# 5D III OR 6D or 7DII



## colin.davis (Sep 15, 2014)

Hey Canon Rumours Gurus

I'm gonna get a new camera, and would ideally like it before the end of October (travelling then)

Background
- Currently have a Canon 600D, had for 3yrs now, have taught myself manual settings, etc, now time to upgrade
- What I shoot - animals (Macro & Tele), landscapes/sunsets/waterscapes and for my new camera will also be possibly looking shoot underwater (will buy a housing - pricey I know)
- Examples of what I shoot - Check out my instagram, or website for an idea of what I shoot. (please note instagram crops and degrades photos so don't judge me  http://instagram.com/colindavisphotography?modal=true 
- What lenses i have: tokina fisheye 10-17, Canon 15-85, Canon 100mm Macro, Canon 100-400, Canon 50mm 1.4
- Budget: 
* Camerawise - 5D III is what I am willing to spend. Not 1D (also 1D is too bulky)
* Lenswise - Am open to suggestions <$2500
- I travel as much as i can, carry it all currently in my lowepro 21L bag. Last trip I took my fisheye, 50mm, 100-400 and 15-85 and a couple of filters. Also took a point and shoot Canon S100 and underwater housing. Barely used 50mm (not a portrait guy), fisheye was novelty but could easily travel without it.
- I want to be able to blow my photos up big. Like 30' x 45' big
- Dont really shoot video

What I want in a new camera
- Focussing - 600D misses quite a few shots, probably me a bit, but i feel the focus is just not quite there...
- Noise - I set my limit on my camera to 800 ISO, because nothing above that is useable on the 600D. Even 800 is pushing it.
- Frames - As much as i shoot wildlife, I am reasonably happy with the frames I have, 5+/second is adequate.

Options I think
- 5D III
- 7D II
- 6D

The debate is the reach and noise really. 
FYI am going to Sri Lanka this year (gonna to some safaris - Leopards!!) and am looking at going to Africa mid next year (Gorillas as my primary destination).
- looking to take a new lens + 100-400 +/- fisheye (aware only works at 15mm+ on full frame)


Lens
- Looking at 24-70 and 24-105
- Am leaning towards the tamron 24-70 VC. I have read extensively on the forums (there is definitely a hater of this lens) and the conclusions I get are that this lens is SLIGHTLY less impressive than the canon, SOMETIMEs tracks a bit, but has great image stabilisation and produces great images. Leaning towards this.
- Why not the 24-70 F4 from canon. Firstly I don't think we (Australia) have had the price cut yet, but also want to try out starscapes and it seems they are all shot at 2.8 (? am i wrong)

I would love any input. I have tried to pre-empt all the questions you might want to know.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 16, 2014)

5D III is SUPER from A-Z. fps is not that great, but I'm still be able to catch BIF with it.


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 16, 2014)

Thanks Dylan. I'm assuming once upon I time you had a crop camera. Do you miss the reach with wildlife, or does overall 5d iii just make up for it? 

Also lens suggestion? I'm nervous I'll get frustrated with 24-70 as I am used to 15-85 (nice lens btw). Can you use an f4 for stars?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 16, 2014)

colin.davis said:


> Thanks Dylan. I'm assuming once upon I time you had a crop camera. Do you miss the reach with wildlife, or does overall 5d iii just make up for it?
> 
> Also lens suggestion? I'm nervous I'll get frustrated with 24-70 as I am used to 15-85 (nice lens btw). Can you use an f4 for stars?



The longest lens I have is 400mm f2.8 IS II. I added 1.4x and 2x TC III not too long after. That combo gives me 560mm f4 and 800mm f5.6. I guess long FL is not really an issue for me.

I like fast lenses. I would highly recommend 24-70 f2.8 II and/or 70-200 f2.8 IS II(works really well with current TCs).


----------



## Ruined (Sep 16, 2014)

Based on your photos you have a pretty wide range of stuff you take.

