some advice

sorry if this sounds like trolling - but it truly isn't
it is a real question
I have the gear below
i have been wrestling with myself about which way to upgrade.
I plan on getting the 85 II.
I am pleased with my mid range.
and am generally pleased with my body, and tele range.

but I would appreciate any one's opinion about my thought process - and if you went through the same thoguht process as well.

i am trying to decide if I will add a 5d3 to my mix (and later the 16-35 f4IS)

vs.

just adding the S18-35 1.8, 70-200 II and just more practice with my current gear

I will not be selling anything.

a little about me: I am a hobbiest/enthusiast. i shoot just about everything a "soccer dad" would shoot - from recitals of young children, to sports events of my older son and lots of family affairs inside venues and outsie ones as well.

the things I am partially interested about in regards to the 5d3: better iso handling by approx 1.5-2 stops, the double memory cards,
the cons for me: changing the UWA, loss of 2 fps, if i buy it - I can't afford any faster glass besidesthe 85 II that I mentioned above.

So - to cap off:
adding a 5d3 for some additional capabilities in IQ over the 7d with "just" the addition of the 85 II (later addition of 16-35 f4IS)
or
adding the 18-35 and 70-200 II and the 85 II and no change in the body

would I gain something for my type of shooting?

many thanks

The Sigma 18-35 + 70-200II will be a superb combo. Look towards a 5D4 rather than a5D3 which will hopefully have a Sony/Nikon bashing sensor

h14nha wrote in post #16928333
Look towards a 5D4 rather than a5D3 which will hopefully have a Sony/Nikon bashing sensor

Yup. Wait at least eighteen months for a new body with speculative specification and pay twice the cost of a 5D3. But at least it'll be the latest thing!

Seriously, get yourself the 5D3, introduce a new dimension to your kit and get out there taking pictures right now. Your current gear would be the envy of many people and if you don't intend to sell anything, you can only gain in versatility and capability, whatever you add. Good luck and happy shopping!

"...you can only gain in versatility and capability..."

...and backup.

I am a "soccer dad" and take photos of kids at home and on vacation and at recitals etc. I also take photos at events as asked by school and church. Usually flash is not an option at events and kids don't stand still all that well. I use a 6d which is great in low light. I use 24-70ii indoors and 70-200ii outdoors and larger venues. I either use a borrowed 100-400 pr rent a 300 2.8 for sports for now. I have 50 1.4 that I use occasionally as well.

I can get great soccer photos with the 6d and it is very good for all the indoor no flash events in dark place-- I love silent mode. I do not recommend the 85 1.2. I have rented the first version and getting in focus photos of moving small children was frustrating. Maybe the sigma 1.4 would be better though I've heard for recitals it can be great.

My next purchase will hopefully be something for field sports so I'm not borrowing or renting.

h14nha wrote in post #16928333
The Sigma 18-35 + 70-200II will be a superb combo. Look towards a 5D4 rather than a5D3 which will hopefully have a Sony/Nikon bashing sensor

it is indeed a thought since I am usually the type of person who waits a couple generations for new tech - and not go from generation x to generation x+1. With that said - generations in Canon take so long to move!!! I know that this statment might make seem like a simpleton, but I have very few gripes about the 7d sensor. I mean, sure, I would appreciate less noise...but for my uses...I can't say that I am suffering in most cases. It is the few cases in which the 7d can't keep up so well that I am even considering the 5d3 at this point within the options.

JohnB57 wrote in post #16928425
Yup. Wait at least eighteen months for a new body with speculative specification and pay twice the cost of a 5D3. But at least it'll be the latest thing!

Seriously, get yourself the 5D3, introduce a new dimension to your kit and get out there taking pictures right now. Your current gear would be the envy of many people and if you don't intend to sell anything, you can only gain in versatility and capability, whatever you add. Good luck and happy shopping!

I am indeed feel very privaledged that I have obtained the gear that I currently have. I suppose my question boils down to the relative value that a 5d3 to my current gear would offer vs the 70-200 II. Each one brings SOMETHING to the table. The 70-200 II brings the f2.8 and there are some reports that it is is still sharper than my f4IS version. The 5d3 brings cleaner ISOs, FF, in camera HDR (however good that may be), radio compatibility with my 600 ex rt...

but would the 7d with the 70-200 f2.8 II be noticibly different (except FOV) than the 5d3 with the 70-200 f4IS? (real question - not sarcastic)

2ndviolinman wrote in post #16928571
"...you can only gain in versatility and capability..."

...and backup.

a point in favor of the extra body.

Luxx wrote in post #16928572
I am a "soccer dad" and take photos of kids at home and on vacation and at recitals etc. I also take photos at events as asked by school and church. Usually flash is not an option at events and kids don't stand still all that well. I use a 6d which is great in low light. I use 24-70ii indoors and 70-200ii outdoors and larger venues. I either use a borrowed 100-400 pr rent a 300 2.8 for sports for now. I have 50 1.4 that I use occasionally as well.

