70D vs 5D mk 3

5D3 at 25600 OOC JPG no post processing

Welshgirl wrote in post #16949844
Thank you all for your replies. My reasons for wanting full frame is for composition and for high ISO capabilities. When I say composition, i mean I want to see more in the frame. Stepping back isn't the answer when I have the subject exactly as I want it but wish I could see more of the surrounding area, does that make sense? If there is another answer to this please, please shout at me! I also want a body with good low light capabilities. I have been asked to photograph a baptism which is taking place at a church which doesn't allow flash photography. I am familiar with the building and as with most churches, the light isn't great and I don't think the 70D will be up to the task. Again, I haven't ever used the 5Diii so I really don't know that it will be that much better...just going by all of the reviews that I have read. I plan on going to the church to take a few photographs in there to see the results.

Mark, you totally have my number! If I was to get the Mkiii, I would then be annoyed that the 70-200 would no longer have the reach that I'm used to. I have a list as long as my arm with all the gear that I would LOVE to have...as I'm sure every other photographer does too. :0)

Hokie, I have GAS? I'm intrigued...what does that stand for? I just hope it's not embarrassingly obvious. You're right, all of the new gadgety features on the 70D DO make it a pleasure to use and I would seriously miss them plus the fact that it is so much lighter. By the way, I read your review a while back and it was a HUGE help.

Molten, what about the low light situations where you can't use a flash? Do you ever encounter this? Does the mk3 live up to it's reputation?

Indiana, I do think of it as an investment. I want to achieve the best images possible for myself and my future clients. After the second month, I realised that I probably should have gone with the FF. My choice when I upgraded at Christmas was between the 70D and the 6D, of course now that I have been spoilt by the AF system on the 70D, I want the mk3. Perhaps my best option is to rent the mk3 and see if it does everything I am imagining.

Makis, I have the 24-105mm, a nifty 50, an 85mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm f4 so not as impressive as your line up but not too shabby. ;0) I also own the 10-22mm which won't be compatible with a FF. Do you feel there is a great improvement in IQ between the 60D and the MK3?

Heya,

Go through this entire thread.
Read this entire thread too.

And then post examples of your best work, and maybe justify to yourself that you need a 5D3 instead of the 70D that you have.

You want wider? Get an ultrawide lens for APS-C. Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16, Canon EF-S 10-18, Tokina 11-16. Simple. No camera swap needed.

The 70D has high ISO capabilities and clean ISO at that, it's quite impressive for APS-C.

As for shooting in low light, go for it. Just get exposure right. The noise will not be off the charts. And you should be able to process noise anyways. Look into Topaz DeNoise. Cheaper than a new camera that costs 3 times what you already paid. I can shoot 6400 ISO and be ok with it on a lesser camera, without even processing the noise. You should be able to do 3200~6400, expose well, process the noise, and not even worry about ISO.

Focus on photography first. Gear second. If the gear is holding you back, then get better gear. Don't buy gear you don't even know if you need or not, that says everything you need to know.

Very best,

sooc photo

70D + 35L
ISO 3200
in a dark room
only a TV and a small window

Welshgirl wrote in post #16949844
...
Makis, I have the 24-105mm, a nifty 50, an 85mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm f4 so not as impressive as your line up but not too shabby. ;0) I also own the 10-22mm which won't be compatible with a FF. Do you feel there is a great improvement in IQ between the 60D and the MK3?

Well, let me re-cast the argument... If you blow $5500 in lenses, you shouldn't scrimp $1500 on a body that will produce images 50% sharper....

However, once you are down to pixel peeping level, there is no significant difference...

It is also true that the 5D3 files will produce credible results at ISO 25600. I rarely push the 60D past ISO6400. Not because I can't, but because I didn't have to... I've tested it satisfactorily to ISO 12800 here is a 100% crop:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i37.photobucket​.com …_zps645c49da.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i37.photobucket​.com …_zpsfa9dcf50.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i37.photobucket​.com …_zps2e989722.jp​g~original

MalVeauX wrote in post #16949947
Heya,
You want wider? Get an ultrawide lens for APS-C. Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16, Canon EF-S 10-18, Tokina 11-16. Simple. No camera swap needed.

