airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3848 posts, RR: 57 Posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3759 times:
I'm looking to upgrade my camera from a Canon 40D to either a 5DMkII or 7D. I've made myself acquainted with the pro's and cons of each camera, by reading reviews on the internet, advice that was given to me by a few other photographers and a couple of threads on this board (that are now archived).
I've more or less decided that I want to try and get a 5D, but still have some questions about it. As for the rest; I plan to keep the 40D as second body. My photography subjects are mostly aviation, but also holidays, nature, basically anything tbh... Main lenses are 10-22, 70-200 F4 and 100-400 currently.
I know the 5D beats the 7D in image quality, which is of course a big plus. Regarding it being a full-frame camera, I think with my zoom lenses and the fact that I can always crop later, range won't be a big problem. But while reading reviews it was mentioned at some point that the 10-22mm doesn't work on the 5D? That's a major bummer, but I couldn't find why exactly they don't fit. So how come the 10-22 doesn't work combined with the 5D? Which lens would you recommend for very wide-angle photography on the 5D? The other lenses will work fine on it, right?
I also realize that the low FPS/'slower' AF of the 5D will not be a problem with the majority of subjects that I photograph, with the exception for aviation. Have any of you had any 'problems' with the fact that the 5D has low FPS/'slower AF' (when it comes to aviation)? I often get static (parked) aircraft in front of my lens, so my only concern is shooting moving subjects. It would require less "spray and pray", but that can only be a good thing
Any tips/tricks/things to keep in mind are more than welcome!
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3742 times:
You could also rent and try the 8-15 f/4 fisheye, I can see you getting some really nice wide angle wing shots that you like to get, and also some interior corporate shots. It is expensive though and a couple people have described it as more of a novelty lens. I would love the 16-35 2.8 if money was not an issue. Also, I have never used it, but research the Sigma 12-24. 12MM on a FF would be very interesting. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/12-24mm-f45-56-dg-hsm-ii1
I have always been impressed with the photos I see from the 17-40 f/4 and also the build of it is very nice, better than the 24-105! It's also relatively inexpensive when compared to the 16-35 and 8-15, making it an excellent value. You would only be losing 1MM of range, not a big deal!
Lately I've been looking at Ander Aguirre's photos with 5d2 and 17-40 and he has MANY jaw dropping photos of non aviation subjecs. His photos are enough to convince me that the 17-40 on a 5D2 is the way to go.
Canon has two types of lens mounts. The "EF" lenses work with any Canon EOS dSLR and are ideal for cameras with full-frame sensors. There there are the "EF-S" lenses, which have smaller image circles and are made for APS-C crop factor cameras (XXD and XXXD series). Since they project a smaller image circle, they can be smaller and lighter than their EF counterparts. The 10-22 is an EF-S lens, so it won't work on the 5D. You may ask, "Well, can't I just put it on and crop the black circle that will happen around my image?" The answer is: NO*. The EF-S lenses have a rubber piece that projects into the camera body, and some move the rear-most element into that area on focusing or zooming. The mirror on the 5D and 1D cameras is too large, and will hit the rubber or the rear element and shatter.
*Third-party crop factor lenses (like Sigma's DC lenses) can sometimes be used on the 5D and 1D series with no physical drawbacks (though you will still get the black circle around the outside where the image circle doesn't fall on the sensor). That's because the physical mount is the same, the rubber piece isn't there, and there's no projection into the body on focusing or zooming.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3667 times:
Hi Kas, let me say that I did this EXACT same upgrade. With the exception of the 70-200 I had all the same glass and a 40D. I ended up going with the 5D instead of the 7D. Really, the 5D has the same autofocus as the 40D which I was already happy with. Since I was planning to keep the 40D as a second camera, I would already have a "spray and pray" body if I really needed it, so FPS didn't matter much. But the 5D's superb image quality combined with low noise at higher ISO really did it for me. After upgrading to the 5D, I don't think I've ever used an ISO lower than 500 (besides for propellers). There's no need to "spray and pray" with this camera, since almost every photo comes out with exceptional quality. You can crop a RIDICULOUS amount and still get good results. Can't say the same about the 7D (I have used it before to try it out). Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a great camera still.
Yes, the 7D will offer a bit more "zoom" because of its large megapixel count and 1.6x crop frame. But on the other hand, this large megapixel count doesn't mean you can crop as hard as you can on the 5D, because the 5D has better image quality and everything just looks "cleaner". Therefore my personal opinion is that the 7D only has a slight "zoom" advantage.
