just a few factors I'm looking at, but the 16-50mm PZ lens is said to have mediocre performance. And that teeny weeny pop-up flash of the a6000! I heard how error prone the flash exposure is on that camera. 

With regards to lenses, that is one of Canon's greatest strengths. Depends on who you ask, Canon might be "lagging behind" on the sensor front, but with the new EF lenses (i.e. 24-70 II and 16-35 f4) they are on the right direction with optical quality. I'm ready to believe the 18-135mm STM or 18-55mm STM is a much better lens than the 16-50mm Power Zoom, and that made me hold off the a6000 until I see how the next Rebel will be.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 25, 2015)

Hey guys I just came back from BB and got to try out XT1, X100T, A7II, 5D MK III. Not the best place to play with them but I kinda went through the motions with them. 

I have to say the sheer size of the 5D really turned me off. Never had handled one before. It took very beautiful images and is very nice but the sheer size with the 24-105 I think was on it is just huge. I have very small hands and am not really a tall person and thinking of lugging that around kinda made me think twice. I also deal with some health problems personally and even the T3is size wore on me.

I really like the XT1 but the locking dials drove me nuts. The lens felt very nice. And it would be perfect to me if it was FF. But them locking dials LOL. I just don't know that much about it.

I loved the X100T I probably would have walked out with it if it was in stock lol. Just the feel and look of it was great. Viewfinder was great aswell.

The A7II OVF seemed a little behind Fujis but I really liked what I saw with it. I have no idea how good or bad the noise is as the cam didn't have a card in it to review the shots. Test shots I have seen look solid. I really like the feel and size of it. It didnt look any worse than my T3i noise wise for sure. That 70-200 Sony lens is beautiful.

I guess right now I am leaning towards the A7 just size and lenses seem decent several fast Zeiss primes and a 70-200 F4. The size and feel of it really sold it for me. The 5D is just big and doesn't fit me that well.If I had a smaller A7 or X100T I literally wouldn't wanna leave the house with it.

I tried the a6000 and man that speed lol. I don't know if I would buy another APC camera after this T3i. Seems like a solid package for sure. That little pop up flash made me lol. Again no card to really look at output. Wish you could take some of these home and try them haha.

There are so many choices I guess I am leaning towards the A7II with couple fast primes and 70-200.

I guess I am just thinking out loud here but to be in the 5D MKIII 3K before lenses yikes. I know the shots are fantastic but just using it isn't nearly as nice to me as some of the smaller bodies with dials and controls. I can get the A7 with a few lenses for same $ and use it daily. I own some other Zeiss glass and have always been happy with it. So being that on some of the A7 lenses is great. I think it from the test shots is a few stops better than my T3i in noise dept and fits me better.

Guess I gotta decide.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 25, 2015)

I have a T3i as well. I'm choosing to get an NX1 to replace it, assuming I can find one in stock in Canada that is. I think it will serve my needs well.

Cameras such as the 7D2 are non starters for me due to the archaic video functions Canon seems to like in its DSLRs. I never used the T3i for video because the quality was just too unbearable. Originally I had a S10 for video, then replaced that with a G30. I always bought Canon equipment. Last year I bought a Sony RX100M3 as a travel camera and boy! That certainly opened my eyes about what we SHOULD expect in a camera and how Canon have been short-changing us on IQ all this time. It was my WTF moment. I will never buy another Canon product until they up their game and produce IQ comparable to what their competition are doing.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 25, 2015)

Ya I have done some video for YT on my T3i and its pretty bad. I had to buy a bunch of lights so I could run the ISO super low and it was still a grainy mess. I have some stuff I use in post to clean it up a bit.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 25, 2015)

Triggyman said:


> WIDEnet said:
> 
> 
> > However, I still recommend you consider the A6000 as your go-anywhere camera. It's pretty inexpensive compared to most of the competition, even with the kit lens, and while it's not a system camera you don't really need it to be--just one good lens will do since for that purpose, you aren't going to be wanting to mess with changing lenses, and given you can get away with a single fixed focal length in an X100T (at double the price), surely a single good zoom will do the trick for you. And if worst comes to worst, you have invested a whole lot less in the camera, and particularly in the system, then with a A7. You might also consider other large-sensor advanced compacts like these to see if they fit your needs better, though most are as expensive or more so than the A6000 with the kit lens and don't offer a ton of advantages in comparison.
> ...


Dear, I own the Canon 5D3 and several good lenses, and consider myself a advanced hobbiest. I was also tired of lugging my heavy equipment all the time without compromising the quality of my images. I was waiting for a new EOS-M capable to rival the Sony a6000 in terms of AF and fps. Canon has failed so I purchased the Sony a6000 and a Sony Zeiss 16-70mm (24-105mm FF equiv) and AF is super fast and IQ is fantastic. I am very happy I pulled the trigger. The SELP 1650 kit lens IQ and performance are mediocre, just buy the body and a good lens.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 25, 2015)

I went FF about a year ago looking for better ISO performance. However, it has been reported that the 7D2 ISO performance is way better than the previous one.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 25, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I went FF about a year ago looking for better ISO performance. However, it has been reported that the 7D2 ISO performance is way better than the previous one.



It certainly is better, but not anything close to a full frame camera. 7D1/60D/550-700D all share a very similar sensor, but the 7D1 was the first time they used it and had some pattern noise at higher ISO that was cleaned up in later versions. So while I'd say the 7D2 is perhaps a third stop or more less noisy than the original in RAW, (full stop better in JPEG), the OP's 600D is a little less noisy than the 7D1 so there is an smaller difference compared to the 7D2. The one thing I have heard it being dramatically less noisy in is dark-current noise for long exposures (astrophotography), but that's a different type of noise than either of the ones I talked about as being relevant for most shots. 

In comparison, the A6000 is around a third to a half stop better than the 7D2, or around 2/3-stop better than your 600D. Of course, a full-frame, say, A7 would be around a full two stops improvement in noise, plus wider dynamic range...but again, would be a much bigger investment and leave you less to buy other lenses with.



Hjalmarg1 said:


> Canon has failed so I purchased the Sony a6000 and a Sony Zeiss 16-70mm (24-105mm FF equiv) and AF is super fast and IQ is fantastic. I am very happy I pulled the trigger. The SELP 1650 kit lens IQ and performance are mediocre, just buy the body and a good lens.



While that is an expensive lens, the price of this setup would actually end up being less than just the A7 II body only. So the OP would have to decide if it was worth it to also get a 5DIII (around $3000 with the 24-105, as well as his current 70-200/4) for when he needed better image quality, particularly in low light, and to all the varied lenses Canon can offer. 

However, given what the OP has said, I don't think this setup would be viable for them as their primary camera since A. They'd also need a reasonably fast telezoom (or something even longer, which isn't really available for Sony) for wildlife and travel shots, which would cost another $1000 or so to get something equivalent to their current Canon, and B. Given the 1-stop slower aperture of that lens relative to the OP's current 17-55/2.8, you'd equal or worse low-light performance even with the A6000's better sensor and less background separation.