Camera body:
Buy both 7DII & 6D for ~$3000 (get refurb 6D from Canon store)
-Take 7DII when you need reach, framerate, and/or 1DX-quality autofocus - birds, wildlife, etc
-Take 6D when you need ISO 6400, do landscape, or want thinnest DOF for your shot

You have a heavy wildlife focus so I think having a "pro" APS-C camera is a good idea for reach (and macro) & the best autofocus, but in those scenarios where you need high ISO or want thin DOF you can use the 6D which will do a much better job than the 7DII in those areas. 5DIII would be spending a lot of money for a camera that will not have the FOV/reach you would probably like for your large amount of wildlife shots; you will probably find yourself being forced to excessively crop in post. But if you get this 7DII+6D combo, you can bring the appropriate camera (or both) and use whichever makes sense for what you are shooting at the time. 

Want crazy reach? You got it, 7DII. Want high ISO? You got it, 6D. You can't have both crazy reach + high ISO with the 5DIII alone unless you are prepared to spend $10k+ on a 600mm, 8.5lb full frame lens - but if you get the 7DII+6D combo you can simply use your 7DII when you need reach and your 6D when you need high ISO. Best of both worlds without having to spend $10k on a single lens or being stuck having to crop in post every long subject you shoot (plus having the ability to actually see and frame far away subjects in the viewfinder).

In addition to the increased flexibility of both APS/APS-C you will as a side bonus then have a backup camera! 


Lens:
Sell tokina. Sell Canon 15-85. Note its good to get all EF/fullframe lenses if you go this route so they work on both bodies.
Buy Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II - will have different FOV depending on what camera body you put it on (7DII or 6D). Since you will likely use the 6D for landscape, the wide end of this lens would be perfect for that - then when you put it on the 7DII you will get a bit more reach on the tele end which you'd probably want for your wildlife subject matter. 24-70mm f/2.8L II is also unique as it has minimal coma wide open so its great for stars.
Future buys: Canon 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye; Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS; Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

1. 5DIII has an excellent AF system. Maybe 7DII will better that, but frankly 5DIII leaves little desired (unless maybe you are used to a 1D X).
2. Both the FF cameras will be better in terms of noise, but considering the AF in point 1, the 5DIII is a no-brainer. However better the 7DII might be, it will never surpass a similar generation FF sensor in terms of noise.
3. The 5DIII has 6 fps and I find that adequate for BIF and action. You mention 5+ is sufficient for you, as well.

I know many people suggest having two cameras that complement each other, but I see that as two cameras which are incomplete by themselves. Different perspectives, both correct depending on the user.

By the way, I don't know how attached you are to your lenses, but if you have to buy FF lenses anyway, why not consider the D750 (I will possibly face the wrath for saying this)? Excellent noise results, higher fps, and great AF with 3D tracking. Also more compact, and a camera 2 years more recent than the 5DIII, and cheaper to boot.
Nikon also has an excellent 105mm Micro-Nikkor, a 24-70 almost as good as the Canon and much less expensive, a much better 80-400 I think (although a grand pricier) and a far better 50/1.4G. Just a thought...


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 16, 2014)

Wow thanks guys, loving the support...

I totally get what you are saying Ruined and you make So much sense. I just can't seem to get my head around having two bodies... I would always have decisions every time I do anything (I don't like so many decisions). I was going to keep my 600D as my back up (in case it broke - not as a carry along). I know pros take 2 bodies, but i'm trying to minimise my gear, not increase it on travels. If all I did was out of a car/house then you make more sense, but travelling/backpacking at times, its a bit too heavy. 

My back up break camera on travels is a point and shoot - interested in the new Gx7 vs Rx-100 III. Currently have s100. You suggest canon 24-70 for stars, cause of minimal coma. Will have to look if the tamron is good too.

Sagittariansrock - I'm not fully invested in canon, but my partner and brother both have canon so its probably useful to stick with Canon. My partner has a tokina 11-16 F2.8 wide angle so I can bludge off that till I get a wide angle myself. I feel safer with canon too (hopefully that continues)

Pre-Africa will look heavily into the new sigma 150-600 and if it performs better/same as canon 100-400, consider it bought.

