Going back to APS-C ?

As a lot of people, I'm not only a photography geek but I also tend to fall into the trap of buying and selling way too much stuff (cameras and lenses), because there's always something better behind the horizon. Or is there?

I have a 5D3 + 24105L + 70200L/2.8II, coupled with a Sony a6000 + 24Z + 1670Z and a compact RX100. Quite a decent setup right?

Now the 5D3 is unused way too much to my liking, mainly because I got fed up lugging around all the heavy stuff. It's not like I make (a lof of) money with my photography, and when going on trips with the family and stuff, I rather not have a 15kg backpack on my shoulders. That's where the mirrorless and rx100 came in. Great camera's, but stil...

I kept a nagging feeling that the pictures I'm taking with either the 5D3 or the other camera's lack a certain sharpness and quality that I was used to before. Rest assured, this is not a user error. I've been photographing SLR's for +15 years, do some weddings occasionally but even the 5D3 never really 'wowed' me.

So I went digging inside my lightroom catalog and it turns out the best pictures I've taken the past few years were with my 7D + EF-S 17-55/F2.8 lens. Almost all of these are tack sharp, got great bokeh and just look amazingly good. Makes me wonder why I ever felt the need to sell and get the FF camera, but I guess we all know why...that itch.

Now, since I'm not using the 5D3 and the expensive lenses all that much, I'm thinking about selling it all and just getting a 70D+1755/F2.8 again. I suppose the 70D is somewhat the successor to the 7D right?

What do you think about this? Am I mad? I might very well be that my 24-105 isn't that good optically, compared to the EF-S 17-55 and maybe I should get the 24-70 for my 5D3, but even then I wonder if it's worth the money when I got such nice shots from the 7D.

I'm not really sure why you think the 5DIII isn't sharp: during my ownership of it, I've been impressed with all of its image quality attributes. Perhaps you'd prefer a crop body from the difference in DOF...? You can also calibrate the lenses to ensure tack sharp focus at shallow DOF.

The 70D has the newest sensor and is supposed to have really nice features for liveview AF. It is a succesor to the 60D. The 7D is marketed as a different class of DSLR: it sports the 5D interface and magnesium alloy body. It's your money if you want to keep changing gear...but there is something about the adage of not changing your lens or body until you've explored and learned all its features.

One other thought, if you like your Sony mirrorless, then perhaps you'd like the Sony A7. Something tells me if you get the 7D or 70D, you'd still feel like taking a mirrorless because you're "fed up" with lugging DSLR and lenses. It's a toss up. The A7 is supposed to have a more convenient sized body, but because there's not many native lenses, you're still looking at "lugging" Canon lenses. I still tote my 5D everywhere because A: it's more versatile photographically, and B: I can get more of a workout having a collection of lenses and accesories on my back

I understand what you're saying. Mind, I'm not a new owner of the 5D3, I think I shot about 20.000 shots with it (at least according to my LR library). And of course the DOF is shallower with the 5D3. It might be that the 24-105L I'm using just isn't amazingly sharp like my 17-55 was.

Mind, I took a lot of nice shots with my 5D3 setup, including some weddings from which the clients were very happy and some snaps of the kids are ok too, but it just surprised me going through my LR library how sharp and clear the 7D+1755 images were compared to what I'm getting from the 5D3.

I recently did some comparison shots wide open with the 5D3+24105 vs A6000+1670 and I must say I am very impressed what the Sony shows compared to the 5D3. Not scientific of course, and I still like the colour and rendering of the Canon more than the Sony, but it's saying something...

That being said, I take quite a bit of pictures indoors where a prime isn't always the solution too, so that's why I made the comment about maybe needing either the 24-70/F2.8 (I could sell the 70-200 and 24-105 to fund this), or I could keep even more money in my pocket and get the 70D (of 7D) + 1755 which I always found an amazing lens.

Sometimes a good crop and outstanding lens like the 17-55 simply gets the job done. You may simply just not need a ff, it isn't the answer for all photography.

OP you aren't the only one. I too have just recently done a round robin on gear trying to find something I enjoy again. I've been debating a lot going back to a 7D 17-55 2.8, 85mm 1.8 and a G15. I too and tired of lugging all the gear around which is why I just purchased the 24-105 to maybe just use that as a daily combo instead of hauling all my primes around.

The point I have gotten to is I just don't get any camera out now as opposed to I always had a DSLR at my hip the past 5 years of my daughter's lives. Sometimes I just want to have fun with the kids and not worry about handing someone a G15 to take a family photo for us.