Hawk said:


> Ya I have done some video for YT on my T3i and its pretty bad. I had to buy a bunch of lights so I could run the ISO super low and it was still a grainy mess. I have some stuff I use in post to clean it up a bit.



The alaising/moire is just terrible, and like I said before Canon "1080p" resolution is about equivalent in detail to a decent 720p due to the mushing of details. Of course, it doesn't have to be this way and Canon knows it--you can already do a number of tweaks (lower digital gain, raise bitrate, optimize other settings) with Magic Lateran to get somewhat more acceptable quality with any Canon, but what you can do with the 5DIII and ML RAW video is just incredible, and just the level of sharpness, detail and graduation in the picture (even without talking about grading latitude in post) blows the "normal" 5D3 video out of the water. 

It really shows you how badly Canon is crippling that camera--which is exactly what it is and everyone knows it, to protect Cinema EOS sales. If the 5DIII came with ML and RAW built in, it's basically a 2K/FHD version of the $16,000 C500 where image quality is concerned. But the fact is that in order to not compete with those cameras, it also doesn't really compete well with any other DSLR or even MSLT systems (A7, GH4, even Nikons). The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.



Hawk said:


> Guess I gotta decide.



Yup, and ultimately it's up to you. About the X100T--I've heard nothing but good things about the X100x line and I know they are a joy to use...but at that price, a fixed-lens compact with an APS-C sensor just isn't competitive these days, since you can buy the A6000 with a fast prime like the Sony 35/1.8 OSS (and optically stabilized, to boot) for 2/3rds the price of a X100T, or even with the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8 for less than an X100T. So if you have the money, then sure. But beyond that being fixed lens it won't be much good for wildlife/birds or anything you'd shoot with your current 70-200 or even the longer (or widest) end of your 17-55...so it would certainly not replace even your current DSLR/lenses, and that would limit what you can carry it around for relative to breaking out something else.

Again, you might want to consider the A7 over the II version given the main benefit the latter offers is IBIS, considering almost all the Sony zooms and medium to longer primes are already optically stabilized, and it saves you $400 you can spend on lenses, another prime, a small compact, etc. But really, it's up to you.

The biggest problem I see for you with the A7 as your primary system is that at least as of now, there are zero lenses currently available (outside of mirrors) of greater than 200mm focal length. Considering right now your longest focal length, adjusted for FoVC, is 320mm, you would have to be content with around 3/5ths of that, with no option to go higher. And you won't see as much background separation as with the 5DIII due to shorter focal lengths. But if you can live with those disadvantages and the lack of lenses in general, then perhaps the A7 is for you.

Good luck!


----------



## Tinky (Jan 25, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> It really shows you how badly Canon is crippling that camera--which is exactly what it is and everyone knows it, to protect Cinema EOS sales. If the 5DIII came with ML and RAW built in, it's basically a 2K/FHD version of the $16,000 C500 where image quality is concerned. But the fact is that in order to not compete with those cameras, it also doesn't really compete well with any other DSLR or even MSLT systems (A7, GH4, even Nikons). The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.



I would be careful about that kind of incendary libellous post, which makes no sense. Why did they even bother putting on headphone jacks if they are so hell-bent on crippling the 5D3. Why give various GoP patterns if they are so keen to force every Philip Bloom wannabe onto C series cameras? 

It's primarily a DSLR. For Stills. The AA filter is designed for stills. This is the weakest link in the 5D3 chain as far as video goes. If you want to hack a 5D3 properly, have the stock AA removed and replaced with quartz glass. ML can only go so far.

Even a hacked 5D3 cannot compete with the C series. These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters. 

Yep. Your argument stacks up less and less the more you look at the facts.

Surely a 2K version of a C500 is a C300? The 5D3 matches the C300? Close. But no cigar. If you need 50i. (Which the broadcasters are looking for.) If you want hassle free audio. 

Canon have a chimera product with video SLRs. Their DSLRs can do great things, even the humble T3i in the right hands. I would have bought a 5D3 but I'm probably going to get a c100 and ninja instead. Which is more on a par with a c300 than a 5D3 will ever be.

Canon aren't crippling their DSLRs. Did you read the bit on the ML page about the warranty? You are using your camera beyond specification. Fair do's. Lots of folk are without apparant problem.

I think they are trying to suit too many markets. In use a C series or even an unfashionable ENG camera often makes 100x more sense that a tiny DSLR hiding inside a mecanno set on a plinth.

And your bit about not competing with Sony or Panasonic or Nikon. So what. Most folk don't need or want 4K yet & none of them take EF lenses.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 26, 2015)

Thanks for all the help so far! 

I may just try lens rentals and see how it goes with the A7II. It would be alot cheaper to just try it then just buy it flat out. 

The Sony 70-200 is what I would run with on it and maybe a couple fast primes. Just to try it out. Like I said if the iq and noise is a little better than my T3i I will be happy.

I will try the older one too I think just to make sure. I know I am on the Canon forum so lol. I just think the 5D is too big for my daily. And to have that much $ tied up in a camera I wouldn't take many places kinda ruins it for me. The A6000 deserves another look to I think. I am waiting for a couple websites I read to get their A7II reviews up.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I would be careful about that kind of incendary [sic] libellous [sic] post, which makes no sense.



I may have been a bit over the top, and to be honest, it's not like I can 100% blame Canon for doing it, as it would make certain business sense--if most of their competitors did the same thing (which they certainly didn't). But libelous? Perhaps the laws are different where you live, but in my country in order to prove libel against a public entity, the statement must not only have caused harm, be provably false, and was made with disregard for the facts and without adequate research (which I will argue is not the case), but, for a public entity like Canon, it must also be made with the intent to do harm, which it was not--it is aimed to either spur Canon into action, or else advise people not to put up with them any longer. 

Now, on the other hand, a classic example of a libelous statement is accusing someone of a crime on a false basis, and since I am a private individual, I would not have to prove malice (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one). However, I assure you I have no interest in doing so given I try to value an honest debate and a collective search for the truth rather than petty bickering, values which I hope we both share. In that spirit, allow me to respond to your claims.



Tinky said:


> Why did they even bother putting on headphone jacks if they are so hell-bent on crippling the 5D3. Why give various GoP patterns if they are so keen to force every Philip Bloom wannabe onto C series cameras?



Those are small though still useful upgrades (though the headphone jack should have been there from the beginning). But they had to add something to make it somewhat of an upgrade on the video side from the 5DIII, and pointing out the few things they did add just distracts from everything they leave out relative to the competition. Sure, Canon could get away with it just fine and few would complain--IF their competition did the same. But Sony, Panasonic, Blackmagic, and even old boy Nikon didn't stand still. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter if they have new GoP settings if every one of them looks a lot softer and mushier compared to the competition.



