If you have Full Frame, did you still keep your Crop Body?

ksbal wrote in post #17545976
SYS -
I use my 7D2 for portraits, indoor and out, along with sports and horses - got a 5DII recently, and while I like the files and the rendering, I dont' see that much difference in my portrait work between the two - other than how fast the FF goes oof. I rather like that I can have the higher sync speed with the 7D2 - So I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the specific situation mentioned that the 7D2 doesn't keep up with the 5D3 in the studio.. anything more specific?

No one wants to shoot at 10,000 or 16000 iso, and pixel peeping puts the file as mush - but for something for smaller prints in dark environments the 7D2 is pretty impressive for a crop. I needed that iso to freeze action for over fences.. I was amazed I could do it and have something decent.

I never said anything negative about portrait shooting situations.

SYS wrote in post #17545928
I'm being greedy. I shoot mostly indoor classical music concerts, as well as outdoor wildlife and birds. I shoot some portraits, too, both studio and natural. The 5D3 is very satisfying for the former shooting situations using high ISO, as well as portraits, but not so much the latter shooting situations. What I was hoping for in 7DII was equally matching indoor shooting situations. Now, to be fair, I'm basing my judgment on what other folks have reported and some side-by-side tests and not based on my personal testing and observation. I also do understand that it's not quite fair to be so picky about its high ISO capabilities when it's specialty is for wildlife and sports. My disappointment, too, was based on my original plan to have 5DIII replaced with 7DII to serve all my primary shooting needs. I suppose if I'm to keep 5DIII, I'd have to agree that 7DII would complement it very well.

Gotcha, no I also would not replace my 5D3 with the 7D2,. for a few reasons, including those you site. But again, side by each they make a great combo!
I'd certainly choose the 5D3 (or 1D4 for that matter) over 7D2 for shooting a classical concert.

Wilt wrote in post #17545932
CDS, I just looked at the test report for the 7D2 on dpreview.com, and while they do not make available any graph comparisons of noise including 7D2 results, they did include image comparisons. This test deliberately UNDERexposes by -5EV, then uses ACR pushing back +5EV, to characterize 'exposure latitude'. I selected 4 different Canons to compare here...

This does put the banding improvement to test with the 7D2 winning.

I upgraded from a T2i to a 1D3, and after a year sold it to purchase a 6D. After a year of using it, I decided the 1D3 would be a good compliment for day sports, and purchased another. I'm actually thinking about selling the 1D3 to get a Sony a6000. It seems like that would be a better alternative for low light sports as well. BTW, I use a VAF-6D anti alias for my 6D. It really helps control moire. I mainly just use it for filming.

Went from a 450D to a 6D. The 6D's 20mp cropped by 1.6x is about the same as the 450D's 12MP. I wouldn't have any extra reach shooting with the 450D, so I gave it to my brother.

RDKirk wrote in post #17482305
TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Every benefit has its trade-off, and that is especially true in photography.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g …uch_thing_as_a_​free_lunch

Yep! Which is why when I moved up to full frame I sold all the crop gear to get a clean start... and although it was not part of my decision when I chose a D750, I always knew I was likely to purchase a crop body to complement it in the near future - fortunately for me the D750 shares similar layout and functionality the the D7100 and D7200 bodies to make usability not that big an issue... then again I keep asking myself if instead of a crop body complement I may not just prefer to buy another D750...

I was using a 7D before I moved to the 5D Mark 3. I had 2 crop lens- the canon 15-85mm and Sigma 30/2.4 (non- ART). I sold the 7D and the lens to partly fund the 5D Mark 3 and the Tamron 24-70. I do not shoot a lot, and could not justify keeping two bodies. For an occasional paid wedding, I rent another body.

Cheers
Ajay

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17545881
This is a bad assumption.

That wasn't an outright assumption. I was asking the person if I could assume, because those conditions are necessary for the FF to be clearly superior.

The 7D2 is possibly the first crop body from Canon that has approximately the same read noise "per unit of sensor area" as its best FF cameras of the same time period. In the past, this was only valid with a newer crop vs an older FF. There is also the issue that less people were willing to accept the fact that 100% pixel views are totally arbitrary magnifications, and more people are now willing to compare at the same subject size. The whole idea of comparing a big-pixel FF image at 160% to the crop at 100% (or whatever ratio makes the subject the same size in focal-length-limited situations) was once considered absurd by most people using these bigger-pixel cameras.

It isn't given directly, but if you want to get, say, what DxOMark results for a FF camera with images cropped to 1.6x would be, you just lower their results by 2/3 stop or 4 dB, to compensate for the loss of about 40% of the sensor area. For 1.3x crops, 1/3 stop or 2 dB. These 3 sensor sizes are almost perfectly 1/3-stop away from each other. When adjusted like this, the 1Dx is maybe a tiny bit better than the 7D2, the 6D about the same, and the 5D3 slightly noisier, and all 1.3x-crop cameras noisier. That doesn't even factor resolution in, and higher resolutions with the same noise per unit of sensor area allows more NR with less loss of detail like edge locations.