I can get great soccer photos with the 6d and it is very good for all the indoor no flash events in dark place-- I love silent mode. I do not recommend the 85 1.2. I have rented the first version and getting in focus photos of moving small children was frustrating. Maybe the sigma 1.4 would be better though I've heard for recitals it can be great.

My next purchase will hopefully be something for field sports so I'm not borrowing or renting.

thanks for the input. Actually, I am really looking forward to the 85 1.2 II. I know that there will be a learning curve, but I really like the rendition I see it producing, and I am willing to accept its limitations of the slow AF and small DOF. I know it won't be my most used lens.

In regards to the 6d, I thought about one of those too. They sure are more comfortable on the budget for sure. and the IQ coming out of them has been good to great. I was worried though about the frame rate (i often use the spray and pray of the 7d - I know it is taboo to say it - but my shoulders are wide enough to accept the criticism - it is true...i do it!) and moving from the flexibility of the AF system of the 7d to the less flexible 6d also has me a bit worried. I admit fully that I have never played with one in my hands and that I am influenced by other's reports - but I hate buying twice....

The 100-400 is indeed also in my sights - and to get it I would have to mix up all the thought process above - or...wait!

anyway, thanks for all the opinions. keep them coming!

Heya,

I would go with glass over body on this one, unless you're finding that you can't shoot soccer with your 7D, which means to me, user error or user needs practice, as the camera is more than capable of handling everything you've described. While the 5D3 would add some ISO performance, of 2 stops, which means 2 stops faster shutter speed ultimately really, for the same noise tolerance, but if that makes the biggest difference for your shooting, I would wonder what you're actually shooting as soccer is usually fairly well lit.

I think you're better with faster glass. Why look for 1 to maybe 2 stops of ISO, when you could just get glass that is faster for less than the cost of the camera? And the glass will progress to the next camera with you. And stay fast.

You currently have slower glass, and your fastest glass has slow autofocus.

If you went to faster glass (F2.8 or faster on a telezoom; F1.8 wide zoom), I think you'd find that delivering better than simply getting more ISO performance. At least for right now.

If you simply want to go to full frame, I would actually go with the 6D over the 5D3. Shooting kids soccer doesn't need massive FPS nor the most robust autofocus. I can shoot soccer with any Rebel, I shoot local kids soccer with an XSi sometimes. It's not hard. The autofocus features are not needed in my opinion. But that's just my opinion. I set the ISO to 1600, even on the XSi, and shoot AV there in daylight.

So end of the day, I think you are better off with faster glass, and simply a bit better processing practice in regards to ISO. You can shoot ISO1600 comfortably. Just clean it up, shoot RAW.

Very best,

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16928327
sorry if
I am pleased with my mid range.
and am generally pleased with my body,

He did mention he was pleased with the 7D.

JohnB57 wrote in post #16928425
Yup. Wait at least eighteen months for a new body with speculative specification and pay twice the cost of a 5D3. But at least it'll be the latest thing!

By getting the 18-35 and 70-200II he won't need the 16-35 as the 10-22 is a stellar lens. The biggest gain will be by adding glass. Whilst he has good glass, the faster glass is better negating the FF ISO advantage with the benefit of being sharper at the same time.
Go check "Bobsters" work in the Sigma 18-35 thread to see just how good that lens is. I don't need to extol the benefits of the 70-200 II as it's been done to death, only the weight is a disadvantage over the 70-200/F4.

This is a tough one. Glass vs versatility. IMO rent 5d3 and see how you like output and handling. Rent 70-200 ii and see how you like IQ and weight.
Then make list of pros and cons.
85 1.2 will be great for full body isolation on FF.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16929919
Heya,

I would go with glass over body on this one, unless you're finding that you can't shoot soccer with your 7D, which means to me, user error or user needs practice, as the camera is more than capable of handling everything you've described. While the 5D3 would add some ISO performance, of 2 stops, which means 2 stops faster shutter speed ultimately really, for the same noise tolerance, but if that makes the biggest difference for your shooting, I would wonder what you're actually shooting as soccer is usually fairly well lit.

I think you're better with faster glass. Why look for 1 to maybe 2 stops of ISO, when you could just get glass that is faster for less than the cost of the camera? And the glass will progress to the next camera with you. And stay fast.

You currently have slower glass, and your fastest glass has slow autofocus.

If you went to faster glass (F2.8 or faster on a telezoom; F1.8 wide zoom), I think you'd find that delivering better than simply getting more ISO performance. At least for right now.

If you simply want to go to full frame, I would actually go with the 6D over the 5D3. Shooting kids soccer doesn't need massive FPS nor the most robust autofocus. I can shoot soccer with any Rebel, I shoot local kids soccer with an XSi sometimes. It's not hard. The autofocus features are not needed in my opinion. But that's just my opinion. I set the ISO to 1600, even on the XSi, and shoot AV there in daylight.