Tinky said:


> It's primarily a DSLR. For Stills. The AA filter is designed for stills. This is the weakest link in the 5D3 chain as far as video goes. If you want to hack a 5D3 properly, have the stock AA removed and replaced with quartz glass. ML can only go so far.



The OLPF does make a difference, sure; I've read about people who tried it. But if that really is the main reason the 5D3's 1080p output looks worse than typical 720p, not to mention any of its competitors, why is it that you can get breathtaking results with ML Raw video, at least equalizing the playing field with its brethren, if not more so. And why is it that those competitors (GH4, NX1, recent Nikons, Sony A7, etc.). as much "still" cameras as the 5DIII, can produce significantly more detailed video with their built-in codecs and processing, yet still maintain excellent stills quality as well? Do all these "still" cameras have "video" OLPFs? Or is something else at play? No, I don't think Canon is deliberatly going in and turning on some "mushy video" setting in the firmware, but clearly their processing pipeline is not delivering on the goods like most of the competition.



Tinky said:


> Even a hacked 5D3 cannot compete with the C series. These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.



Not sure where you are getting the idea of a "hacked" 5D3; i.e. one running modified firmware. If you are referring to ML, the latter is more properly a firmware addon, it runs on top of the Canon code without altering or replacing it at all. To compare it to smartphones, a "hack" would be somewhere between jailbreaking an iPhone and making it run Andriod, while ML is more like running an app from a non-officially-supported appstore. Camera companies are, in some ways, acting like Apple before they opened up the iPhone to developers. Should Canon officially tell everyone to use ML, without any kind of disclaimer or warning? No. Does it involve some amount of risk and complexity for less advanced users? Sure, but in the appstore paradigm they can choose whether to install it, after reading the disclaimer. And I've seen more cases where ML has been used to recover a supposedly dead camera than "brick" a camera itself.



Tinky said:


> These are designed primarily as camcorders. Biiiiiiiig difference. Not to mention that people would scoff at a DSLR with an 8MP chip these days. Not to mention professional audio. Not to mention interlace codecs for TV work. Not to mention base iso of 320 and built in ND filters.



I certainly have to agree with your point here, that no matter how good the 5D3's IQ in RAW with ML (which matches up surprisingly well with the C300), the form factor is not that of a dedicated "video camera" which has some significant disadvantages for "video" style shooting. That's why I keep my old-style, small sensor three chip AC160A around, and it still gets plenty of use (as I would hope it would, considering I paid as much for it used as the 5DIII goes for new these days). Due to the disadvantages you cite, I would not really consider it for everyday B-roll shooting. 

However, for low- and mid-level filmmakers (and those aspiring to be), with RAW video it can be a great tool--not a perfect tool, but an incredible value for those who can't afford a C300. 8 MP or 22MP chip, the 5DIII's raw output stacks up very well with the C300 and even in some respects the 1DC--though even the old GH2 isn't all that far behind in pure detail, "still" camera or not. Those folks are mostly going to be using an external recorder or at least an external pre-amp for audio anyway, and have plenty of time to screw the right ND filter onto their lens beforehand. Not sure what the advantage of having a higher "base" ISO is for video, unless there is something I'm missing or my knowledge of the inner workings of CMOS chips are way off. And "interlace codecs for TV work"? Again not an issue for the target audience, (and won't be for anyone 10-20 years from now) and even if not, is 30 PsF really that bad? (Though it is of course trivial to pulldown 1080i30 from 1080p60 shot by most of the competition and the 7DII, not to mention all those small sensor cameras for many years now.)



Tinky said:


> Yep. Your argument stacks up less and less the more you look at the facts.



Unless my argument is "Canon should have made the 5DIII into the perfect high end television camera" I'm not sure how much the statements presented really weaken it.



Tinky said:


> Surely a 2K version of a C500 is a C300? The 5D3 matches the C300? Close. But no cigar. If you need 50i. (Which the broadcasters are looking for.) If you want hassle free audio.



Not exactly, since the C300 can't shoot RAW internally or externally, only XF (50 Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2) internally or up to uncompressed 4:2:2 externally. Plus, it can't even shoot 1080p60 like all the new Nikon "still cameras," not to mention all those small sensor camcorders. Does the C300 have a slight edge in sharpness/picture quality SootC? Quite possibly. when it comes to flexibility in the grading suite, 5D3 RAW is unbeatable. Plus, the 5DIII's larger sensor and possibility of recording using the full sensor area make it very difficult to beat when coupled with anamorphic lenses.

Hassle-free audio? How much more "hassle" really is it to plug your XLRs into your external recorder rather than your main camera and remember to press play? Considerably less "hassle" then having wireless mic receivers or XLR cables dangling off your camera, methinks. Sure, having good onboard audio is critical for ENG style shoots and even a lot of documentary production, not to mention day to day corporate work. That's why I'm not giving up on my AC160A anytime soon. But again, those sorts of folks are the ones likely to either have the budget for a C300, be using their 3-chip small sensor ENG camera, or have the time to deal with it.



Tinky said:


> Canon have a chimera product with video SLRs. Their DSLRs can do great things, even the humble T3i in the right hands. I would have bought a 5D3 but I'm probably going to get a c100 and ninja instead. Which is more on a par with a c300 than a 5D3 will ever be.



Undoubtedly true; recently I saw a short film shot with a 550D that got featured on various sites. Sure it's possible to avoid the aliasing/moire and stylistically mitigate the softness. But why force us to deal with these problems when the other manufacturers and Canon itself demonstrates that they can do much, much better for the same price? I've heard a lot of good things about the C100 + Ninja combo, and it seems it may beat an internally recorded C300 since they use the same sensor. And for many uses like the ones mentioned above, a C100 (+ Ninja) offers a good deal more in usability than a 5DIII, and for not too much more money. But for cinematic productions, can it beat the 5D3 in IQ when there's grading involved? Sure doesn't look like it.



Tinky said:


> Canon aren't crippling their DSLRs. Did you read the bit on the ML page about the warranty? You are using your camera beyond specification. Fair do's. Lots of folk are without apparant problem.



Again, I don't mean "crippling" as in introducing deliberate softness within the image pipeline, but instead refusing to add features in software that would not take a huge amount of effort to greatly improve the camera's suitability for video, which due to Canon's hesitation ML has taken into their own hands. The camera is perfectly capable of doing better--ML is the proof of that. Even if RAW video is too much for the camera to handle (And many, many people have found that it is not), even proper 1080p output and video features in software (better audio control, actually informative live view displays, focusing and exposure aids, RAW histogram/zebras/spotmeter/ETTR, etc) are missing and Canon refuses to add them like many other manufacturers have.



