Am I 'hurting' my 5D3 with the 24-105L

What I'd like to see is someone to post a picture taken with the 24-105 and the same picture taken with a different lens to show the differences. Help illustrate the point.

snake0ape wrote in post #17136892
Hmmmm, maybe it is just copy variation. I had both the 5dii and III. I did not notice any big difference in picture quality. Why do you think the camera body will make such a tremendous difference? Can you show us a typical example?

78962 wrote in post #17140978
What I'd like to see is someone to post a picture taken with the 24-105 and the same picture taken with a different lens to show the differences. Help illustrate the point.

I never took one body with one lens, shoot a picture, unscrew the lens, change immediately the body, screw the lens on the other body and take exactly the same shot ..., when i take 2 bodies with me, they have always 2 different lenses and i never switch between them
they are both 35mm why i will switch ? even when i was working with 7D i never switch lenses with 5D2, i set up my cameras as my needs need it and go on, i might need to change a lens on one body with some in my bag but that's all (if i recall correctly my 7D saw only the 100-400, i don't recall to have mounted other lens on it, my wife did and do, but it's her pics/her problem )

Now, I see the differences because i know my bodies and my lenses.
For example, when i bought 5D3, it was already 3+ years that i was working with 5D2, when i put the 24-105 on 5D3, and saw the pics on the computer, my first reaction was "ho ho, it's not like 5D2"
When you use the same material every day, you know your material, you see it immediately, no need for benchmark or pixel peeping to see it ...

I don't mean this in an offensive way, but the only thing that can "hurt" the image or your 5D3 is your creativity and what you perceive is your limitation.

Any lens is capable of creating masterpieces. Sharpness is important, and a wider aperature is more ideal in certain conditions, but it isn't neceasarily difficult to overcome these.

Definitely try out new lenses, but keep the 24-105. Even Annie Leibovitz uses one in her professional shoots, and that should tell you about the importance of having a creative, artistic mind over equipment.

TS is going through a mirror less phase. I bet the 24-105 combo matches or exceeds 99% of all mirror less offerings in terms of IQ.

I am also going through a mirror less phase, but don't kid myself with what I shoot.

Maybe I should explain a bit more. First of all, I'm not saying the 24-105L is a bad lens let alone that the 5D3 would be a 'bad' camera. I've taken a lot of nice pictures with both the lens and camera, but I have a feeling I've somehow started to dislike using my 5D3 with a heavy lens. The main reason I kept the 5D3 until now is because I (not that often) get paid for some work I do which would be a bit difficult without it (reach etc).

But I'm not a professional, and don't want to turn into one either. I just love taking nice pictures of my surroundings and (more so) of my kids and family. Not the usual snapshots, I tend to take great care of the portraits I make but I have a feeling the 5D3 isn't for me anymore and the 24-105L isn't exactly helping.

Right now, I can get a pretty good price for my 5D3+70-200/F2.8 IS II and I think I can sell off my 24-105L for a nice price too, same for the accessories. I have been shooting the Sony NEX's for about 2yrs now besides my Canon (well, more than then Canon) and now have the a6000 with a couple good lenses. One thing I lack though is the quality and rendering, which is too 'computerlike' on the Sony's in my opinion.

So I'm very much thinking about getting the Fuji X-T1 with the 56mm/1.2. This seems like a fantastic combination for the kind of pictures I'm taking when I need great portrait rendering and lifelike skin colours (even in jpg). I might keep the a6000 because it's such a great walkaround with the 1670Z. Both cameras are VERY light compared to the 5D3 though. Sure, they're not FF but to be honest I'm not sure I *need* FF anymore.

Added to that, Fuji is releasing a quite capable 40-105/F2.8 in a few weeks which might be a good lens to use for those occasions where I need reach/light for paid work (like weddings and communions). I've read that quite a few "pro's" have been using the Fuji for weddings without any problems.

I like the Sony, but the lens quality and selection is lacking (even though I have about the best glass you can get for the system, I'm still not in awe). But I've seen some Fuji samples with the 56mm which just blew me away. And Charlie, you might be right. There's a reason I still haven't pulled the trigger and sold my 5D3, worried that I might regret it. But on the other hand, about 95% of the shots I've taken the last 12 months (according to my LR library) are with a mirrorless camera. The Canon is SO seldomly used it's kinda silly. I might use it more if I would get a prime for it (I think, shooting a lot indoors) but the price I can get for my 5D3+lenses would allow me to get the Fuji with a couple VERY nice lenses and then I would even save a bit of money on top of that.

It sounds like you've sold yourself on a mirror-less kit. If that's what your gut is telling you, then, do it. Your equipment should be at your command and not the other way around. If your 5D3 seems like overkill, then it probably is.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17141045
I never took one body with one lens, shoot a picture, unscrew the lens, change immediately the body, screw the lens on the other body and take exactly the same shot ..., when i take 2 bodies with me, they have always 2 different lenses and i never switch between them
they are both 35mm why i will switch ? even when i was working with 7D i never switch lenses with 5D2, i set up my cameras as my needs need it and go on, i might need to change a lens on one body with some in my bag but that's all (if i recall correctly my 7D saw only the 100-400, i don't recall to have mounted other lens on it, my wife did and do, but it's her pics/her problem )

Now, I see the differences because i know my bodies and my lenses.
For example, when i bought 5D3, it was already 3+ years that i was working with 5D2, when i put the 24-105 on 5D3, and saw the pics on the computer, my first reaction was "ho ho, it's not like 5D2"
When you use the same material every day, you know your material, you see it immediately, no need for benchmark or pixel peeping to see it ...