You guys have been great with your advice. I'm leaning towards 5D, also because there is a $200 cashback on it at the moment here (Australia). Also the 7D II may not be out pre-trip (end of October)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 16, 2014)

colin.davis said:


> Wow thanks guys, loving the support...
> 
> I totally get what you are saying Ruined and you make So much sense. I just can't seem to get my head around having two bodies... I would always have decisions every time I do anything (I don't like so many decisions). I was going to keep my 600D as my back up (in case it broke - not as a carry along). I know pros take 2 bodies, but i'm trying to minimise my gear, not increase it on travels. If all I did was out of a car/house then you make more sense, but travelling/backpacking at times, its a bit too heavy.
> 
> ...



Good decision, and have a great trip and post pictures 
The Rokinon 14/2.8 is also a great lens for astrophotography on a FF.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 16, 2014)

I don't think you could go wrong selecting the 5DIII for your type of shooting.

But then the 6D and I presume 7DII are also very good cameras. Of those three, any one of them will be a good shooter. 

Hell, just get a Pentax K3 and pocket the rest of the money ;D


----------



## Niki (Sep 16, 2014)

colin.davis said:


> Hey Canon Rumours Gurus
> 
> I'm gonna get a new camera, and would ideally like it before the end of October (travelling then)
> 
> ...



if you have the $$$ get 5diii ….if not get a canon film camera for cheap and a couple cheap zooms


----------



## Ruined (Sep 16, 2014)

colin.davis said:


> Wow thanks guys, loving the support...
> 
> I totally get what you are saying Ruined and you make So much sense. I just can't seem to get my head around having two bodies... I would always have decisions every time I do anything (I don't like so many decisions). I was going to keep my 600D as my back up (in case it broke - not as a carry along). I know pros take 2 bodies, but i'm trying to minimise my gear, not increase it on travels. If all I did was out of a car/house then you make more sense, but travelling/backpacking at times, its a bit too heavy.



I can understand, if you are dead set on only one body then 7DII vs 5DIII would depend whether reach/framing or high ISO is more important; I would not get the 6D alone as it will likely leave you wanting more for fast moving wildlife. Note though, you don't necessarily have to take two bodies every time you go out, you can take the one that simply makes most sense for what you are primarily taking that day. As a warning though I realize its just a backup, once you handle any of these three cameras (5D3, 7DII, 6D) you may have a rough time going back to the 600D as the handling and features of those three will have spoiled you!

I am sure you probably know this, but if you want to somewhat simulate the reach & framing of the 5DIII with your 100-400mm, put it on your existing camera and zoom all the way to 400mm - that will be the 7DII FOV max reach. Now zoom out back to 250mm - that will be 5D3 FOV max reach. If you are okay with the reach you see at 250mm then I'd get the 5DIII. If you'd really prefer the greater reach and sacrifice some ISO to do so, then get the 7DII. If you really want to be comprehensive, go out on a few simulated photoshoots and force yourself to be limited to 250mm max on your current camera to see if it really will work for you or whether you will be stuck in post cropping all day.

I do events and I can't wait to get the 7DII because the reach can be key for certain types of events like racing (since I don't want to buy or lug around a 10k 8.5lb lens ) and other events when getting close is not practical. it also opens up alternative FOVs for primes. But, there is also no doubt in my mind that my FF camera will handily beat it at ISO 3200+.


----------



## chasn (Sep 16, 2014)

Hi
I have 5d3 and 7d - since I got the 5 the 7d is virtually unused - the extra reach is compensated to a large degree by ability to crop and fps too little difference except in few cases. from the sound of it the 7 D2 will be better in low light than 7d but other changes don't take it above 5d3 from what I can see - maybe as second camera for a pro or someone upgrading from a rebel who doesn't want to go FF. Unless you are mega into sports 5d3 every time for my money ( I'm non pro). And for what it is worth the 24-70 and the 135 are lenses worth a look - the former beats the 24-105 by a clear margin in my admittedly biased eyes, the 135 amazing if you are shooting in its range. IMHO


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 16, 2014)

6d AF is its biggest problem. Dont do it. Ill sell mine as soon as i get a chance. the iso performance is impressive, and is nicely weighted, but thats about it. the worst is theaf points smashed in the middle of the fram, making shooting people an damn headache.