Tinky said:


> I think they are trying to suit too many markets. In use a C series or even an unfashionable ENG camera often makes 100x more sense that a tiny DSLR hiding inside a mecanno set on a plinth.



Not sure about the "mecanno set on a plinth" part but I certainly agree that the 5DIII is not and could never be suitable for many purposes--like I say, that's what my unfashionable AC160A is for. I'm not at all saying its right for you or me, or could be if Canon let it. But for cinematic style work, the 5D3 has considerable potential that Canon is not--or is refusing to--exploit, a fact which its competitors are certainly taking advantage of. Of course, Canon isn't really trying at all, while ML has pushed the bounds past what we ever thought was possible for both stills and video.



Tinky said:


> And your bit about not competing with Sony or Panasonic or Nikon. So what. Most folk don't need or want 4K yet & none of them take EF lenses.



Funny how I just remember you saying...


Tinky said:


> There are a couple of problems with the a7s. No internal 4k recording.


 and I responded that


WIDEnet said:


> Personally I've considered 4K on consumer/prosumer cams to be mostly just the new 3D, at least for my purposes


. In any case, I wasn't talking about 4K, just basic 1080p that looks like 1080p and not upscaled 720p at best. Lock in to the EF lenses (which are fantastic, I can certainly feel you there) is certainly a big thing keeping people in the Canon system, along with ML. But that doesn't help people just starting out in photography or video, Metabones and the like are getting better all the time (and with the Speed Booster, in some ways better than on the original Canon camera) and quite a few cameras now, even the $999 BMPCC, (not to mention the Axiom Beta) are offering EF mounts, removing a lot of the lock-in and removing one of the remaining reasons people have for sticking with Canon bodies. Plus, if Canon bodies suck there will be extra imputes to develop more and better lenses for other mounts.

We are just a *bit* off topic so I think I'll wrap it up here, and I apologize for the thread hijack Hawk. But if you don't believe me (and really, why should you) feel free to read, for example, one of Andrew Reid's articles over at EOSHD which make a lot of similar points. including, quite poignantly, "If it wasn’t for Magic Lantern I’d have sold my Canon gear." Sound familiar?


WIDEnet said:


> The only reason people use them anymore for video is ML.


 I've even seen at least one article over at DPReview, which usually deals with "still" camera issues, that made exactly the same points. 

So, to conclude? No, I don't think the 5D3, ML'd or not, improved or not, is or should be a perfect choice for everyone in terms of video. Quite the contrary, as I've said from the beginning. But I do think Canon could do a hell of a lot more to make it stand up to the competition and be much more useful to the people who've always wanted to love it, rather than trying to protect sales of their Cinema EOS line. In the end, the people this is really hurting aren't going to buy a C-something rather than a 5D3, they'll increasingly be ending up with someone other than Canon entirely.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 26, 2015)

Hey Hawk, sorry again for going a bit off topic there. Back on topic, renting (assuming you're not paying too much) sounds like a great plan. I can pretty much guarantee you that the quality will assuredly be much better than your 600D, and if the lenses and the body work for you and don't outweigh (no pun intended) the smaller size, pass, and extra cash in your wallet, then go for it. I'm guessing you will want a mid-range zoom as well at some point, unless you want to be zooming with your feet all the time. But that's really up to you. 

In any case, best of luck and let us know how goes!


----------



## Hawk (Jan 26, 2015)

Thanks Wide.

Ya and again I don't know what to call the rainbow noise that my T3i produces at high iso. Even looking at some XT1 shots there is some noise but it seems to be more grain than red blue green splotches all over the mid tones and picture. Looking at alot of test shots from other cameras I see this same kinda effect of more black grain at high ISO not so much rainbow colors whatever you wanna call it.

As you said above it almost looks as I could get almost any mirror-less system and get better IQ and ISO performance than I have now. Nothing I shot the other day had that kinda noise. Even the XT1 with APSC at 6400 didnt show it at all. Little detail loss but no rainbows. Maybe I just have a screwy sensor in my camera.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 26, 2015)

No probs!



Hawk said:


> Ya and again I don't know what to call the rainbow noise that my T3i produces at high iso. Even looking at some XT1 shots there is some noise but it seems to be more grain than red blue green splotches all over the mid tones and picture. Looking at alot of test shots from other cameras I see this same kinda effect of more black grain at high ISO not so much rainbow colors whatever you wanna call it.



Sorry I didn't explain that before. Those "rainbow splotches" are called chroma noise, which occurs essentially due to different amounts of noise in the different color channels of the image (red, green, and blue) which results in spurious colors appearing in the image (as opposed to luminance noise, where the noise is distributed evenly across color channels resulting in fluctuations in brightness but not colors. You probably don't see as much chroma noise on most cameras because it is usually easier to control without too much degradation, and chroma noise reduction may even be applied in-camera when displaying the RAW image (and of course certainly with the JPEGs). 

In post, while chroma noise can be a lot more distracting in most cases, it is easier to control without suffering too much degradation in the final image. An application of the chroma noise reduction slider in LR/ACR will clean it right up. I've used values as high as 50 without too much noticeable degradation in image quality. Luma noise, however, is harder to clean up without the image looking unnaturally smooth and "plastically" and killing fine detail, but it can often be less objectionable if it is sufficiently random (rather than bands or patterns). On the 7D/550D for up to magazine-size prints and web use, I usually don't need to do luminance noise reduction unless above ISO 1600, or perhaps lower if needing to raise the exposure in post. 



Hawk said:


> As you said above it almost looks as I could get almost any mirror-less system and get better IQ and ISO performance than I have now. I nothing I shot the other day had that kinda noise. Even the XT1 with APSC at 6400 didnt show it at all. Little detail loss but no rainbows.



Not so sure about that, but any one using a Sony APS-C sensor then probably yeah. A lot of them are micro-4/3rds (Olympus, Panasonic) so naturally they aren't going to be quite as good in low light, though I'd imagine they are still fairly competitive. Nikon 1 is even smaller, so I'd imagine with Nikon's secret sauce as of late they aren't going to be as good, simply due to the laws of physics. But the others, probably...and mirrorless has other advantages as well. Again, the big differentiation is to pick the one with the best lens system since that is MILC's big enduring weakness right now.



Hawk said:


> Maybe I just have a screwy sensor in my camera.



The technical term for that kind of sensor is "Canon" xD

It's just based on older technology that Canon so far has not sought to really improve. Around the time of the 7D and 550D, that sensor was pretty darn good for its day and format. But if you stick with exactly the same sensor technology for over 5 years. The "modern" 700D is an identical camera in all but name to the 650D that was released in summer 2012, 2 1/2 years ago, and has the same sensor going all the way back to the 550D, in the beginning of 2010 (as well as the 2009 7D). It's like if Canon took the original Digital Rebel (300D)'s 6 Mp sensor and essential features and kept using it all the way up until the 500D. Obviously that is a bit of an exaggeration and the pace of technology is always faster at the beginning, but it certainly isn't that slow owing to what we've been seeing from other manufacturers.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 26, 2015)

Thanks for that post. Ya I wasn't going to go down as far as micro 4 3rds. I am looking at the A6000 now haha seems like a beast of a little camera with interchangeable lenses. Looks like it blows away the A7 for half the price. Nuts!