As far as comparing the 24-105mm vs 24-70mm, reviews I've seen seem to indicate they're both pretty sharp at F8. I personally would prefer a 2.8 aperture (for the speed and DOF), but then you'd run into even more issues of needing focus to be spot on with the shallow DOF. A good 24-70mm will probably be my next lens purchase. Currently I'm siding more with the Tamron 24-70, because it has fairly good optics and VC (don't know why Canon didn't put IS in the mkII).

If you decide that crop and/or mirrorless is for you, there are plenty of folks that would be willing to buy your 5DIII

You'd think so, but I even have a hard time selling my 70-200/F2.8 IS II which is almost NEVER used, looks 100% new (took maybe 1000 shots with it) and has even 1yr left of warranty. Trying to sell it in Belgium, getting ridiculous offerts.

Just went through some more shots in Lightroom, filtering on 5D3. What I noticed is that pictures taken with the 100mm macro are incredibly sharp (sold that lens, too less use too), the ones with the 70-200 are great too and the ones with the 24-105 just look...off. I have a Sigma 35mm for a few days too, and pictures are very good there too (even with incredibly shallow dof at f1.4).

Still, the 5D3 is very large and like I said, I don't use it all that often anymore. It's really itching to go back to a 7D with the 1755 but the 7D is OLD... Isn't the 70D supposed to be better? Or is build quality not up to par? I don't shoot video with my SLR, so no worries there. But then again, Canon is supposed to come out with some new stuff (sensors) too right?

Another option could be to sell the 24-105 + 70-200 and just get a non-Canon 24-70/F2.8 and a nice prime like the Sigma 35mm (which always intrigued me).

Don't know about Belgium (congrats about the football match BTW), but Canon has had good rebate sales of new lenses in the States. I recently took advantage of that and got the 70-200: noticed used off E-bay tended to go for about the same as new with rebate.

If you don't mind the interface difference with the 70D, it is supposed to have slightly better ISO. The 7D isn't totally outdated yet...if all you're concerned with is still picture IQ: maybe wait and see about a possible 7DII. The 70D's biggest feature is the AF ability for video recording.

When I had my 7D I tried my best to compete with the images coming out of 'better' cameras. I played by all the rules, I really thought hard about the shots and then as I progressed to the 5D3 I feel I have got lazy. However, when you nail it with that camera and the light is right there's just that feeling that you upgraded for a reason.

Since I got mine my keeper rate has gone up that much that I need to hold back on the amount that I take now. I think it might be the case that you just haven't found your niche genre. If things are feeling a little boring then maybe a change of scenery is needed and not another camera.

Somehow I understand the feeling you have. I just purchased a 6D and love it, but I had to hold on to my 7D. Somehow I just love my 7D with the EF-S 15-85 lens on it. It makes for the best outside walk-around camera I have ever used. I have read about the 17-55 and am very tempted to pick one up. This thread just tempts me all the more

Maybe it's just my 24-105 that isn't up to the standard set by the 17-55. Pictures I took with the 100mm macro are razor sharp, so there's a difference. And I really need a larger aperture lens.

Lumens wrote in post #17007213
... Somehow I just love my 7D with the EF-S 15-85 lens on it. It makes for the best outside walk-around camera I have ever used. I have read about the 17-55 and am very tempted to pick one up. This thread just tempts me all the more

I would love to compare the 17-55 and 15-85 side by side but from what I have seen and read, optically the two are almost the same and the 17-55 just gives you f/2.8 in addition to fine optics.

Any idea if/when a 7DII might be announced? God I loved that camera...

lapino wrote in post #17007240
Any idea if/when a 7DII might be announced? God I loved that camera...

Rumor on CanonRumors puts it at Photokina in September. Was a CR3 as well which is suppose to be pretty solid. If true, I would think that cameras will be available before xmas but probably hard to get until after.

I have found that some of my wide open 24-105 shots, particularly at the wide end) need a bit more sharpening than images from my other lenses on my 5D2. My recollection is that many people felt this way but the overall convenience of the lens outweighed that "imperfection" Given your results with the 100 macro (mine are also very sharp) I'd say keep the 5d3 for when the Sony's aren't quite enough and you can take the "big" camera, perhaps with a better lens. If you do go the APS-C route because you like the 7D, you might hang on a bit longer for the new version with whatever recent tech upgrades Canon deigns to include!

Edit - cross-posted. I'd also like to know when the 7D2 is coming