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 17, 2014)

Thanks Guys

Chasn: I was hoping I could crop a bit to compensate for the loss of reach. I appreciate it is never going to be as good as a 7DII reach, I've read all those forums and 'attempted' to understand the physics some of you brainiacs brought to the forum. Mostly I read the conclusions ;D . I'm mega into sports, but not taking photos, just watching. I am mega into wildlife though...

Ruined: You are a smart person. I like smart people. Thanks for coming to the forum  I am going to go out and do a photoshoot at 250 and see if I can tolerate it... This might be a diccy (& fight provoking) question, but, how much could you 'crop' a full frame image to say it is the 'same' quality as a crop. Rather than 250, could it maybe closer to 300/320? oh god my brain hurts and I'm not even trying to work out the answer. I guess there are probably many variables...

I am hoping and looking forward to that feeling that once you go FF its hard to go back... Excited even. Once I went DLSR from a P&S (& even still now with my S100), you constantly judge its flaws and love using your DSLR again. 

The high isos by matt granger posted in another forum do look promising... 
I am almost happy that the 7DII wont be out in time for my holiday, I think it helps my decision. 

I am looking at the 24-70. definitely Had just convinced myself on the tamron, when I read a huge forum saying it took them 4 or 5 copies to get one that works... Eek. Maybe I have to read again.. I guess though the bad experiences are the people that write about it. But the canon lens prices haven't appeared to drop here in Australia and there is some talk of our dollar dropping a bit, so might be more expensive. Currently best price I can find (in a non-grey market) is 2265 for the canon, 1029 for the tamron. that is a lot of cash. Another lens in fact!! 3/4 of a 7D!! 

Niki - Film... I'd admire all of you that can do film, but I only ever owned one and believe me it was a $30 P&S no name piece of crap my mum gave me for Christmas. I would fail miserably


----------



## Ruined (Sep 17, 2014)

colin.davis said:


> Ruined: You are a smart person. I like smart people. Thanks for coming to the forum  I am going to go out and do a photoshoot at 250 and see if I can tolerate it... This might be a diccy (& fight provoking) question, but, how much could you 'crop' a full frame image to say it is the 'same' quality as a crop. Rather than 250, could it maybe closer to 300/320? oh god my brain hurts and I'm not even trying to work out the answer. I guess there are probably many variables...



There have been quite a few tests done on this, even here at CR.

To sum it up, if you have good light (i.e. ISO 1600, maybe 3200 if the 7DII improves over the 7D - which initial tests seem to indicate) and you are reach limited (meaning that in this case, you are taking a picture that does not fill up the whole frame of a crop camera when using your longest lens), then generally crop will win. If ISO is higher (3200-6400+) full frame will probably win with cropping, but do remember if you are at 300+mm with your 100-400 frequently you probably want to stick with the crop. Otherwise, its going to be a real pain in post to crop every shot, and cropping aside the subject may be too small in the viewfinder to take the type of photos you want; I see a lot of emotion in your wildlife photos, that may going to be hard to capture if it is too small to see due to lack of reach when taking the photo! If you have Lightroom (and some other programs), you can set a filter to see what focal length your entire library of photos is at; see what percentage of your photos are greater than 250mm focal length to get an idea how many you'd need to crop on full frame to get the same picture. You can do the same with ISO to see how many you need ISO higher than 1600-3200.

Full frame is quite excellent, but crop has its applications too. That is why they make a pro crop camera, and the 7D line is known to be popular with wildlife photographers due to the extra reach. Full frame has an allure too, for my portrait work I would never give up full frame. But full frame is not a panacea that conquers all, it is simply another option that mostly offers significant improvements, but does have some notable drawbacks as well for the type of photography you shoot based on your website photos - reach being the largest. 