Well rats guess I could just buy one of each and use them all lol. The XT1 would be perfect if it was full frame but guess A7 is only FF choice. Just like my dials. Probably going to get the A7II with some fast primes and give it a try. If the XT1 had a zoom I would be stoked haha. Such is life.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 26, 2015)

The A7 certainly has the IQ advantage over the A6000. But the latter is compatible with quite a few more lenses since both crop frame and full frame will work with it. Still not the best selection but if you can find ones that will fit your needs...just don't really expect to be doing a whole lot of bird photography with it. The other day I saw this random red shouldered hawk in my backyard so I figured I'd go out and shoot it. It was in a tree right above my garage and even leaning against the garage with my 70-200 on one of my crop frame 7Ds I still had to do some significant cropping to get the shot I wanted. And that was one big hawk, mind you!



Hawk said:


> Well rats guess I could just buy one of each and use them all lol.



Yeah...of course, that's the same day they'll make me the 20-200mm f/1.4L IS USM I've always wanted hahaha!


----------



## Hawk (Jan 26, 2015)

Well lucky for me I feed alot of the birds I shoot so a 200 is plenty. I even have several hawks that land right in my yard and even look in my windows at me haha. So I don't have to reach to far to get to them. Also local college has alot of them you can get close and get some great shots @ 200 its like a preserve.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 26, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > I would be careful about that kind of incendary [sic] libellous [sic] post, which makes no sense.
> ...



Go ahead and sue me. Libel actions always end well. For lawyers at least.

I have a theory: Anybody working at a level that requires uncompressed video is wasting their time with a 5d3.

Lots of people not thinking for themselves. I'll get on with being a cameraman, I'll let them get on with being DoPs for terrible short films that 5 folk watch on vimeo.


----------



## wyldeguy (Jan 26, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Thanks Wide.
> 
> Ya and again I don't know what to call the rainbow noise that my T3i produces at high iso. Even looking at some XT1 shots there is some noise but it seems to be more grain than red blue green splotches all over the mid tones and picture. Looking at alot of test shots from other cameras I see this same kinda effect of more black grain at high ISO not so much rainbow colors whatever you wanna call it.
> 
> As you said above it almost looks as I could get almost any mirror-less system and get better IQ and ISO performance than I have now. Nothing I shot the other day had that kinda noise. Even the XT1 with APSC at 6400 didnt show it at all. Little detail loss but no rainbows. Maybe I just have a screwy sensor in my camera.



Hawk I have a T3i and mine does that multi colored noise in higher ISO. Being my first dslr I assumed that was normal given that making pixels work harder can make them register higher than they should and you get pixel. On my 7D mark ii I have not noticed this effect throughout the entire ISO range but I will go back and check.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 26, 2015)

The T3i is now 5 year old tech (18MP and Digic 4, even if T3i was launched later) I see a huge improvement in higher isos, less moire and less jello with the digic 5 cameras I use, looking forward to seeing what digic 6 can do.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 26, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Hey all,
> 
> I am a long time photographer with film in several bodys like the OM-1. I used point and shoots for light work for awhile but loved shooting film.
> 
> ...



I recently purchased a X100T and I use it for street photography. It definitely looks like a film camera. Almost everybody comes up to me and says "Wow, when are you going to go digital? Look at that. You are still using film." And I love it. When I do go out on the street people think I am some dorky tourist and they don't take me seriously. People don't take tourists seriously and so they don't feel threatened. I can take pictures of whatever with no negative feedback. 

The thing is the X100T is a great camera. It takes great photos and it absolutely quiet. The internally processed JPGs are darn good although I also get the RAW files too. I shoot in aperture priority with f4 and with auto ISO (max at 3200), which works exceedingly well in the street environment because the light can change quickly and I don't want to look like I am a serious photographer fussing with settings. 

So if you have extra cash, then definitely consider the X100T. It's a hoot.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 26, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Well lucky for me I feed alot of the birds I shoot so a 200 is plenty. I even have several hawks that land right in my yard and even look in my windows at me haha. So I don't have to reach to far to get to them. Also local college has alot of them you can get close and get some great shots @ 200 its like a preserve.



Well then you certainly don't sound like you are focal length limited then--same with me and my hawks. Again, do keep in mind that on crop fame a 200mm is effectively 60% longer than on full frame, so you won't have quite as much reach. So you get the same field of view on 200mm on full frame as 125mm on crop. But in return the better IQ does allow to crop somewhat more than you would be able too, and it sounds like you have enough leeway that it won't be a problem. If you like, you can always try out 125 (or 135) mm on your 70-200 to get a feel for it.

Well, Tinky, you really had to quote my entire whopping message just to get in a few lines of dismissive rebuttal, didn't you? 



Tinky said:


> Go ahead and sue me. Libel actions always end well. For lawyers at least.



True, true. But like I said...



WIDEnet said:


> I assure you I have no interest in doing so given I try to value an honest debate and a collective search for the truth rather than petty bickering, values which I hope we both share.





Tinky said:


> I have a theory: Anybody working at a level that requires uncompressed video is wasting their time with a 5d3.



Are they? Shooting certain subjects, perhaps. But I'd tend to think that the areas where the form-factor, control, monitoring and audio disadvantages of the 5D3 that you mentioned would really matter, like ENG, run and gun, corporate, event video, and sports/action and the like would not be those where you'd need Raw, uncompressed, or even in many cases Prores or DNxHD. Whereas in pre-scripted, short-form productions needing high quality and maximum latitude in post, what the ML'ed 5D3 delivers with high IQ, tons of latitude, and access to the same wide selection of lenses as the C-series and other cinema cameras is considerably more important than minor "convenience" flaws that are usually not as critical for those sorts of productions.



Tinky said:


> Lots of people not thinking for themselves. I'll get on with being a cameraman, I'll let them get on with being DoPs for terrible short films that 5 folk watch on vimeo.



Well, so shall I, but I'll do so without being unduly critical of a ton of folks out there who produce an enviable end product that, in many cases, are quite widely distributed and acclaimed. They may not be me, or you, but why not let them do their thing and you and I do ours? And why don't we both focus on staying on topic and helping the OP rather than going way off on a tangent about DSLR video that the OP never asked about? Deal?



wyldeguy said:


> Hawk I have a T3i and mine does that multi colored noise in higher ISO. Being my first dslr I assumed that was normal given that making pixels work harder can make them register higher than they should and you get pixel. On my 7D mark ii I have not noticed this effect throughout the entire ISO range but I will go back and check.