As far as the wide angle. Yes, I had a 10-22 as well. It didn't work on the 5D. You basically have two choices.
1) Keep the 10-22 and use it on your 40D while putting the long lens on the 5D. With two bodies, it's so easy to take photos of static aircraft at an event while keeping the zoom lens on the other body in case there is something in the air you want to shoot right away.
2) Sell the 10-22 and buy a 17-40. They are priced the same. This is what I did. Since the 40D is a 1.6x crop frame, a 10-22 really is equal to a 16-35 on a full frame. So the 17-40 on a 5D is pretty much the same as a 10-22 on a 40D. On occasion if I really need the telephoto I will keep it on the 40D just in case, while I shoot wide angle with the 5D.
airkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3848 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3665 times:
Thanks for all the detailed info and example photos guys!! It's much much appreciated and I've gotten to understand everything more clear now. I've been looking around for good deals and the cheapest I found so far is a 5D body + Grip + 17-40 for 2600 Euro. It's lots of money, but I'm sure well spent on the above. Not sure if I will sell my 10-22, but I can think about that later. I'll let the idea soak in my head for a few days before making the decision what I will do
JForbes From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 27 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3652 times:
You're probably fine selling the 10-22 - it's pretty much the same range as the 17-40 if you use it on the 5D, and given the 5Ds size, you're not going to be bringing the 40D for shooting that stuff - you'll be best off shooting the 17-40 on the 5D and the 70-200 or 100-400 on the 40D if you have two bodies with you. And if you're all telephoto, probably the 100-400 on the 40D and 70-200 on the 5D for closer stuff.
andrew50 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 96 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3646 times:
I will stick with my 2 40D's. The image quality with the L glass on a 40D is superb! From shots I have seen on a.net where the photographer lists the 5D or even Nikon full frame cameras, I sure can't see that the image quality is any better! In my opinion the the quality upgrade if any, isn't worth that kind of money. Strictly talking aviation photography.
sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3562 times:
Just to go along with what I talked about above, here's how much you can crop with the 5D. Here's the original uncropped unedited image (only resized so it is a normal on the forum). One thing I forgot to mention was the vignetting you get on the 5D with the 100-400 lens. You can see it in the photo below
sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3539 times:
So original image resolution was 5616x3744. After crop it was approximately 1485x990. Then edited and resized to 1024 pixels wide and uploaded here. Not sure how people calculate crop percentage, but if it is by area (logical), then that is about 93%? (1 - (1485*990)/(5616*3744)) = 0.93 I hope my math is right
Granted it's not my best quality upload on a.net, and it was rejected once before it got accepted (for contrast if I remember correctly). But the quality still is there, even with the obvious non-ideal shooting conditions. Also, I was a forgetful idiot and shot this in JPG (not RAW) . 1/1250, f9.0, ISO500. With some work, it is possible to crop heavy and get images on here. Hope this helps.
Absolutely insane! Well you've sure got me thinking about the 5DIII over the 7DII, that's for sure (on the assumption that these bodies are released as the next version of their respective bodies a few years down the line).
comairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 304 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3512 times:
I have a 5DII and one thing I have noticed is that in clear sky conditions, rings appear in the photo. In the example I have attached below, I brought out the rings by simply reducing highlights all the way as far as the slider would go. I have a 100-400L lens that I use. I didn't do anything else to this image as far as sharpening or crop, just re-sized to upload here on this post. It's just about impossible to notice the rings in the original unedited JPEG image, but in some of my shots you can start to notice them as you make adjustments to the contrast and highlights, ect. I'm not sure if this is a trait of all DSLR cameras, but I'm still learning how to use it.
JForbes From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 27 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3494 times:
The rings are there because you're taking the data that was in the original image and, say, spreading it out as you adjust exposure and contrast. If you're shooting JPEG images, you will encounter this more frequently than if you shoot in RAW. It is generally a sign that you're doing too much to the image - and it looks like you've been playing around with that one a bit too much :P
It could also be if you're dealing with lower quality JPEG files - they retain less color data, and what you're really seeing is what was originally a very smooth gradiation of color, being compressed from being thousands of shades to being hundreds of shades, to being tens of shades of the same color. As there is less color, the rings will become more prominent.
It could *also* be due to the software you're using. Not all software is created equal.
Yes, you cropped away 93% of the image. Only 7% of it was there. It wasn't 1/2 or 1/4... more like 1/14th! A 7D shooter wouldn't need to crop nearly as much off because it is already cropped by about half - but that you cropped so much of the image off, down to a 1.5MP image and got a result so good is very impressive. I'd feel comfortable lopping off half or more of an 18MP 7D image, but 7%, or, say, 12% if you want to factor in the inherent crop would really be pushing it!
