# 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?



## FTb-n (Feb 13, 2013)

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 13, 2013)

in reallity i have found that the amount of noise reduction the 18MP crop sensor takes at iso 1600 is about equal to the amount iso 16,000 takes on the 5Dmk3

the 5Dmk3 files are MUCH more resilient in post processing than any of the crops and also better than the 5Dmk2

also 1/30 sec without flash? ???
gonna struggle with subject blur there

DoF is gonna be a wash between the f2.8 crop and the F4 full frame


----------



## robbymack (Feb 13, 2013)

So the 5diii would obviously produce cleaners high iso files, but as for focusing the f2.8 lens wins out over the f4 lens. If you're really interested in low light focusing the 6d is supposed to be even better than the 5diii with an extra senstive center af to -3ev.


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 13, 2013)

I have both bodies. I don't have an issue shooting my 7D at 12,800 for sports and such if I have to but I sure would not do that for a wedding. 7D @ 1600 is comfortable and 3200 if I have to. The 7D will yield great even higher ISO shots but I call the sensor light hungry. It needs correct exposure so it is not very forgiving.

The 5D3 on the other hand will do better at higher ISO's and is a little more forgiving. If I were to shoot a lot of low light I would get a FF sensor. It is just basic megapixels, sensor size and math. 

Here is my 7D at 12,800. NR using PS/LR - they are both the same. I really can't tell you about AF acquisition as I don't suffer with either.


----------



## FTb-n (Feb 13, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> in reallity i have found that the amount of noise reduction the 18MP crop sensor takes at iso 1600 is about equal to the amount iso 16,000 takes on the 5Dmk3



I understand that the 5D3's Digic 5+ is better at noise reduction than the 7D's Digic 4. But, isn't this only for the JPG's out of the camera? When working with RAW images from both camera's, it was my understanding that the noise levels are much closer giving the 5D3 a mere 1.3 stop advantage. Not true?



wickidwombat said:


> also 1/30 sec without flash?
> gonna struggle with subject blur there



Sometime, yes. Obviously, I prefer faster when light and subject allow it, but 1/30 second works for many candid moments that don't involve physical activity -- as long as camera movement is controlled with IS or other means.



wickidwombat said:


> DoF is gonna be a wash between the f2.8 crop and the F4 full frame



I like my 17-55, but the fact that DOF is slightly smaller with the 24-105 on a full frame body is one of the things that intrigues me about this lens -- it's wider, longer, cheaper, and real 'L' lens.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 13, 2013)

5D3 is a better low-light camera. But the 24-105/4 is not the lens for low-light candids — generally speaking. If low-light candids are a priority, get the 5D3 and buy a different lens. Pretty much any fast prime or f/2.8 zoom would be my preference for low-light candids.


----------



## John Thomas (Feb 13, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)
> 
> I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.
> 
> Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?



Oh, I think that the response is quite clear: 5D3 with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS

I use this combination in dire situations almost from the day one ("day one" applies for both body and lens) and it never let me down. 5D3 has a vastly superior AF compared with 7D (high precision double cross AF points etc.) and significantly superior performance in low light. 

Tamron has IS at f/2.8 which enables the double cross AF points which I mentioned above - a lens at f/4 doesn't exploit the AF's full potential, even if it has IS. Mind you, a low-light candid means that you must freeze also the possible motion not only the camera shake. Hence you need a faster aperture IOW a f/2.8 zoom or a prime - the latest Sigma 35 f/1.4 is the best if you ask me. Also, be sure to have the Canon's 50 f/1.8. It isn't the best but it has a good optical IQ and is very cheap and by a wide margin is the best price / performance on Earth. You will love it and you will learn a lot by using it. (Ok, if you have money go for Canon 50 f/1.4 or wait for a better 50 lens).


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 13, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> 5D3 is a better low-light camera. But the 24-105/4 is not the lens for low-light candids — generally speaking. If low-light candids are a priority, get the 5D3 and buy a different lens. Pretty much any fast prime or f/2.8 zoom would be my preference for low-light candids.