It's a bit more complex than that but yeah on any sensor of a given per-pixel light collecting area, lower incoming light low enough and you'll get noise, luma and chroma, in the raw data coming right off the sensor. The effects your describing between cameras do very depending on whether you've shooting JPEGs, RAW, and video and on what devices you are viewing the resulting RAW--plus whatever preprocessing the camera is doing on the "RAW" data, as sometimes occurs. Due to the limitations of physics, the 7DII doesn't have all that much lower noise coming straight off the sensor. However, JPEG NR performance is greatly improved with the 2x Digic 6 vs. 1x Digic 4 600D, the RAW display might be tweaked, and I know for sure that the noise coming off the sensor, though quantitatively not much less, is much less objectionable in appearance due to it being more evenly distributed and random rather than exhibiting pronounced banding artifacts. So that could be what are seeing...any number of variables at play here.



Tinky said:


> The T3i is now 5 year old tech (18MP and Digic 4, even if T3i was launched later) I see a huge improvement in higher isos, less moire and less jello with the digic 5 cameras I use, looking forward to seeing what digic 6 can do.



I assume you mean in video (or JPEG), but certainly true like I mentioned.



gsealy said:


> I recently purchased a X100T and I use it for street photography...So if you have extra cash, then definitely consider the X100T. It's a hoot.



I've heard much the same from any number of folks; the X100T sounds just perfect for street photography and perhaps a lot of travel work too. So if you have the extra money then go for it, and perhaps you could survive with just that and maybe your 600D if that is the significant majority of what you do. But since you mentioned you shoot a variety of subjects including landscapes (need something wider than 35mm-equivalent), birds (definitely need something longer), and certain types of travel photography (more focal length flexibility, though the X100T would certainly be great for a lot of that like Gsealy says). So you'd still need at least one interchangeable lens camera of some sort, and one with lower noise than your 600D since you say you print or display very large.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 26, 2015)

I'm between an iphone and an ipad most of time. Lousy select and cut controls.

The clue to the video bit was jello.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I'm between an iphone and an ipad most of time. Lousy select and cut controls.



You have my sympathy; I had a iPad Air that I won in a contest and it sure was cool but not so great for anything involving a lot of typing and copy/pasting. Which, as you've probably noticed, is something I do a lot. Given its limitaions (and a bit of LBA haha) I ended up selling it shortly after to fund more lens purchases. Same reason I don't have an iPhone...I just think of how many lenses I could buy with that money. But I could certainly see why someone would have one...just not for me I guess.



Tinky said:


> The clue to the video bit was jello.



Yup. Moire also clued me in...though there are significant noise improvements in JPEG so I hear.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 26, 2015)

it's a mix of spatial and temporal compression for the videos, so if the spatial bit is better in video, it follows hopefully that it should also be better for stills. Although I generally shoot CR2 stills unless they are for snash like continuity.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 27, 2015)

Technically the improvements in Digic would be applied at the image processing stage for videos and photos, as compression for video and JPEGs are handled on a separate dedicated chip and are separate routines for video and stills. But your point is well-taken. I used to shoot RAW + JPEG but now I never bother since it's just more hassle and less buffer depth for no real gain.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 27, 2015)

technically the algorithms for jpeg stills and motion jpeg video frames are both spatial forms of compression, with the motion jpeg adding temporal compression across multiple groups of frames, so thanks yeah, it does follow. Thanks.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 27, 2015)

After much deliberation I think I am going to grab the XT-1 with a couple primes and the new 50-150MM F2.8. I really like the old school look and the noise still looks better than my T3i with no banding. I love the all metal lenses and bodies. More like my old OM1 and other film cameras that I love. Looking at the sample images online they look better than my t3i at higher iso.

The A7II looks good but I am just not convinced its a mature enough system and the lack of lenses makes me go meh. I see alot of people liking the IQ but seems like it has terrible slow focus and the XT1 even shoots faster FPS for less $$$. The people I see liking the A7 are using Leica or other legacy lenses. I don't really wanna pay another 300+ for an adapter so I can put a monster DSLR lens on it. Ruins point of mirrorless to me.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 27, 2015)

Hawk said:


> After much deliberation I think I am going to grab the XT-1 with a couple primes and the new 50-150MM F2.8. I really like the old school look and the noise still looks better than my T3i with no banding. I love the all metal lenses and bodies. More like my old OM1 and other film cameras that I love. Looking at the sample images online they look better than my t3i at higher iso.
> 
> The A7II looks good but I am just not convinced its a mature enough system and the lack of lenses makes me go meh. I see alot of people liking the IQ but seems like it has terrible slow focus and the XT1 even shoots faster FPS for less $$$.



While I am not entirely convinced the Fuji X-mount is all that much more mature than the Sony E-mount, and the number of lenses listed for it on B&H is fewer than that for the comparable Sony APS-C E-mount, with some of the same limitations, you might at least get a bit more stability. Who knows at this point--you really have to compare the lens lineups offered by both and see which fits you best (which I presume you have). 

You really can't compare the A7 and the X-T1--although the original A7 may be the same nominal price as the X-T1, the former is full-frame with the advantages and disadvantages that come with it, while the latter is APS-C. A more accurate comparison would be that between the A6000 and the X-T1, and while I can't say I've pored over the details of each one's spec sheet, spec-wise the A6000 looks like at least a match for the Fuji, though the latter does appear offer better build quality and a few more "professional" features. Although the X-T1 does offer it's X-Trans sensor mask, some people seem not to be so much of a fan and regardless, given the sensor within is an older model carried over from the previous generation for the Fuji, it appears likely that the Sony has at least somewhat of an advantage where IQ is concerned, and in any case I doubt the Fuji offers all that much more than your 600D once post-processed correctly (though probably some improvement). 

Personally, I and a lot of other people are not a big fan of the dedicated on-top dials approach for your main exposure settings--while I normally prefer as many dedicated hardware controls as possible for various functions, and thus something like the D300 just tickles my pickle with how many dedicated dials you get for various shooting settings versus the more spartan 7D, I find the multi-control wheel approach Canon and the other camera companies currently use to be much more efficient and flexible than the old-fashioned dedicated dials based approach reminiscent of the 70s and 80s, as would most "eye in the finder, finger on the shutter" kind of shooters who like me consider the camera an extension of their bodies, moving from thought to execution instantly, which is pretty much a necessity for an event shooter and spare-time PJ like me. It's especially crippling in portrait orientation, grip or no. But there are some people, particularly those shooting in a much slower, methodical style (those that with subjects with which they can afford to, anyways), that love it--and it sure sounds like you might be one of those people, and if you are sure you are, then go for it.