This is true.

And Peter Miller recently made fun of Pixel Peepers in a recent interview with B&H because it doesn't need to be done. You look at the entire picture to tell if it's good. Nobody looks at eyelashes in an art gallery and says, "ahhh, this was a great shot man!!!!!" If they do, they're an idiot and getting lost among the trees in the forest.

lapino wrote in post #17141861
Maybe I should explain a bit more. First of all, I'm not saying the 24-105L is a bad lens let alone that the 5D3 would be a 'bad' camera. I've taken a lot of nice pictures with both the lens and camera, but I have a feeling I've somehow started to dislike using my 5D3 with a heavy lens. The main reason I kept the 5D3 until now is because I (not that often) get paid for some work I do which would be a bit difficult without it (reach etc).

But I'm not a professional, and don't want to turn into one either. I just love taking nice pictures of my surroundings and (more so) of my kids and family. Not the usual snapshots, I tend to take great care of the portraits I make but I have a feeling the 5D3 isn't for me anymore and the 24-105L isn't exactly helping.

Right now, I can get a pretty good price for my 5D3+70-200/F2.8 IS II and I think I can sell off my 24-105L for a nice price too, same for the accessories. I have been shooting the Sony NEX's for about 2yrs now besides my Canon (well, more than then Canon) and now have the a6000 with a couple good lenses. One thing I lack though is the quality and rendering, which is too 'computerlike' on the Sony's in my opinion.

So I'm very much thinking about getting the Fuji X-T1 with the 56mm/1.2. This seems like a fantastic combination for the kind of pictures I'm taking when I need great portrait rendering and lifelike skin colours (even in jpg). I might keep the a6000 because it's such a great walkaround with the 1670Z. Both cameras are VERY light compared to the 5D3 though. Sure, they're not FF but to be honest I'm not sure I *need* FF anymore.

Added to that, Fuji is releasing a quite capable 40-105/F2.8 in a few weeks which might be a good lens to use for those occasions where I need reach/light for paid work (like weddings and communions). I've read that quite a few "pro's" have been using the Fuji for weddings without any problems.

I like the Sony, but the lens quality and selection is lacking (even though I have about the best glass you can get for the system, I'm still not in awe). But I've seen some Fuji samples with the 56mm which just blew me away. And Charlie, you might be right. There's a reason I still haven't pulled the trigger and sold my 5D3, worried that I might regret it. But on the other hand, about 95% of the shots I've taken the last 12 months (according to my LR library) are with a mirrorless camera. The Canon is SO seldomly used it's kinda silly. I might use it more if I would get a prime for it (I think, shooting a lot indoors) but the price I can get for my 5D3+lenses would allow me to get the Fuji with a couple VERY nice lenses and then I would even save a bit of money on top of that.

If you sell the 5D III, would you mind mentioning it in this thread? I might be interested in picking it up from you. Does it include a BG-E11 battery grip?

CRCchemist wrote in post #17142360
This is true.

And Peter Miller recently made fun of Pixel Peepers in a recent interview with B&H because it doesn't need to be done. You look at the entire picture to tell if it's good. Nobody looks at eyelashes in an art gallery and says, "ahhh, this was a great shot man!!!!!" If they do, they're an idiot and getting lost among the trees in the forest.

well, sometimes, pixel peeping is necessary. If you intend to print large, you should definitely pixel peep. There might be a stray object, dust in your lens, or whatever. You might find those on a larger print and discard your print after the fact.... I've done it multiple times now since I tend to avoid peeping.

Nowadays, pretty all of my landscape photos are peeped. It's just my personal belief in clean technical work.

I already have a buyer for my 5D3 + 70-200/IS (I live in Belgium btw). He should pick it up next thursday, that is if I give him a green light Still unsure. Been taking quite a few pics this afternoon alternating between my a6000+1670Z and the 5D3+24105. I seem to get more pics that I like from the Sony, as long as I don't go into the higher ISO's where the Canon obviously rules. Wonder if the X-T1 is a better performer in that respect. You can check my flickr page (https://www.flickr.com​/photos/hansvondercron​e/) for some examples of pictures I tend to take (uploaded about 20 new ones which I consider keepers).

lapino wrote in post #17141861
Added to that, Fuji is releasing a quite capable 40-105/F2.8 in a few weeks which might be a good lens to use for those occasions where I need reach/light for paid work (like weddings and communions). I've read that quite a few "pro's" have been using the Fuji for weddings without any problems.