+1


----------



## pedro (Feb 13, 2013)

digital paradise said:


> I have both bodies. I don't have an issue shooting my 7D at 12,800 for sports and such if I have to but I sure would not do that for a wedding. 7D @ 1600 is comfortable and 3200 if I have to. The 7D will yield great even higher ISO shots but I call the sensor light hungry. It needs correct exposure so it is not very forgiving.
> 
> The 5D3 on the other hand will do better at higher ISO's and is a little more forgiving. If I were to shoot a lot of low light I would get a FF sensor. It is just basic megapixels, sensor size and math.
> 
> Here is my 7D at 12,800. NR using PS/LR - they are both the same. I really can't tell you about AF acquisition as I don't suffer with either.



looks pretty well, man. I have the 5D3 and I am a happy camper in that.


----------



## callmeasyoulike (Feb 13, 2013)

John Thomas said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)
> ...



+1


----------



## SJ (Feb 13, 2013)

go for 5dm3, you won't regret it, but 7d also good camera 8)


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 13, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > in reallity i have found that the amount of noise reduction the 18MP crop sensor takes at iso 1600 is about equal to the amount iso 16,000 takes on the 5Dmk3
> ...



no i'm talk editing raw files in LR i have all that in camera stuff turned off

ie using a NR setting of say 60 in LR on a 1600 file from the crop is pretty similar to the same NR applied to 16,000 iso on the 5dmk3


----------



## pedro (Feb 13, 2013)

@wickidwombat: so you're talking about 3.5 stops in RAW from crop. That comes close. Coming from a 30D 1600 was highest I would dare to go in nightphotography (knowing there's some PP waiting). With the 5D3 now I go as high as 25.600 or 51200 without hesitation. Depending on your situation, even 51k without NR look quite usable 8)




Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2013)

5DIII + 24-105/4L will deliver noticeably better low-light/high ISO IQ than 7D + 17-55/2.8. For low light candids, I also agree that an f/2.8 or faster lens is the way to go. 

Personally, I prefer not to depend on IS in that situation - even if the camera is stable at 1/30 s (IS or tripod), subject motion is a problem, and especially in candids where subjects aren't 'holding still' for the camera (even in posed shots, I prefer at least 1/60 s). On my 1D X, I use a minimum 1/125 s shutter for shooting people - and I let the ISO run up to 12800 with no worries.


----------



## brad goda (Feb 13, 2013)

which ever body you choose is fine
my concern would be shooting with the 24-105 other than in RAW.
this lens NEEDS massive lens correction. its sharp... but the distortion is alarming. 
DPP, PS raw process.. or what ever.. but switch on that correction...


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 13, 2013)

pedro said:


> @wickidwombat: so you're talking about 3.5 stops in RAW from crop. That comes close. Coming from a 30D 1600 was highest I would dare to go in nightphotography (knowing there's some PP waiting). With the 5D3 now I go as high as 25.600 or 51200 without hesitation. Depending on your situation, even 51k without NR look quite usable 8)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is not too bad at all. Anyone remember film? Bad grain (noise) at ISO 400. Digital has changed everything. I'd never go back.

I had no issues shooting my 5D2 at 6400 for important events if I had to. 12,800 would be a nice option with my 5D3. I'll have to check it out.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 13, 2013)

I shot this at a dimly lit gaming arcade at ISO 10000 with the 5D3. Sure it has the slightest of grain if I pixel peep, but then I'm not printing billboards.

PS: NR in LR applied


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 13, 2013)

Don't try to make a short cut - get a FF with 50, 85, 135 prime or 2.8 zoom for indoor shooting. f4 not gonna make it.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 13, 2013)

I have owned the 7D and just bought the 5DIII. So I am still putting the 5DIII through it's tests, but the 5DIII is easily better than the 7D for low light candids. And I say that as a huge fan of the 7D. The two main advantages are better control of noise at higher ISO, as already mentioned, but also, the 5DIII AF is sensitive down to -2 EV versus -0.5 EV for the 7D. In other words, I can focus in deep shadows/near dark with the 5DIII (there is some hunting). But the 7D AF would hunt all the time.

So, noise, color, and AF are the reasons to go with the 5DIII over the 7D for low light candids.


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 13, 2013)

1600 with 5D3. No NR.


----------



## steven kessel (Feb 13, 2013)

I have both cameras and I have to say that the 5D iii wins hands down in low light. It's just no contest. The camera has two huge advantages over the 7D. First, it offers far less noisy performance at higher ISOs. I do mostly wildlife photography and I need fast shutter speeds, so my "go to" ISO on my 5D iii, even in broad daylight, is 640. That gives me virtually noise free performance even with heavy cropping. I wouldn't dream of using that high an ISO as a standard on my 7D. On my 7D, 320 is standard. Second, the autofocus on the 5D iii is infinitely superior in low light to that of the 7D.