The big difference, though, is that right now, the price of the A6000 $548 at B&H) is less than half of the roughly comparable X-T1 (nominally 1299, though nominally $100 less with a rebate of some sort). Of course, if money is no object and you are sure about the X-T1, then go for it, but you could buy several good primes for that price difference, or a A7 which would would give you IQ more in line with what you are looking for. So again, it's really up to you, and if you really love the X-T1 and feel like you can live with the cost and compromises then who am I not stop you, but I at least urge you to consider what you are sacrificing in return for that specific set of ergonomics in terms of cost, IQ, and other features. I would also advise you read through threads like this one if you haven't already to get some additional perspectives on both sides of the story.



Tinky said:


> technically the algorithms for jpeg stills and motion jpeg video frames are both spatial forms of compression, with the motion jpeg adding temporal compression across multiple groups of frames, so thanks yeah, it does follow.



Of course, what you said is in itself mostly true, though I'm not sure how it's relevant to our previous discussion. Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) does not in fact use any temporal (interframe) compression; it's in fact just a bunch of individual JPEG files inside a container with slightly different headers/metadata. If you are in fact referring to DSLR video that of course uses an entirely different set of spatial and temporal compression standards, defined in MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC, and popularly still known as H.264. Not sure about the JPEG compressor but from ML's research that the H.264 compression in Canon's DSLRs is performed on an separate, dedicated chip, downstream of the DIGIC image processor in the image pipeline. M

y point in saying this, which it appears I could have been a lot clearer on, was that the H.264 encoder, though the source of additional artifacts and poor encoding performance on its own (and potentially some of the softness I was complaining about earlier), this has little to do with the IQ improvements you cited (less jellocam, mainly a function of the sensor readout architecture, better NR which is the responsibility of the Digic image processor, and less moire which could potentially be a combination of both) since those as cited are introduced or corrected earlier in the image/video pipeline, using some elements potentially shared by both the video and JPEG pathways, unlike the encoders which are entirely distinct.


----------



## Hawk (Jan 27, 2015)

Thanks, ya I am more of one of those shooters that likes to be methodical about it hehe. Old school I guess. Also on XT1 you can leave what you want on auto and just set FStop or Shutter speed just like DLSR. At least with my shooting I spend 95% of my time in Aperture priority. Just using the aperture ring to me is a big deal its kinda like driving a manual or automatic sports car you are just so much more connected with the manual transmission. I am the same with cameras.

As far as the lenses the A7II kit lens is reviewed very poorly on several sites for bad distortion and other issues. Also its only F4 which is a stop worse than what I have now. I don't really wanna go back to an F4 lens and pay $1200 for it. Fuji has primes that are 1.2 which is even faster than my current lens. Fujis kit lens is even 2.8 for a little before settling out to f4 and is less than 1/2 the cost. I also looked at alot of the test images from the 70-200 E mount G glass and its looks ok its not nearly as sharp as my Canon 70-200. The Fuji also has a 50-140 F2.8 zoom. I know its not as long as my L glass but its also 2.8 and again I rarely max out my 70-200 so I think it will work for me. There are some good reviews on the Fuji glass and it looks very well made and sharp to me. Very little distortion etc.

Again I am comparing the Fuji X line of lenses to Sony Full Frame as I am choosing between these two cameras XT1 A7II. The only Sony Zeiss lens I am reading good things about overall is the 55 F1.8. And to be honest Sony charging another $500 for their 70-200 is laughable to me when you can get Canon L glass way cheaper. I guess from what I have read people are mixed on the Sony glass and when its as much or more than L glass that makes me think its just not worth it. I understand FF glass is always more $$$, but being more than lenses that have been used for years and are known quantity IDK.

I guess every review on the A7 that praised it was using legacy glass Leica, EF, Nikon etc. Barely anyone was praising the stock lens line up. I just don't want to spend 100s on adapting lenses to it.

A6000 is just not my cup of tea. I am not looking forward to going back to menus and buttons. I can play that game with my T3i right now and spend nothing. Also on dp review the noise from the a6000 is pretty close to my T3i so I think its more of a side grade.

Also after using the EVF in the XT1 it is way better than the a6000 or A7 they aren't even in same league if you look through them. XT1 is sharp and large EVF. A7 has very grainy look and wasn't nearly as big. It felt so compressed in its little window. I frame with VF so it probably sounds stupid but I would lean towards the best EVF and the Sonys didnt impress me at all. Maybe its better outside but BB I could barely even read letters on signs with it, looked very low res and grainy. After using it I almost thought man I am going back to optical how would you ever use that.

Sure I am the most indecisive person ever LOL. I just like the old school XT1 design and the glass is getting good reviews from alot of places and it has best EVF IMHO.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 27, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> My point in saying this, which it appears I could have been a lot clearer on, was that the H.264 encoder, though the source of additional artifacts and poor encoding performance on its own (and potentially some of the softness I was complaining about earlier), this has little to do with the IQ improvements you cited (less jellocam, mainly a function of the sensor readout architecture, better NR which is the responsibility of the Digic image processor, and less moire which could potentially be a combination of both) since those as cited are introduced or corrected earlier in the image/video pipeline, using some elements potentially shared by both the video and JPEG pathways, unlike the encoders which are entirely distinct.



Didn't I also specifically refer earlier to the influence of digic (which you cite for NR at least and moire in part)

Either way it seems you are determined to try and get on my tits big time by twisting or distorting whatever I say. Well congratulations, you are there mate. Theres a word for that.


----------



## WIDEnet (Jan 27, 2015)

Hawk said:


> Sure I am the most indecisive person ever LOL. I just like the old school XT1 design and the glass is getting good reviews from alot of places and it has best EVF IMHO.



I really do feel you on prefering that method of working; when I first started I just had my 550D and lots of old manual primes working all manual of course, and it really was relaxing and refreshing. Now that I'm an event shooter I really can't afford that kind of luxury, but in a way I do miss the old days...by which I mean 9 months ago haha.

Hey now, I wouldn't call that indecision; you just had to consider all your options first. And it sure looks to me like you've finally decided on your choice and have plenty of research, reasons, and thought to back that up. Once you truly fall in love, everything else is really just a formality--same with me and picking colleges, for example; I know the feeling. But you want to be sure, of course...but I say just go for it if you know inside yourself the XT-1 is the one you really want. If you order if from Adorama you get a full 30 day return period; almost like renting except without all the cost. If you really don't like it after that or have second thoughts then you can always send it back and try something else. So, if you are really 100% sure (or at least 90%), then it's time to squeeze the trigger I guess!

In any case, I know I've said this before, but again, all the best of luck to you, and let us know how it goes!



Tinky said:


> Didn't I also specifically refer earlier to the influence of digic (which you cite for NR at least and moire in part)



Yes indeed! But it sounded like you were confusing the functions and effects of the video and JPEG encoders with that of the image processor (and sensor readout circuitry) so I wanted to clear that up. Not the biggest or most uncommon conflations, but I can be a pit precise and picky sometimes, and as someone who obviously knows quite a bit about the intricacies of camera video processing I thought you'd appreciate it.