IMO in your case there really is no definitive answer. If you want only one body, you will have to pick between reach and high ISO! So, you should check the usual focal lengths you shoot too see what percentage >250mm, what percentage >3200 ISO - then do some shoots capped at 250mm on your current camera to see if the reach is sufficient. If photo analysis and your tests indicate 250mm on your current camera will be enough for 95%+ of your photos, then definitely go for the 5D3. If you exceed 250mm frequently and need the reach, I would think twice about buying a full frame camera due to all the cropping that will be needed - plus a good deal of the benefit of full frame (not all) is lost when you crop lots of the frame away every picture.

In short, do your research on your own photos/photography to see which solution is best for you. Don't buy full frame just to buy full frame, as you may be disappointed if you want/need the reach of crop.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 17, 2014)

Hi Folks. 
If you don't have Lightroom, or maybe even if you do have a look at this utility, 
I use it following it being recommended here I think, it will display the info in graph form so you can easily see the ranges you use most, (of just about everything, not just focal length) which may be more use than querying above a certain number? 
I have just copied the bit from google, for the info, best of all it is only small < 700kb when I downloaded it a couple of versions ago. 
Downside? Windows only! 

ExposurePlot
www.vandel.nl/
From this site you can download Wega2 the digital image viewer and ExposurePlot the focal length, ISO, aperture and shutterspeed analyzer for jpg files.
‎Exposureplot - ‎Wega2 - ‎SaveIt - ‎CaptureLens

Cheers, Graham. 



Ruined said:


> If you have Lightroom (and some other programs), you can set a filter to see what focal length your entire library of photos is at; see what percentage of your photos are greater than 250mm focal length to get an idea how many you'd need to crop on full frame to get the same picture. You can do the same with ISO to see how many you need ISO higher than 1600-3200.


----------



## candyman (Sep 17, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> If you don't have Lightroom, or maybe even if you do have a look at this utility,
> I use it following it being recommended here I think, it will display the info in graph form so you can easily see the ranges you use most, (of just about everything, not just focal length) which may be more use than querying above a certain number?
> I have just copied the bit from google, for the info, best of all it is only small < 700kb when I downloaded it a couple of versions ago.
> ...




Thanks Graham, very usefull tip. Nice to see the statistics of all photos in a specific folder.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 17, 2014)

Quote from: colin.davis on Today at 01:03:18 PM

"Ruined: You are a smart person. I like smart people. Thanks for coming to the forum I am going to go out and do a photoshoot at 250 and see if I can tolerate it... This might be a diccy (& fight provoking) question, but, how much could you 'crop' a full frame image to say it is the 'same' quality as a crop. Rather than 250, could it maybe closer to 300/320? oh god my brain hurts and I'm not even trying to work out the answer. I guess there are probably many variables..."


I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).


----------



## Ruined (Sep 17, 2014)

serendipidy said:


> I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).



Well, idea is, if you have a bottomless pit of money with full frame you can just buy a longer lens and get better results than crop with a shorter lens. But, the OP has a 100-400 and shoots wildlife; the FOV at 400mm on his current camera is ~640mm. In order to get that on full frame he'd have to spend $10k on a Canon EF 600mm f/4L or start putting on teleconverters which will negatively impact the image quality (and often autofocus) more than a crop camera will.

So yeah crop is cheaper, but its not just the camera but more importantly the lens when you get to longer focal lengths.

As for cropping full frame to APS-C, when you are reach limited there will be more pixels on the target with crop. Cropping full frame will work but you will lose detail because of this. The exception to this rule would be when shooting in low light (i.e. ISO6400) when the lower noise & higher contrast of full frame would likely be a better tradeoff for a little less detail. Some feel that cropping full frame is at worst no difference but that is not my experience at lower ISOs and it does not logically make sense to me knowing how digital imaging works.

jrista did a fairly well controlled test here that can demonstrate the loss of detail when cropping full frame vs using a crop camera on a reach limited target for a visual demonstration; you can see in his test the full frame crop loses a ton of detail on the moon surface/craters because there just aren't enough pixels to fully reproduce it on full frame due to the cropping:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0


----------



## Vivid Color (Sep 17, 2014)

If you are going to Africa, you will definitely want to have a second body as you will not want to change lenses in the field due to the dust. Last year, I took my 6D and T1i to Africa and this combination of full frame and crop body worked really well. 