----------



## rcarca (Feb 13, 2013)

There is no doubt in my mind that the 5Diii is the far superior low/awkward light camera. I love my 7D to bits, but the 5Diii is superior by a long chalk in this regard. I am in the middle of a trip to Saudi Arabia and mainly get to take photographs after working hours. This is one example:





[/url]
2Y2A2798 by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF:5Diii, 24-105 @ 105mm, f4.0, 1/320, ISO 4000

For others taken in the souk in Jeddah see my Flickr stream at http://flic.kr/s/aHsjDXxSj8

Richard


----------



## pedro (Feb 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 5DIII + 24-105/4L will deliver noticeably better low-light/high ISO IQ than 7D + 17-55/2.8. For low light candids, I also agree that an f/2.8 or faster lens is the way to go.
> 
> Personally, I prefer not to depend on IS in that situation - even if the camera is stable at 1/30 s (IS or tripod), subject motion is a problem, and especially in candids where subjects aren't 'holding still' for the camera (even in posed shots, I prefer at least 1/60 s). On my 1D X, I use a minimum 1/125 s shutter for shooting people - and I let the ISO run up to 12800 with no worries.



+1 neuro. don't depend on IS either. anyway, your 1Dx surely must deliever excellent IQ beyond the 12800. I know for reasonable noisefree nighshots the 5D's limit is at about 5000 or 8000. There was a dude earlier this year who came up with a comparison to the 1Dx. 
*Two questions for neuro: *
1) Did you take an ISO 204800 or 102400 photograph? I tried one at 102400, exposing well to the right (not a very dark room) and outcome was pretty well although it required quite some NR to make it look right. 
*102k no NR*



Z96A0008aBWkNR ISO102400 no noisereduction by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
*102k NR*



Z96A0008aBWUsMaNR ISO102400 by Peter Hauri, on Flickr
2)What do you think can be expected from a 5DIV or 5DV (whatever they may call it) at hopefully about the same MP with an improved sensor design as the rumors are floating around? Will we see 51K or 102K IQ compared to what is now 25k IQ for the 5D series? Or let's say, will IQ at 102k improve at least half a stop or a as up to a whole stop in RAW until 2015 or 18? Thanks for your assessment on this according to your profound technical knowledge...


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 13, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)
> 
> I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.
> 
> Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?




Quite frankly, I'm not exactly sure where you'd expect a big improvement worth $3000+ with that approach. I'm still on my 5DII and don't own either the 7D more the MarkIII but the question of "low light performance" and high ISO stuff wouldn't cross my mind as a top priority even though I actually shoot candids in ambient light situations quite often.

Lens/sensor size choices to me are primarily a matter of a) which (real) focal length do I want to use and b) how important are options for narrow depth of field. And even though I own the 24-105 the IS is not really part of the equation. Yes, it'll help a bit for those shots where you're at 1/30 or even less. Will it get you quality outcomes? Probably not. Camera shake is only one problem here and when photographing people it only saves you to some degree - say it bumps a complete fail to a still usable snapshot which can of course be a good thing but is nothing I would want to count on a lot. Sorry, it's one of my pet peeves and I really don't like that everyone is now calling for IS-everything when that should really remain a feature for a) very long focal lengths and b) snapshot amateur cameras.

One more exception: the 24-105 I found to be a very capable concert photography lens where visible movement is actually desirable. Anything more formal? Eh, not really. Still prefer my 50 and 135 for low light candids.

The other thing is flash. I know some people don't like using it and there are of course circumstances where it's simply not an option. However, if possible I like using it even for those low light ambient candids. I put on half or full CTOs and try to keep as much of the ambient light as possible. With that even low(ish) shutter speeds give you good results - with the added benefit of catch lights which I like.

As far as higher ISO goes I find that anything up to 3200 easily works with these modern cameras and post processing gets rid of any issues that you may have. I personally don't mind a bit of grain and sometimes add film grain as opposed to cleaning things up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2013)

pedro said:


> 1) Did you take an ISO 204800 or 102400 photograph? I tried one at 102400, exposing well to the right (not a very dark room) and outcome was pretty well although it required quite some NR to make it look right.
> 
> 2)What do you think can be expected from a 5DIV or 5DV (whatever they may call it) at hopefully about the same MP with an improved sensor design as the rumors are floating around? Will we see 51K or 102K IQ compared to what is now 25k IQ for the 5D series? Or let's say, will IQ at 102k improve at least half a stop or a as up to a whole stop in RAW until 2015 or 18?