Well, most of the ugliness of read noise is due to things like banding. Banding doesn't have to have bold stripes constant across the frame to make noise more visible. It causes chromatic blotches even when the banding itself is subliminal. The 7D2 has very weak banding noise compared to most other Canons - that's why you can crop it at higher ISOs or in low-ISO shadows with a minimum of chromatic blotchiness.

If you can't get closer, it doesn't matter; the larger sensor only helps you if you use all of its area - it is not like a satellite dish, where bigger = more signal; it is like a bigger net that catches more fish - if and only if the school of fish is spread out over the entire net area. If the school of fish is small and near the center of the net, the larger net is not going to catch more fish.

I have both in which they compliment each other well.
Most of the time I carry 2 cameras for landscape photography.

7D2 - 17-40
5D2 - 70-200

Of course they both have their purpose when used separate. If carrying one camera, I generally put the 24-70 on the 5D2 or 7D2.

Like many here, I moved up to a 6D, and now I just picked up the 5dIII. I kept the older crop, but don't shoot it anymore. Color me snoody but I'm spoiled by full frame. My older crop Rebel just sits there. I kinda feel bad but maybe I should use it to practice sensor cleaning or maybe a DIY infrared conversion kit. Not sure I want to do IR photography though, LOL.

I recently acquired a 5D2 - after purchasing the 7D2. I carry both and grab based on need. For shallow DOF /stationary objects I grab the 5D2. For fast action, the 7D2, and either is my portrait option depending on my DOF/AF needs. I need more coverage on the wide end, I grab the 5D2 - more reach the 7D2 - could I make due with only one of them? Sure I could. But I have two great tools to use when their strength works best. Why limit yourself if you don't need to? But my shooting needs vary every day, my subjects vary every shoot. Yes I love the FF, but the IQ on the 7D2 along with the AF/FPS will have it in the bag for a long time.

It occurs to me that for years my "landscape body" was 1.6x APS-C (in infra red) and my "long lens" bodies were larger sensors.

I do things bass-ackwards apparently.

CyberDyne - no you don't! Larger sensors are better simply overall.

John Sheehy - there is nothing on your gear list so it is difficult to help with your assertions regarding focal length limitations. in response to your post:

"So then, are we to assume that your shooting is mainly of close or large objects, and that you are rarely focal-length-limited? That makes a huge difference when taking your assessment into account. I don't doubt that if you fill your frame in every case, the FF image has about the same (equivalence) or less (shallower DOF) noise, and that the same lens can resolve more lines on a larger sensor, but when people report better "IQ" in focal-length-limited situations vs the 7D2, I have to wonder if they are going by pixel sharpness (and pixel noise), which has no direct relation to subject detail."

My photography is SEVERELY focal length limited, so much so that I have invested in the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS. Whilst I agree that a 7D2 will give me more reach - is it worth it? Having used a few 7D2 cameras I like them but the "reach advantage", whilst there, is small. Against that there is the reduced high ISO performance - very important with long lenses. I am not a noise junkie but I like resolution and will accept a little noise so long as detail does not suffer. With crop cameras I get significantly more noise and the detail suffers badly as the ISO goes up so any low ISO advantage of a crop camera is very quickly compromised.
When I report better IQ in "Focal Length limited situations" I am looking at prints and yes, to date, the larger sensors are better.
Just my experiences.

I have a variety of cameras, but for DSLRs my 60D complements my 5D3.

I shoot lots of things, including the high school marching band, high school soccer, ballet, fashion, and street/travel. While my camera of choice is almost always the 5D3, the 60D is my backup camera. That said, yesterday I was shooting a ballet performance and had the 60D as a backup. Because of the stage size and proximity of it from the lighting booth, 70mm was too long of a focal length to cover the stage. I juggled lenses and used the 24-105 on the 60D and 70-200 on the 5D3. The Brick, 24-70, became my backup lens. While the 5D3 covered the action and low light stage performance, the 60D was perfect for curtain calls.

Friday is a high school band event, and the weekend is a trip to NYC. Originally I was going to use the 5D3 for both, but the 60D can easily do the band event (indoor, supplemented with a 580EX II). I can prepare and pack kits for each event in advance so that after the band event Friday night my camera gear for the weekend is all ready to go.

I'll take this a step further. Since getting the 5D3, I've also gotten an ELPH 330 and a G16. The Elph is the camera I keep with me virtually all of the time. When it's the only camera I have, it takes a respectable photo. The G16 can take some excellent photos, and it's perfect when you don't have the flexibility to tend a bag full of gear.

Full frame is great! The 5D3 is an impressive camera. My 60D still serves a purpose, as do the G16 and Elph.

I use a 5D Mark II and a 7D Mark II. Love 'em both.