Tinky said:


> Either way it seems you are determined to try and get on my tits big time by twisting or distorting whatever I say. Well congratulations, you are there mate. Theres a word for that.



I apologize if I came off as overly blunt, rude, or critical and I'm sorry that you seem to have taken it personally; I am just generally rather anal when it comes to accuracy in discussing photo and particularly video-related technical matters. As a shooter yourself, I'd imagine you might be able to understand the value in being picky about all the little details...or maybe that's more a DoP thing. Dunno. 

I certainly do appreciate what you have to say, even if we don't necessarily agree on everything, but I must admit it was a bit odd that you kept bringing up issues from a video perspective repeatedly when A. This was posted in the stills photography forum, B. The OP never said anything about video originally, and C. Hawk specifically stated at least once that video wasn't his priority. I understand you are interested in that element and obviously have a lot to contribute but perhaps this wasn't exactly the best venue for the depth you went into on video. 

I must note, perhaps over-critically, that besides your very useful first post and your valuable comment cautioning Hawk against investing in less mature and consistent system like Sony, it just seemed like the rest of your posts were either targeted at me or on a rather tangential course about video that had little to do with what the OP was asking (stills IQ and NR). Of course, I did spend quite a bit of time responding to you as well so I am surely not blameless either, but I at least tried to also respond to Hawk in detail as well. 

But again, your first post, again, was very good though and closely reflects my experience with the 550D, 60D and 7D. It's just unfortunate that we got off on this note, I really do feel I could learn quite a bit from your depth of real-world experience. I can just get a bit caught up in the details (not that you've noticed) and people can take it as attacking them when I'm only trying to ensure that we both have an accurate and precise understanding of the issues. If you are not okay with that then I understand, and I really don't know how much I am going to be active on this forum so you probably won't run into me again elsewhere. I really only joined to help Hawk out and to correct the rather bothersome inaccurate statements of the rather poorly spoken film aficionado a while back, which I never did end up doing. And certainly not to pick a fight with you, I 100% agreed with what you had to say in your first and only post at that point in the thread, more so than anyone else's. 

Anyway, it's getting late and I'm talking myself in circles. Time to go to bed...maybe we can bury the hatchet in the dawn light of a new day, eh, and agree to disagree sometimes?


----------



## berger (Feb 7, 2015)

would think of the EOS 7D Mark II


----------



## WIDEnet (Feb 7, 2015)

That information might have been helpful two weeks either, but as Hawk (the OP) stated in his most recent post 10 days ago, they already made their choice, and neither the 6D nor the 7D2 were in the running at that point. Furthermore, if you read the first post, you would have known Hawk's main complaint with his 600D was its poor low-light performance, on which the 7D2 is only a minimal improvement on in RAW relative to its cost, unlike the cheaper 6D or all of the other suggestions.

But in any case, welcome to the forums. Protip: If you comment on posts nearer to the top of the forum (ie that are newer), your replies are more likely to have some kind of impact rather than making you look silly commenting on a long-stale thread.

Best of luck...


----------



## Tinky (Feb 7, 2015)

WIDEnet said:


> That information might have been helpful two weeks either, but as Hawk (the OP) stated in his most recent post 10 days ago, they already made their choice, and neither the 6D nor the 7D2 were in the running at that point. Furthermore, if you read the first post, you would have known Hawk's main complaint with his 600D was its poor low-light performance, on which the 7D2 is only a minimal improvement on in RAW relative to its cost, unlike the cheaper 6D or all of the other suggestions.
> 
> But in any case, welcome to the forums. Protip: If you comment on posts nearer to the top of the forum (ie that are newer), your replies are more likely to have some kind of impact rather than making you look silly commenting on a long-stale thread.
> 
> Best of luck...



Thats a relief. It's not just me you speak to me that way.

I'm not being funny, but are you on the autistic spectrum at all? I don't mean that as a sleight or to be offensive, just, theres kind of a way to speak to folk?....


----------



## WIDEnet (Feb 7, 2015)

Well hello again, Tinky. Long time no hear, eh?

Just yesterday I came across this article about video and the 5Ds that I thought you'd like...also, I noticed the latest EOSHD video quality rank places the 5DIII with internal ML RAW a full 10 spots above the C300, behind only the 1D C and the A7S with an external uncompressed 4K HDMI recorder. Not to negate the C300's other advantages, of which there are many for "video" style productions like what you and I do, but quality certainly isn't one of them (and nor is the 4x more expensive price). No to mention the $1k 5DII w/ML being right behind it, 9 spots ahead of the C300 and 12x less expensive. But I digress...



Tinky said:


> Thats a relief. It's not just me you speak to me that way.



Told ya, didn't I? Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh, but what did "berger" possibly think they could accomplish posting that? For all my criticism of you going OT about video and calling me a criminal, you obviously have a lot of expertise to share and usually seem to give at least some amount of thought on how to do it properly on a forum. Not only does this person lack that, why would anyone in their right mind want their very first post on a new forum be "would think of the EOS 7D Mark II" on a thread that's been dead for almost two weeks and for which reading the OP's original question would make it obvious that the 7DII would be the worst possible choice for the price to solve the OP's noise problem. C'mon, man.

People like you and I put a lot of effort into our posts trying to help people here (maybe too much, not to mention that exerted going after each other haha). I'd have thought careless, throwaway posts such as that would bother you as well.



Tinky said:


> I'm not being funny, but are you on the autistic spectrum at all? I don't mean that as a sleight or to be offensive, just, theres kind of a way to speak to folk?....



I know you're not trying to offend me, but this might be something better discussed via PM, no? Since if I really do have something like that, probably not something I'm going to be wanting to publicize. And if I don't, then it looks like you are publicly calling me out for something I don't have. Neither of which I'd assume you intend to do, given you are asking me an honest question. Thanks.


----------



## Tinky (Feb 8, 2015)

My point was, there are ways of speaking to folk, I guess I was looking for a reason to make allowances.

The bar conversation test is always good. Ask yourself, 'if this person was sitting next to me in a bar, would I speak to them that way?'

I'm from Glasgow, where sh1t like the way you speak to people really wouldn't fly. We're pretty friendly, we're (Christian sectarianism and the issue of independence from england asides) easy going and tolerant, if somebody wasn't quite keeping up with the conversation we'd either be polite and include them, or make a wee joke to bring them up to speed.

We wouldn't get all arcey about it, because, there are ways of speaking to folk, and there are ways of getting a punch in the face. And in a glasgow bar, no matter your station in life, cheeky folk aren't above a punch in the face.

So maybe apply the bar room test to your next posting, avoid a rammy or a barney, eh Pal?*









*If ever in a glasgow pub and you've inadvertently strayed ontp religion, football or the referendum, and somebody calls you 'Pal', they aren't really your Pal. Take it as a 10s warning. Brace or run. Pal.


----------