1) Nothing other than test shots in that range. I do use ISO 25600 and that works fine, I haven't (yet) had a need to go higher. To me, the ~2-stop advantage (considering both quantity and quality of noise) of the 1D X is maintained all the way up, so ISO 102400 looks about like ISO 25600 on the 5DII, and the latter was too high for me. On the 5DII, ISO 3200 was my normal cap, ISO 6400 was for 'emergencies' - so I treat ISO 12800 and ISO 25600, respectively, the same. But I did (very) occasionally use ISO 25600 on the 5DII, and so I will likely need ISO 102400 on the 1D X some day...

2) No idea. The 1D X is better at the highest ISOs than the 5DIII (0.5-1 stop advantage, IMO), so that suggests there's a bit of room for improvement in the 5-series.


----------



## Zv (Feb 13, 2013)

I'd go with the 5D III and a fast prime, possibly the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 depending on space. I like the 50mm it leaves a little room for cropping. I recently shot some low light candids at a very dimly lit restaurant and found even f/2 to be inadequate without really pushing the ISO. 1/30th won't give you many keepers. If you can use a speedlite off camera in a fixed location as you move around. You can also bounce off walls which help keep the subject relatively unaware.


----------



## pedro (Feb 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Did you take an ISO 204800 or 102400 photograph? I tried one at 102400, exposing well to the right (not a very dark room) and outcome was pretty well although it required quite some NR to make it look right.
> ...



@neuro: Thanks a lot for that quick response! So I hope they keep the MP at least in the low 20's and manage to improve the sensors accordingly. I'd be happy with an overnext body and a 0.5 stop improvement in the ultra high ISOs in RAW (51200, 102400) and about 3/4 concerning ISO speeds of 12800 and 25600. We'll see. Enjoy your flagship cam! And maybe one day you might post your 102k emergency shot. Maybe the next 5D will roll out with an 51k "native" ISO...8)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2013)

I have had two 7D's, two 5D MK II's, and two 5D MK III's as well as 1D MK II and 1D MK IV. Of those models, the 7D had the most noise in low light. I would avoid using it over ISO 800, but, with a lot of NR, and in good light, it can do ISO 3200 and look good at small sizes.

Although I do not like the numbers that DXO assigns to sensors, you can look at the individual test data and form your own opinion. The test data seems accurate enough.
You can see that DXO rates ISO at 20% S/N and the 7D comes out to be 854, the 5D MK II is 1815, and the 5D MK III is 2293. That's not the whole story, the 5D MK III noise increases much more slowly than the other two models, so I can use ISO 25600 and have a viewable photo at small print size.\
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/795%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/619%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

You can view the actual measurement plots for each body, and DR as well.


----------



## FTb-n (Feb 16, 2013)

Thank you all for the feedback. The first-hand experience from those with both cameras is quite valuable.

I must say that I'm giving the 6D some more thought due to the feedback from this thread. The price is certainly more attractive. But, my primary subject matter is figure skating and middle-school level sports with the 70-200 f2.8L II. Most of the time, I can shoot 1/500 or faster at ISO 1600-3200. But, there are times when I need 6400. I'd like any FF body that I get be able to handle the action and the 6D concerns me on this front.

My OOF rate with my 60D is much higher than with my 7D. I attribute this to the 7D's focusing system and it's superior ability to track subjects. The 7D seems much better at predictive focusing with AI Servo, especially when skaters don't always move in a straight line. My fear is that that the 6D will have a similarly high OOF rate as my 60D has.

Another concern is burst mode. I don't rely on it as a crutch for timing the shot, but I do use it and the buffer on the 60D will fill up on me. The 7D has no problem keeping up. Based on Canon's published max burst rates, the 6D looks very similar to the 60D. (By the way, I think their published rates are higher than true rates when using AI Servo.)

I don't expect the 6D to track moving objects as well as the 7D, but can it do so better than the 60D? Does its tracking ability fall between the 60D and 7D, if so where in between?