By the way, I really like your photos.


----------



## colin.davis (Sep 18, 2014)

So I checked my files from the last year (couldn't be bothered doing past that). With regards to this 100-400 lens, I shoot a lot at the 250-300mark (ie 400-500mm on crop). I also have quite a few at the 400mm mark (ie 640mm). Though these zoomed at 640mm have an iso sitting somewhere around 800-1600. hahaha. So hmmm. I do shoot heaps of non-zoom stuff, my 15-85 is used more than my 100-400, I just find I am better (well I like my photos more) with wildlife and zoom so they are the ones posted more.

I am currently hunting around for the best 5D III price. So that when I buy it they can release the Mark IV. 
Good thought Vivid Colour. I may yet get a second body closer to travel time then - or use my old one as that. I have heard dust is an issue... 

Also, Thank you Vivid Colour, glad you like them


----------



## jrista (Sep 18, 2014)

Hi Colin,

I recently (few months back) purchased a 5D III to compliment my 7D. I do birds and wildlife mostly, but I also like landscape and macro, as well as astrophotography. Short term, both cameras work well for the astrophotography, but in the long run, I'll need much more expensive and dedicated eqipment to do what I want on that front. For white field astro (i.e. milky way stuff), the 5D III is quite good, although a bit noisy. 

For my birds and wildlife stuff, the 5D III is excellent. When I first got the camera, my 2x TC had been missplaced. I use the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II lens for birds and wildlife. For wildlife, the 5D III at 600mm is excellent...it's just about the perfect combination. Deer, coyote, etc. at decent distances frame nicely, with a little bit of slight cropping and rotation room. Larger birds, like egrets, larger waterfowl, frame decently as well. 

When it comes to smaller birds, including passerines (songbirds) and shorebirds, I have found that I feel a bit lacking in reach. I'm always wanting to get closer, and at 600mm much too close for most of those birds comfort. At 840mm things were better, but I still felt I wasn't getting the same number of pixels on subject as I did with my 7D. It was only after I found my 2x TC III, and started photographing the smaller birds at 1200mm f/8 at more comfortable distances that didn't influence the birds behavior, that I really felt I had the necessary reach to get the kinds of shots I wanted with a full frame camera. 

For the more budget minded, I still think that for smaller birds, something like the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm lenses on the 7D II are going to get you more pixels on target, which means more detail. I don't know how the 7D II will fare on the noise front...only time will tell us that. I can only hope that it's improved over the 7D and 70D IQ since it uses DIGIC 6, and if it has, I think it would be a better choice for reach-limited photography (at least until the 5D IV is out). If you have the skill to get close to frame smaller birds larger in the frame on the 5D III, then it should still produce better IQ than the 7D II, and at higher ISO settings.

The frame rate differences are another thing that I feel I've lost with the 5D III. Experientially, I know that the 7D's 8fps didn't always result in 8 keepers a second. It's AF system has an inherent jitter that tends to kill a couple frames each second, so in the end, you often effectively only get 6fps anyway. The literal 6fps on the 5D III does feel a bit slow in comparison...and it would feel very slow in comparison to 10fps. There isn't a huge difference in the moments and subject poses captured at 6fps relative to 8fps, but I think you could indeed capture better moments at 10fps, and that could be extremely useful for BIF...so that's something to consider.

Now, my preferred lenses for birds and wildlife are the EF 600/4 II and EF 300/2.8 II. I think that the 100-400 and probably the 150-600 (I haven't used the latter) are still excellent for the budget minded photographer. Ironically, I think the latter two lenses are still better paired with a 5D III and expending the effort to get closer to your subjects than a crop camera...simply because of the narrower maximum apertures. 