I like the Sony, but the lens quality and selection is lacking (even though I have about the best glass you can get for the system, I'm still not in awe). But I've seen some Fuji samples with the 56mm which just blew me away. And Charlie, you might be right. There's a reason I still haven't pulled the trigger and sold my 5D3, worried that I might regret it. But on the other hand, about 95% of the shots I've taken the last 12 months (according to my LR library) are with a mirrorless camera. The Canon is SO seldomly used it's kinda silly. I might use it more if I would get a prime for it (I think, shooting a lot indoors) but the price I can get for my 5D3+lenses would allow me to get the Fuji with a couple VERY nice lenses and then I would even save a bit of money on top of that.

for weddings and church type events,I do agree that your fuji setup you have in mind will be ample. They're slow events, and AF is pretty much a non issue for me. I remember my rebel days, and even then, had little problems capturing those events.

I personally choose the Sony A7r series + canon 6D, and I find that combo is great. I really like having two bodies when I shoot, and I could easily make one of those events work with manual focus, but my 6D kit is fairly inexpensive and can easily cover.

I chose the A7r over fuji for FF. A crop sensor just doesnt cut it for me and my goals. For my lightweight kit, I sacrificed AF, electronic aperture, primes instead of zooms, but IQ is not sacrificed too much (50L vs FDn 50 F1.4). I'm confident that IQ is still way above APS, and that bokeh, definitely cant give up on that.

Mind that I *DO* need a capable AF system for capturing my kids, they seldom are sitting still. But from what I've read the AF performance of the X-T1 should be about the same as the Sony a6000 no? Like I said before, I might just sell my Canon lenses and get a nice prime for the Canon since I don't think any zoom will work for me anyway.

lapino wrote in post #17142410
Mind that I *DO* need a capable AF system for capturing my kids, they seldom are sitting still. But from what I've read the AF performance of the X-T1 should be about the same as the Sony a6000 no? Like I said before, I might just sell my Canon lenses and get a nice prime for the Canon since I don't think any zoom will work for me anyway.

I am rather late to the party here but, seriously, if you cannot get sharp pictures of your kids (with or without a flash) using the 24-105 and the focusing ability of the 5D3, then sell it. But, your experience with that combo is no reflection whatsoever on the quality of that combo; it's more than capable enough to capture what you seem to want. Read the manual. Action shots on the 5D3 should not be a chore.

I had the 5D, the 5D2 and now the 5D3. I have used the 24-105 on all three of them. It is an outstanding lens. Is it fast? It's as fast as any other f/4. Are its colors and contrast excellent. Yes. Is is better on the 5D3 - yes, absolutely. But, take a poll (and you have sort of done that with this thread) - not everyone will agree.

My guess is that, if you get the 24-70 f/2.8 (either the original brick or the newer - slightly less heavy - brick), you'll complain it's too heavy and you'll say you need a shutter speed of 500 or whatever. And you'll have spent close to $2,000 (for the II), for what? A non-IS lens when the IS model was not getting you sharp shots to begin with?

If a prime is going to be your answer, spend some time with the 24-105 to see what focal length you want. The new 35 f/2 IS, the old 50 f/1.4 or the 85 f/1.8 or something else. All are very good. I would start with these reasonably priced, excellent reputation lenses before spending a hunk more cash on larger, heavier, more expensive primes to solve a problem that you are still trying to identify.

And, wow you got more pop from your 7D/17-55 combo? I will take the 24-105 on full frame any day over the 17-55 mounted on anything. Unless you really need the f/2.8 and it's that that makes it pop. But, not in my experience. I even consider the 18-135STM an equivalent lens (except for speed) to the 17-55 and 15-85.

My guess: You want something lighter and smaller but better than the mirrorless you have now. OK, go for it. Or try the SL1 and maybe your Canon system will come back to life.

You have four excellent cameras and are looking for another because your cameras are not getting the job done? Sounds like GAS to me.

I don't own 4 cameras, I own two (5D3 and a6000). The rx100m3 is my wife's camerz. But I understand what you say. What might not be clear is that I have been using slr's since the Canon 10d and have LOT of experience. I am not saying I am a good photographet (although most of my clients for weddings were incredibly happy) but I can say I have a lot of hours behind me using cameras of all sorts. I just dont know why I started to dislike the combo. I find it weird myself. Maybe it is the weight, maybe it is a effort needed to make the most of it. Or maybe I lost it Btw, pics I post online are mostly snapshots, I can't post my paid work for privacy reasons.

lapino wrote in post #17142410
Mind that I *DO* need a capable AF system for capturing my kids, they seldom are sitting still. But from what I've read the AF performance of the X-T1 should be about the same as the Sony a6000 no? Like I said before, I might just sell my Canon lenses and get a nice prime for the Canon since I don't think any zoom will work for me anyway.

I have no first hand experience with either crop cameras, but if anything, you've got more DOF, so a super duper AF is not needed. I find that shooting my kids, I really dont need AF 90% of the time, and even with the activities they participate in, such as swimming and karate. It's pretty easy to manual focus those sports, but fast paced at the jungle gym or soccer, I AF would be preferred.

Right now, I'm heavily biased in favor of manual focus since I am able to achieve a good keeper rate, so take my post with a large grain of salt. In either case, hope it works out for you.