Hi MalVeauX,

I am also using a crop canon body which is the 450D. I have a 24-70F2.8 lens. I think, I am having the same question as the TS regarding he wants wide composition that gets the surroundings.

I understand, your recommendation about getting an ultrawide lens. I have that, a sigma 10-20mm.

I know this will be recommended by someone here but, is the 17-55 F2.8 when used on a crop body will have the exact coverage on the same place as when a FF that has a 24-70 in it? and will have the same depth of field? (I am not sure if my question is correct but I tried to explain on what I understand)

Thanks,
Christian

Welshgirl wrote in post #16949844
I have been asked to photograph a baptism which is taking place at a church which doesn't allow flash photography. I am familiar with the building and as with most churches, the light isn't great and I don't think the 70D will be up to the task.

The 70D with fast glass can do remarkably well in inside situations. I push mine all the time. For my purposes, I am completely satisfied, often amazed at what the 70D can do and will most likely be purchasing the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 as that would work very nicely for candids at indoor events. The trouble is, wide open the DOF becomes very shallow as you know. So this can be a limiting factor.

With that being said, if I was doing indoor photos professionally I would go full frame. It would give me more shooting options.

If you have the ability to, rent the 5D III for the weekend or a week. You can shoot and compare the same photos.
If not, go to a store and ask about a return policy, most large store like Costco or Best Buy have good ones.
You will probably have to pay a restocking fee for it, but it may be even cheaper than renting.
I suggested this to a friend back home and he ended up keeping the T5i last year.
If you love that camera more, then sell your 70D

Keema wrote in post #16950217
Hi MalVeauX,

I am also using a crop canon body which is the 450D. I have a 24-70F2.8 lens. I think, I am having the same question as the TS regarding he wants wide composition that gets the surroundings.

I understand, your recommendation about getting an ultrawide lens. I have that, a sigma 10-20mm.

I know this will be recommended by someone here but, is the 17-55 F2.8 when used on a crop body will have the exact coverage on the same place as when a FF that has a 24-70 in it? and will have the same depth of field? (I am not sure if my question is correct but I tried to explain on what I understand)

Thanks,
Christian

Heya,

17-55 on a crop, is pretty much the "24-70 of Full Frame" on crops. It's not exact, it's closer to 27-88mm, but it's as similar as it will get for current lenses. Depth of field will not be the same, even though the aperture is the same. Depth of field is also manipulated by distance to subject of focus, and on a crop, you are going to be further away from the subject for the same frame up as a full frame would for the same focal length, which means more depth of field. Full Frame would have a thinner depth of field, by comparison, for the same frame up.

Very best,

^ The DOF with the 17-55mm at f2.8 would be very comparable to the DOF on FF with 24-70 at f4.0?
This is a common comparison, but is this accurate? I understand the compression vs framing differences.
But when stating the 17-55mm flocal length is closer to 27-88mm then the DOF would be closer to f4.0?

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16950523
^ The DOF with the 17-55mm at f2.8 would be very comparable to the DOF on FF with 24-70 at f4.0?
This is a common comparison, but is this accurate? I understand the compression vs framing differences.
But when stating the 17-55mm flocal length is closer to 27-88mm then the DOF would be closer to f4.0?

Heya,

Saying that the depth of field is the same, would not be accurate. The physical distance alone makes that not true, if both lenses are at F2.8, set to 50mm exactly each, and frame up on an object exactly the same on both an APS-C and a full frame sensor. The APS-C will be further away for this frame up to be the same, so more distance means more depth of field.

I wouldn't say it's exactly the same as "F4" but let's just say, it's not what F2.8 on full frame is. It's not as thin, it could be a stop, but let's just say it's more depth of field for that F2.8 than the full frame has, at the same frame up (not the same distance).

Focal length doesn't matter here, so long as the focal length is the same on each. All it does is change the physical distance you are from the subject for the composition frame up.

Very best,

In the last two years I've had a 350D, 600D, 7D, 1D Mark III and now a 5D MarkIII. All were great cameras in their own right, built for purpose, however, the 5D3 just excels in IQ, colour range and ease of use. It's light, it's fast, and everyone should own one.

I have never used the 70D, only held one in my hand and it felt very weak and toyish compared to the 5D3.