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 16, 2013)

Save more and get 5Dmk3. Its just more versatile in the end and who knows what you gonna do in some years. 6D might lack features u wanna have that time. If you dont need the reach you could also sell your 7D.


----------



## Hugo Fisher (Feb 16, 2013)

I have/had both. Together for weddings. 5D3 is incredibly better camera, than 7D.

I sold 7D a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Grumbaki (Feb 18, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> Thank you all for the feedback. The first-hand experience from those with both cameras is quite valuable.
> 
> I must say that I'm giving the 6D some more thought due to the feedback from this thread. The price is certainly more attractive. But, my primary subject matter is figure skating and middle-school level sports with the 70-200 f2.8L II. Most of the time, I can shoot 1/500 or faster at ISO 1600-3200. But, there are times when I need 6400. I'd like any FF body that I get be able to handle the action and the 6D concerns me on this front.
> 
> ...



I did the exact same move (60D to 5D3) about a month ago. My objectives are the same (candids in low light) and i have to say that I'll never regret my cash. (Note: never tried the 6D)

I just came back from CNY celebrations and I would probably have a way lower keeper rate with my 60d...actually in many situations, the camera could have just stayed in the bag if it wasnt for the 5D. Night time fireworks with people running all around? Only 5D3 could have pulled that out...

You seem not to metion it a lot but the AF system is godlike. It helps improving both your OOF rate and your composition if you have quick fingers on the joystick and a little foretelling


----------



## rpt (Feb 18, 2013)

5D3. No question. In fact you need very little NR even around ISO 6400. I had limited my max ISO to 12800 but have kicked it up to 25600 recently.


----------



## lucuias (Feb 18, 2013)

As for me,I will vote for Canon 5D mark III due to:-

-Way much more cross type AF point
-shallow depth of field
-Full frame = sharper output
-High ISO usability

I got an assignment 2 month ago,an actor from Hong Kong came to Malaysia for one of the club opening ceremony.I was asked to take picture of him naturally and has to avoid using flash.I manage to take a picture of him while he sing along the music while holding a champagne glass.





Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 8000
Exposure: 1/60 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Focal Length: 63mm
Flash Used: No

I do not think I can do that with 7D


----------



## J.R. (Feb 18, 2013)

lucuias said:


> I do not think I can do that with 7D



At ISO 8000? not a chance!

Nice pic.


----------



## Zv (Feb 18, 2013)

J.R. said:


> lucuias said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think I can do that with 7D
> ...



It can be done but maybe not at ISO 8000, as you said. If you use a lens with an aperture of f/1.4 , 1/60s and set the ISO to 3200 the exposure would be about the same, though the noise would be higher. With the crop factor the dof will be close to that of the original image too. I often shoot with the 7D at ISO 3200, with some clean up in post the files look quite useable. Depends on the lighting though. Good lighting helps a lot.


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 22, 2013)

Thanks for all the feedback. 

A 5d3 with the 24-105 is on its way. For my use I think this lens will be more versatile than the 24-70 (I or II) (and cheaper). I've got the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 40 f2.8 for the more light challenging events. I need to see what I can do with these lenses before considering faster zooms or primes. (But, an 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2 could be tempting down the road.)


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 22, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> A 5d3 with the 24-105 is on its way. For my use I think this lens will be more versatile than the 24-70 (I or II) (and cheaper). I've got the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 40 f2.8 for the more light challenging events. I need to see what I can do with these lenses before considering faster zooms or primes. (But, an 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2 could be tempting down the road.)



wait till you see what you can do with a 5Dmk3 iso 16,000 and a 1.4 prime  it will blow your mind


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Mar 22, 2013)

You will love your 5D3! Get yourself a fast prime soon.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 22, 2013)

Take the 5d3 and the 35/1,4. I love this combination, wonderful shots with the ambient light possible.
Sometomes I use a monopod too.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 24, 2013)

Low light candids. When I hear that the 7D doesn't even touch my mind.


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 3, 2013)

When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense. But, it is. 

Just shot a grade school volleyball event with the 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. I shoot these events for my kids' school yearbook and upload a bunch that don't make the yearbook to share with parents. For this stuff, I prefer to save time and space by shooting JPEGs. With the 7D, I often got the shot, but I always had to post process the shoot to cleanup noise, and sometimes add some presence to the color. But, I can see now that the 5D3 will save lots of time. My shots from tonight need no post work, save for cropping on a handful of images. Lack of noise was amazing.