When it comes to landscapes, this is the one area where I have _personally _been disappointed in the 5D III. I bought it partly for landscapes, as the 7D never gave me the field of view I really wanted with my 16-35mm lens. I don't get to do a lot of landscapes...all the beautiful ones are many hours drives away, and my life currently just doesn't support getting out there all that often. I've tried doing some landscapes recently, most of which had quite a bit of dynamic range...and I was rather disappointed in shadow noise quality of the 5D III. The 7D had vertical banding, however it was very regular and easily removed with Topaz DeNoise 5. My experience with the 5D III is that it's banding is much more random, and does not clean up as well or at all with DeNoise. The sheer amount of noise in the shadows is very high as well, and it's not very clean noise...it's banded, it's got a lot of blotchy color splotches in it, and it's more grainy and much more washed out than the random photon shot noise.

After the hype I had heard about improvements to the 5D III's shadow noise quality in the year after it's release, I figured it would have been better than it was. Certainly better than the 5D II. While some of the characteristics seem better, the overall levels of read noise are the same, and it is not any more "sightly" than Canon read noise has been for years. I love landscapes with water in them, which often precludes the use of HDR, or if you do use HDR, it complicates the merge. There are other options, manual blending, etc. that can be used, but it is an increase in workload that I can't really absorb, and even if I could, I just don't want to hassle with the added complexity. With more dynamic range and less read noise (as you get with cameras based on Exmor sensors, like the D810, D600, A7r), you can usually resort to less complicated post processing, and even reduced use of GND filters when on-scene, and just overall a lighter workload (something very appealing to me personally).

As such, I've been seriously considering an alternative for my landscapes, macro, etc. photography. Since I am rather heavily invested in Canon lenses, the Sony A7r is at the top of my list as an alternative full frame, high resolution camera with lots of DR that I could use for landscapes. It's not exactly cheap, but neither is it particularly expensive...and since it does have the potential for EF lens compatibility with the Metabones adapter, it's the cheapest alternative. The other alternative for getting the best IQ possible is the Nikon D810. I'd considered that as well, along with the 14-24mm f/2.8 lens...but the grand total cost on that came out close to $6000, which is just to pricey for me. The A7r is $2300, a much more reasonable price. 

Your opinions on read noise and overall IQ may differ from mine, and you may find that the 5D III low ISO IQ is perfectly fine for your needs. If you think the IQ issues of Canon sensors might be an issue, then you may want to seriously consider an alternative package. The 7D II for all your reach-limited action stuff, and the A7r for your landscapes. The A7r is a mirrorless camera, so it's fairly small. The Metabones EF adapter is also quite small, so they can still be quite portable, even in combination with a 7D II.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 18, 2014)

Ruined said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > I may be misquoting him but I think Neuro often says the main advantage of crop vs FF is that the crop camera is cheaper. Also cropping 5D3 FF to 7D crop sensor size is very similar except now you have a 8MP file instead of a 18 MP file (for the 7D).
> ...



Thanks, Ruined for your reply. As an old guy newbie hobbyist, I don't understand a lot of this technical stuff. I looked at your link to jrista's moon shot comparison and that actually is where I got the Neuro quote reference. 


neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for the comparison!
> 
> As I've often stated, APS-C does have a 'reach advantage'...if you're FL limited AND at low ISO (~800 or less) AND printing larger than 16x24"/A2.
> 
> ...


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 18, 2014)

I remember this from ALAN F comparing actual reach of crop vs FF...it's not 1.6 times better as I always thought. 



AlanF said:


> Here is a way of calculating the effective extra reach or resolving power of a crop body versus FF, which will amuse the geeks among us.
> 
> Measure the MTF of a lens on the crop (= MTFcrop) and the same lens on the FF (= MTFff). The ratio of the MTFs, MTFcrop/MTFff, gives the relative resolving power of the bodies with that lens. However, the crop body can be placed 1.6x further away to give the same field of view. Therefore, the true effective relative resolving power, R, is given by:
> 
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > This gives R for 7D/5DIII = 1.19.
> ...


----------