So end of the day, I think you are better off with faster glass, and simply a bit better processing practice in regards to ISO. You can shoot ISO1600 comfortably. Just clean it up, shoot RAW.

Very best,

thanks for the opinions and the reasoning behind them.
I CAN shoot what I need in most cases with my 7d. Maybe this is me getting sucked into the thought process that FF is better than crop...
and - again - the idea of the faster glass was definitely one of the real options.

h14nha wrote in post #16930524
He did mention he was pleased with the 7D.

By getting the 18-35 and 70-200II he won't need the 16-35 as the 10-22 is a stellar lens. The biggest gain will be by adding glass. Whilst he has good glass, the faster glass is better negating the FF ISO advantage with the benefit of being sharper at the same time.
Go check "Bobsters" work in the Sigma 18-35 thread to see just how good that lens is. I don't need to extol the benefits of the 70-200 II as it's been done to death, only the weight is a disadvantage over the 70-200/F4.

I am a member of the 18-35 sample thread and am quite impressed in what it can do. no doubt. I just didn't want to start with it - if was going FF... which is seems is less and less likely anyway. I am not gtting rid of the 70-200 f4IS - so if indeed I purchase the vII - I will have both - for the days that I won't want to take out the monster!

Nigi wrote in post #16930546
This is a tough one. Glass vs versatility. IMO rent 5d3 and see how you like output and handling. Rent 70-200 ii and see how you like IQ and weight.
Then make list of pros and cons.
85 1.2 will be great for full body isolation on FF.

thanks. I appreciate the empathy. I still find it tough to make a decision.
I suppose that onceI have the extra glass - the next step will be body....
I don't have a realistic way to rent the abovementioned...
so - oh well.

Thanks for your opinions

Before I started shooting weddings, I was a "soccer dad" too. My daughter was older, so the soccer was at night under the lights - which made it a lot tougher. I also shot dance recitals, etc, so it was doubly tough on lighting conditions.

Honestly, your kit is pretty good for that, although your 70-200/4 is probably why you're looking for something faster like the 85/1.2 and sigma 18-35. Might I suggest instead of the 85/1.2, you go with the combo of 135/2 and 85/1.8. I used the 135/2 for indoor performances and it was perfect, and the 85/1.8 is a great lens as well.

If you want to go the 5d3 route, there is absolutely no reason to keep your 7d.

timbop wrote in post #16930769
Before I started shooting weddings, I was a "soccer dad" too. My daughter was older, so the soccer was at night under the lights - which made it a lot tougher. I also shot dance recitals, etc, so it was doubly tough on lighting conditions.

Honestly, your kit is pretty good for that, although your 70-200/4 is probably why you're looking for something faster like the 85/1.2 and sigma 18-35. Might I suggest instead of the 85/1.2, you go with the combo of 135/2 and 85/1.8. I used the 135/2 for indoor performances and it was perfect, and the 85/1.8 is a great lens as well.

If you want to go the 5d3 route, there is absolutely no reason to keep your 7d.

thanks for that insightful post. The 135 f2 is indeed attractive since it is so much smaller than the 70-200 II. How did you do shows with a single focal length? and the 85 1.8 is also attractive for the price (vs the 1.2 II)

While it is true, there are times when I feel my general tendency towards the f4 is limiting - i also was interested in experimenting with the wider apertures for the sake of it.i never thought that the 85 1.2 would be able to keep up with focus speed of the other listed lenses.

I think I have given up the idea of the 5d3 at this point and am aiming for lenses now. I will have a wider range for the next body I will get, I suppose. Thanks again for the ideas, I will give them some serious thought

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16930941
... How did you do shows with a single focal length? ...

The dance teacher let parents shoot the dress rehearsal the night before the actual recital, so I was able to move to the "ideal" location. Although, I would frame a little wider and crop a little tighter - which also gave me a little extra wiggle room trying to catch jumps and such.

One thing to keep in mind when adding a 5D3: you are probably used to a certain FOV and DOF with that camera. Using the same lens, you will have less reach and a narrower DOF at the same aperture. If you have plenty of DOF already, great. If you have just enough, you will have less and end up stopping your lens down further with the 5D3 - partially negating that improved sensitivity/signal-to-noise. You will also have to crop more (again, with the same lens) and lose some of the resolution with the 5D3, which also translates to losing some noise performance.

I have both, and find it best if I pick the camera I need for the environment I am faced with. Often, the 7D ends up shooting sports where I have artificial lighting to help me out; and the 5D3 is used for work where I can get back just enough to fill the frame using a midrange zoom and still open the aperture wide enough to get plenty of light with sufficient DOF.

Bottom line: know what the camera is capable of, and if what you have is lacking in a specific area, then is when you want to look at alternatives. Unless you have a very low-end camera (and the 7D is definitely not one of those) you will often find compromises when switching bodies.