With volleyball, you need to aim and shoot quick. There's really no tracking of a subject. Just pick the player who looks ready to hit the ball, aim, shoot. I've been impressed with the 7D's ability to lock on quick, so far the 5D3 is just as quick, maybe a tad quicker because it offers a larger expanded point focussing option. I had a shorter lens on the 7D and used it for a few shots. All of a sudden, the 7D felt old. A pity, really.

It was a fun night...we also won...


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 3, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)
> 
> I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.
> 
> Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?



You might also consider a 6D, with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. Your cost would be similar, if not less, than a 5D3/24-105 kit (depending on which 24-70 you choose).

I feel the 6D is superior to the 5D3 for low light. I'm not alone. The 5D3 is best for slightly more than low light, and with very fast, erratic subjects. You won't be achieving your goal with the 24-105 lens. It's a great lens, but not in low light. *It also doesn't AF quickly even at noon on a sunny day,* no matter what body it's on. I personally would buy a 6D and the Tamron 24-70.

As for the crop factor...I also upgraded from a crop camera (50D). I've only had my 6D a week, but have shot over 1000 pictures, still haven't tried all of my lenses. All I can say is, what the full frame fanboys have been saying is true: A cropped image done with either the 6D or 5D3, will be more detailed than you think it will. It will not be as detailed as a crop body in good light, but it won't be 1.6x behind. It will be about 1.25x to 1.35x behind in good light, *and about 1.1x behind in light requiring up to ISO 2000 or so. Above that, it will be ahead. * These differences have become negligible from a practical standpoint, in my opinion. I no longer see a need for a crop camera (and I never thought I would not. I will be very sad to see mine go).

This evening I shot an image at ISO 8000 with my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, in dim outdoor light, with all in-camera NR turned off. I had it closed to about f/10. The detail is beyond anything I have ever seen short of a D800 paired with whatever their choice of sharpest lens could be, but at ISO's below 1600 for the D800. The luminance noise in the shot I'm describing, is as low as my 50D at perhaps ISO 800 or 640. The chrominance noise is similar. It's there, but with very slight NR in post, it's gone, and all the detail remains. The color depth is surprisingly nice, though the lens makes a big difference. You need a lens that is fantastic at color rendition, to make full use of the 6D. 

I'm blown away by this. Yes, the physical size of the 6D, makes it seem like a toy worthy of derision by the 5D3 or 1DX crowd. It's not a toy. What it is, is what 5D2 buyers five years ago, wish they could have bought instead...and for 40% less cost to boot!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> All I can say is, what the full frame fanboys have been saying is true: A cropped image done with either the 6D or 5D3, will be more detailed than you think it will. ... I no longer see a need for a crop camera (and I never thought I would not...



I find it interesting that in many cases, those arguing for the 'reach advantage' of APS-C have used only APS-C. You're far from the first to come to the conclusion you have, after adding a FF camera to your kit.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 3, 2013)

There are a great many advantages to APS-C over 135.

Image quality is not one of them.

That writ, a modern APS-C has very, very, very good image quality -- more than enough for the overwhelming majority of photographers. And that even includes low-light high-ISO situations.

But, if you need more than what APS-C can deliver and you're willing to put up with all the areas in which 135 is inferior (size, weight, cost, that sort of thing mostly), then 135 is for you.

Curiously enough, one might reach strikingly similar conclusions when comparing 135 and 645, or 645 and large format. Or even P&S and APS-C.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## sawsedge (Apr 3, 2013)

I moved to FF in the middle of last year and the difference is astounding. I did a portrait of my daughter with a 50mm f/1.4 at ISO 25600, lit by a single candle in a dark room, hand held. Yeah, it's a bit noisy by that setting, but still quite usable. There is no way I could have done it with the 50D (I realize the 7D is a lot better than the 50D).

The AF of the 5D3 is incredible. As others have noted, having more shots in focus is a major plus. That was the main reason I upgraded.

I get the sense that the 6D is a little better in low light, but not as good for action, but I have not tried a 6D.

As others mentioned, crop sensors don't even enter my mind when you say "low light candids". You are not focal-length limited with candids.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 3, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)
> 
> I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop. I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D. But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.
> 
> Now the question. A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in. So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?