Once that full frame annoyance digs deep into your mind it never goes away. Satisfy the hunger, save sleepless nights and just go for it. It's your money, it's our decision and only you stand to benefit or lose from it.

Just because the 5D3 has better low light capability than any other camera I've had, I still don't use it at high ISO's because all that nice colour tone and IQ will just go right out the window the further up the ISO ladder I go. I feel I need to go re-shoot everything I've done now to give new life to my work.

I can understand that. I know the f stop don't change, but visually f2.8 on crop will not be
as thin as f2.8 on FF because the crop moves back 1.6x to frame thereby increase its DOF

Having used the 70D, 7D, 1DIII, and 1Ds II, for shows, studio, and location work, I have been surprised how well the lighter body works for me, nowadays. I honestly do not miss the heft of a 1D series camera at all, and even the 7D now feels heavy.

Part of the total gear package for using cameras like the 70D/7D includes the line of EF-S lenses, which also weigh less.

The feature mix of the 70D (aside from the innovative video features) seems like a more-refined 7D, and easier-to-use. Controllable features just seem naturally accessible, by comparison.

So to looking at 70D vs 5D III really seems like comparing two very different tools. Does a FF camera like a 5D III make an important difference in the kind of photography you want to do? In terms of like vs. loving a camera, being fully familiar can help a lot. I am still quite stunned at how technical of camera the 7D is. I thought I knew it well, but discovered "new" features about it 4 years later.

I think of the 5D III as feature-packed, but somewhat more conservative. Changing from a 70D to 5D III would probably entail some learning curve of a bit different type. In no way insurmountable, but part of the transition. This kind of camera has more headroom in IQ, and for the FF view, giving you one kind of freedom in exchange for a different kind of bondage: a heftier camera to hold, some fewer features, a different "look" for the working distance to your subject.

Whether these things matter is utterly dependent on your photography goals.

In terms of GAS, of course I've fallen prey to that too. Who on CDPF has not? But today I find that I don't really crave what I don't have. It's more about how much can I make the camera I use regularly a completely unconscious tool in the service of making beautiful images I can imagine and think of?

Paulstw wrote in post #16950530
In the last two years I've had a 350D, 600D, 7D, 1D Mark III and now a 5D MarkIII. All were great cameras in their own right, built for purpose, however, the 5D3 just excels in IQ, colour range and ease of use. It's light, it's fast, and everyone should own one.

I have never used the 70D, only held one in my hand and it felt very weak and toyish compared to the 5D3.

Once that full frame annoyance digs deep into your mind it never goes away. Satisfy the hunger, save sleepless nights and just go for it. It's your money, it's our decision and only you stand to benefit or lose from it.

Just because the 5D3 has better low light capability than any other camera I've had, I still don't use it at high ISO's because all that nice colour tone and IQ will just go right out the window the further up the ISO ladder I go. I feel I need to go re-shoot everything I've done now to give new life to my work.

I had a somewhat different evolution than the what you described, but I also feared some of the same things, but those fears have not turned out to pass.

Agree on the heft of a 1D series camera versus a smaller one. But the 70D does not feel week and toyish to me, it feels way more like lightning in a bottle. I actually like it a lot more than my workhorse 7Ds, it is way easier to hold. I thought I would miss the miss the joystick multicontroller, but I now really like the multicontroller embedded within the QCD, for example. Access to tremendous capability in a smaller, lightweight package.

My view on high ISO might be different than yours, because I have to use it for club lighting in near dark. I do feel more and more that the IQ equation is a matter of aesthetics. That these imaging systems offer various angles on very nearly perfect. I saw this borrowing a friends 6D, which has a later-generation sensor than the 5D III. It had extremely clean IQ at ISO 10000, velvety, silky smooth. Gorgeous! But this "look" was not what I saw and experienced at that particular show, it was so clean that it seemed to lack realism. So, these are in effect choices, not mutually exclusive alternatives.

As for the DoF differences, it's a little more complicated than this but generally full frame is roughly 1 and 1/3 stops shallower if you shoot from the same distance at the same aperture and frame identically.
Obviously, your focal length will be different for the two cameras. (in this case 33mm on crop vs 50mm on FF)

Here's an example: