another...what would YOU prefer?....

kin2son wrote in post #16497429
I keep hearing 10-22 owners saying it's better than ff + 17-40, but I'm just not convinced.

Compare all you want - http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Not even remotely close period.

just looked at that - and the difference is definitely there
what is interesting is that I then plugged in for the FF camera + 16-35 II at the same aperture and there was no difference except in the far corners - and that was pretty minimal at that.
thanks for the link

Heya,

Compare real world images. See if it matters.

No one cares, really, how a test image looks.

If you can't tell that your landscape or star-sky isn't as sharp as it could be, then the ignorance is bliss. And you have money for more lenses now.

Very best,

I personaly would get the 5D3 + 17-40.
The 7D is also a great camera, but the 5D3 is superb.
The lenses should be around the same, the 17-40 maybe a bit sharper.

I owned a 7D + 10-22, and purchased a 5D3 about 1.5 years ago. Initially I thought I would just hang onto the 10-22, since I was keeping the 7D anyway as a 2nd body for wildlife shooting. However, this spring I added a 17-40L, as having the ultra-wide angle on the 5D3 instead of the 7D worked better for how I was using the two bodies.

I get better images with the 5D3 + 17-40L combo than I did with the 7D + 10-22. Both lenses are very good, but the better sensor of the 5D3 makes the difference in the comparison. I ended up selling the EFS 10-22, and have no regrets.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16497292
would you prefer

7d + canon 10-22
or
5d3 + 17-40

compare, contrast, explain and discuss...

I dont fully understand why or how a crop camera could be better than a FF for anything but a little extra reach with telephoto lenses (and that's arguable as well, since you can easily crop a FF too). Seems the FF would be the hands-down winner for wide angle photography, not only because of the sensor, but because of the incredible selection of wide angle lenses available for FF bodies.

I'm voting with my dollars, and although I love my 50D with my long lenses, my next purchase will be a 5D body to put my 17-40L on.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501471
I dont fully understand why or how a crop camera could be better than a FF for anything but a little extra reach with telephoto lenses (and that's arguable as well, since you can easily crop a FF too). Seems the FF would be the hands-down winner for wide angle photography, not only because of the sensor, but because of the incredible selection of wide angle lenses available for FF bodies.

I'm voting with my dollars, and although I love my 50D with my long lenses, my next purchase will be a 5D body to put my 17-40L on.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the 5D or 17-40L, but a crop camera with the EF-S 10-22 (or similar crop-only lenses from Tokina or Sigma) is a reasonable alternative for a lot less money. The only thing really missing are wide-angle primes for EF-S lenses - the closest thing is the 30mm 1.4 Sigma.

If landscapes are your thing, why not just get a 6d?
Not to say the 5d3 isn't a great camera, but for that price, you could get a 16-35 and a 6d.

Based on the question I would have to vote the FF solution. If that is the only combination of lens/body you will be using. you will get better images from the FF sensor especially in low light. Don't think there is situation where the 10 22 on a crop is going to "outperform" the FF combo as far as image quality. Having said that for what I shoot maybe 90% of the time the 7d wins. Not the combo you asked about but for my daily use.

I too am struggling with the FF upgrade, for now I am waiting for the 7D M2 to hit the market, I think I will go photo bigfoot while I wait..

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501471
I dont fully understand why or how a crop camera could be better than a FF for anything but a little extra reach with telephoto lenses . Seems the FF would be the hands-down winner for wide angle photography, not only because of the sensor, but because of the incredible selection of wide angle lenses available for FF bodies.

I'm voting with my dollars, and although I love my 50D with my long lenses, my next purchase will be a 5D body to put my 17-40L on.

Not sure you will gain so much with the 5D over the 50D. May get a slight high ISO improvement, which may be all you are looking for. May be that you do mostly studio work and little cropping.

"Limbwalker"

"(and that's arguable as well, since you can easily crop a FF too)" I would be hard pressed to believe that you can crop a 5D to match the crop and have a comparable image to that of the 7D, with the later versions 5d 2-3 yea with the original 5D no so much..

Scott M wrote in post #16501307
I owned a 7D + 10-22, and purchased a 5D3 about 1.5 years ago. Initially I thought I would just hang onto the 10-22, since I was keeping the 7D anyway as a 2nd body for wildlife shooting. However, this spring I added a 17-40L, as having the ultra-wide angle on the 5D3 instead of the 7D worked better for how I was using the two bodies.

I get better images with the 5D3 + 17-40L combo than I did with the 7D + 10-22. Both lenses are very good, but the better sensor of the 5D3 makes the difference in the comparison. I ended up selling the EFS 10-22, and have no regrets.

thanks for that comparison. Indeed that was the idea I was aiming at. I mean, I have no real complaints about the combo (I use it often, in fact). And so many people malign the 17-40 (and the 16-35II at that) that I was wondering if it would be worth while having the known good combination instead of such a "bad" combination with the 17-40 or 16-35II. And I will always approve of the ability to have only one body with me as opposed to two!

Limbwalker wrote in post #16501471
I dont fully understand why or how a crop camera could be better than a FF for anything but a little extra reach with telephoto lenses (and that's arguable as well, since you can easily crop a FF too). Seems the FF would be the hands-down winner for wide angle photography, not only because of the sensor, but because of the incredible selection of wide angle lenses available for FF bodies.

I'm voting with my dollars, and although I love my 50D with my long lenses, my next purchase will be a 5D body to put my 17-40L on.

well, I have the 7d already and I haven't yet come 100% to the conclusion that I am getting the 5d series. Not just because of the money...but also because I am trying to make sure that I am not thinking that by upgrading I will be a professional photographer! I am making 100% sure that I "need" the upgrades involved. And then to plan it. Since I was very happy with my 7d, I am hesitating and evaluating the other upgrades I will need...replacing the 10-22 is one of those upgrades. And since the 17-40 and in a small amount the 16-35II are generally maligned lenses... I was worried.

Add to the mix, that I still vascilate between the 5d3 and the 6d - doesn't help matters.... (i mean, if I am so unsure of what body I want...maybe I don't need it.... type of thought process)

jrbdmb wrote in post #16501732
There's certainly nothing wrong with the 5D or 17-40L, but a crop camera with the EF-S 10-22 (or similar crop-only lenses from Tokina or Sigma) is a reasonable alternative for a lot less money. The only thing really missing are wide-angle primes for EF-S lenses - the closest thing is the 30mm 1.4 Sigma.

not sure that this was meant for me - or in response to the above.
agreed.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16501787
If landscapes are your thing, why not just get a 6d?
Not to say the 5d3 isn't a great camera, but for that price, you could get a 16-35 and a 6d.

I never really said that my "thing" was landscapes, but nevertheless - you are right that the 6d is also very attractive (see above). Even more than attractive considering that the ISO IQ is as good as the 5d3 if not better (depends on the review and who you ask), the body is lighter and it is cheaper. With that said, I worry about going from the 7d AF system to the 6d (which seems to be a slight step back), and the frame rate, and the combo with the 600 ex rts. the potential 7d2 also throws a consideration. but if I choose the 5d3, I still have the funds to get the 16-35II - just not sure I want the lens. thanks

brianh4204 wrote in post #16502438
Based on the question I would have to vote the FF solution. If that is the only combination of lens/body you will be using. you will get better images from the FF sensor especially in low light. Don't think there is situation where the 10 22 on a crop is going to "outperform" the FF combo as far as image quality. Having said that for what I shoot maybe 90% of the time the 7d wins. Not the combo you asked about but for my daily use.

I too am struggling with the FF upgrade, for now I am waiting for the 7D M2 to hit the market, I think I will go photo bigfoot while I wait..

At first you say that you believe that the FF solution is the best, but then you say that the 7d +10-22 wins 90% of the time. Can you explain this, please? I have also thinking of the mythical 7d2 - but assuming that the price is similar to the 6d - what would sway you from the FF towards the 7d2 or vice versa?

brianh4204 wrote in post #16502451
Not sure you will gain so much with the 5D over the 50D. May get a slight high ISO improvement, which may be all you are looking for. May be that you do mostly studio work and little cropping.

"Limbwalker"

"(and that's arguable as well, since you can easily crop a FF too)" I would be hard pressed to believe that you can crop a 5D to match the crop and have a comparable image to that of the 7D, with the later versions 5d 2-3 yea with the original 5D no so much..

if i understood limbwalker - he meant one of the 5d series cameras.

Seeing as you don't have anything longer than a 250mm I'll assume that wildlife isn't your thing.

In that case, go FF.

And Limbwalker's comment isn't really as helpful as it seems as a crop from a 5D3 with the same FOV of the 7D would get you a 8.5ish MP image. If that works for you, great.

At first you say that you believe that the FF solution is the best, but then you say that the 7d +10-22 wins 90% of the time. Can you explain this, please? I have also thinking of the mythical 7d2 - but assuming that the price is similar to the 6d - what would sway you from the FF towards the 7d2 or vice versa?

For what I shoot maybe 90% of the time, the 7d is the better choice. For the specific combinations mentioned and what I believe the uses would the FF is in my view the winner. Problem is I cant afford a body lens combo for each specific application so I have to choose what works best for my use.

Ah, the mythical 7D2, what would sway me is if Canon actually introduces a new sensor that has solid high ISO performance. I am imagining a 10 plus FPS, hyper focusing, high ISO beast that is build like a 1Dx and waterproof to 200 meters...

Or a 70D sensor in a slightly more robust body with a couple more FPSs, in which case I keep the current 7d and add a 6d or maybe a 5D3..