The 5d3 is lightyears beyond the 7d for these purposes! What it can do in low light is a game changer!

With that said, if you do go for one, don't bother with the 24-105...snag a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8. Don't worry about IS, these are light lenses and can easily be handheld at those SS speeds (plus, at 1.4 and 1.8, you can shoot at higher SS's and still let in more light depending on how much space there is between you an the target!


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 3, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense. But, it is.



Many former APS-C users before you have reached the same conclusion  Glad to hear your new purchase is working well for you.

Sadly, Canon has made little to no progress improving the ISO capabilities of its crop sensors in the last 8-9 years. I shot for years with a 20D, and had a go with a 7D when my 5D needed repair. I hoped Canon's latest flagship crop body would have far better low-light capabilities than my old 20D, but files were almost as noisy. Comparing the ISO scores on DxO of the 7D (854) and 20D (721) confirmed my suspicions. 

Crop bodies offer outstanding performance for the money, but insisting that they perform nearly as well as FF bodies in low light is absurd.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 3, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued. I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS. (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)
> ...



As neuroanatomist repeatedly points out, the 24-105 on full frame is better than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in every single measure. It goes wider; it goes longer; it can get a shallower depth of field; and it has less noise at equivalent exposures. If you love the 17-55 on APS-C, you'll be blown away by the 24-105 on full frame.

Yes, of course, the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 are superlative low-light portrait lenses. But there's a reason the 24-105 is the official kit lens of the 5DIII, and it's an awesome combination.

Besides, if you don't need (or want) to obliterate the background, you'll always get better results in portraiture from f/4 to f/11 than you will below f/2.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 3, 2013)

Hugo Fisher said:


> I have/had both. Together for weddings. 5D3 is incredibly better camera, than 7D.
> 
> I sold 7D a couple weeks ago.



Ditto, when I got my mk3 my 7d just sat. I tried usint them side by side, but, the 5d3 really did outperform the 7d in just about every respect. After becoming a paper weight, I sold the 7d and am now on the hunt for a backup. Rented a 6d for the weekend ----it's quite a capable camera!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 3, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> A 5d3 with the 24-105 is on its way. For my use I think this lens will be more versatile than the 24-70 (I or II) (and cheaper). I've got the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 40 f2.8 for the more light challenging events. I need to see what I can do with these lenses before considering faster zooms or primes. (But, an 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2 could be tempting down the road.)



Don't hesitate ---just get the 85 1.8!!!! It's such a fantastic lens!!!!! And consider the 135mm 2.0!!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 3, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> When you only own crop, you really don't want believe that FF is so much better due the added expense. But, it is.
> 
> Just shot a grade school volleyball event with the 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. I shoot these events for my kids' school yearbook and upload a bunch that don't make the yearbook to share with parents. For this stuff, I prefer to save time and space by shooting JPEGs. With the 7D, I often got the shot, but I always had to post process the shoot to cleanup noise, and sometimes add some presence to the color. But, I can see now that the 5D3 will save lots of time. My shots from tonight need no post work, save for cropping on a handful of images. Lack of noise was amazing.
> 
> ...



try out the servo mode for tracking with the mk3...it works soooooo nicely!!!


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 3, 2013)

For the past year, since buying my 7D, I thought it or the future 7DII would have a permanent place in my kit. Now, I'm not so sure.

I'm a two-body shooter. The 7D is now my second body, but I find myself shuffling lenses to shoot mostly with the 5D3, thus defeating the purpose of using two bodies. Need to payoff the 5D3 first, but I'm already considering a second FF down the road and will be weighing the merits (and price) of the 6D vs. another 5D3 for this purpose.

Curious side note. The full resolution JPEGs from the 5D3 volleyball shoot averaged between 5-6 MB. Those from the 7D averaged 8-9 MB. ISO for both cameras were mostly 3200. I'm guessing that extra noise accounts for the added data in the 7D files.

Also, I made a rookie mistake during the first game. In switching from RAW to JPEG, I inaverdently switched to Large compressed. But, even those images are cleaner than the ones from the 7D.

Funny that TrumpetPower mentions the 135 and 645 comparison. Decades ago I went from a Canon FTb-n to a Mamiya 645 1000s. When I first started playing with the 5D3 around the house and comparing it to the 7D, I did think "this is a lot like the Mamiya" -- only a tad lighter.


----------