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3481 times:
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 15): Wow - if that accepted photo is a crop of that image you have killed digital photography for me.
How so? No one has cropped a negative before? I think the point here is while with some cameras we can use size reduction to improve apparent sharpness and/or minimise noise, output from the 5D (old or new) is very good straight out the camera. I'd say images from my 5D need the least post-processing of any DSLR I've owned.
Quoting andrew50 (Reply 8): From shots I have seen on a.net where the photographer lists the 5D or even Nikon full frame cameras, I sure can't see that the image quality is any better!
Sometimes its what you don't see that matters! But seriously, comparing cameras by looking at processed jpgs on the 'net can be very misleading. I think if you compared full out-of-the-camera images from your 40D against a 5D you'd come to a different conclusion
comairguycvg From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 304 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3457 times:
Here is another example I have found in some of my shots with the 5DmkII and the 100-400mm lens as far as shading is concerned with darker areas. This is a very cropped in sample of this shot to put on this post. You can see it's pretty blotchy in the darker areas. I'm sure that ISO and shutter speed settings could be adjusted for better results? This image is also a JPEG. You can click on this image to see a better resolution of the shot.
sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3422 times:
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 15): Wow - if that accepted photo is a crop of that image you have killed digital photography for me.
Why? DSLR technology improves every year. Cropping that much on a 20D 6 years ago would've been impossible but on today's cameras it certainly is. I see no reason not to take advantage of it. I'm in no way a post processing buff, I frequently need help with it and I did only the basic post processing to that photo. If the quality is there, why not use it?
25 eggohoek: I have 40D and 5Dmk2. Quality difference of 5Dmk2 vs 40D = 40D vs compact digital cameras. You can see the difference: -in low light -at full size -4
26 jspitfire: Right now I'm really happy with my setup: Canon 5D Mk II, 16-35 F2.8, 24-105, and 100-400. Personally I went with the 16-35 instead of the 17-40 just
27 flood: I'll venture to guess it was shot underexposed and you were trying to extract detail from the shadows which just wasn't there.
28 chris78cpr: I own both the camera's in question and if i only had your lenses i'd get the 7D. I will not use my 100-400 on the 5D2 as it vignettes very badly and
29 airkas1: Hmmm, I ordered it earlier this afternoon I have enough uses for it outside of aviation though, especially with a few trips coming up.
30 comairguycvg: What would be a good high power zoom lens for the 5D2?
31 comairguycvg: I currently use Photoshop Elements 6. Should I look for another version for better results?
32 andrew50: Quality difference of 5Dmk2 vs 40D = 40D vs compact digital cameras. Not sure how true that is since I don't own a 5D, but to me it's the final produc
33 chris78cpr: The only thing i'd put on the front of mine currently is a 70-200F2.8L with 1.4x or maybe the 2x (mkIII). The 100-400 is a great lens but vignettes b
34 spencer: Swap 5D2 with 1D4, then everything you said is how my gear is set up most the time! To tell the truth I don't think I've even set the 100-400 up on t
35 eggohoek: I have both 40D and 5Dmk2 and I can check the difference at full size. I like 40D, but it's only a toy camera
36 comairguycvg: How about a 400m or 500mm with the 5D2? any experience with those types of lenses?
37 chris78cpr: Shot with a 300F2.8LIS and 1.4x on the 5D2 and it was a fantastic combo. Not used a 400 or 500 prime on this camera but from what i gather all of the
38 javibi: Most of my shots are taken with the 5DII and EF 500mm f4 IS, often with a Canon 1.4x; great combo, no problems whatsoever IMHO. Cheers, j
39 FYODOR: 5DMk2 is truly anither world of cameras in compare with cropped X0Ds. I have backup camers 40D and 30D, but since I've started to use 5D I try not to
40 RonS: That's a bold statement! Very hard to believe. But obviously you have pushed the 40D to the limits and are doing very well with the 5d2. Your older s
41 airkas1: Thanks Ron! I've had it for a week now and I love it! The image quality is just so amazingly good compared to my 40D (which still serves me well as se
42 JForbes: To the person with the 10-22 and a crop camera looking at a 5D: Replace the 10-22 with a 17-40L. They cost about the same, the image quality is fairly
43 Dehowie: Another option is to convert the files to DNG format then you won't have any RAW issues at all..