Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 11 Mar 2015 (Wednesday) 17:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Add a Body (7D MK II) or Glass?

 
Roxie2401
Senior Member
Avatar
355 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Western PA
Post edited over 5 years ago by Roxie2401.
     
Mar 11, 2015 17:29 |  #1

I recently sold my 7D and now have the 5D MK III, but.......there were times when I used my 70-300 (non-L) and got the 1.6x factor, making it a 480. Now, naturally, on the FF, its basically a 300mm max lens.

With the recent price drop on the 7D MK II, should I make that leap and add a crop body back into the kit, or find better glass? Does the capabilities of 7D MK II make it a positive addition? Note: Even the new 100-400mm still isn't going to get me back to where I was with the crop body, without a teleconverter.

I know this has been discussed over and over and I'm sorry to bring it up again (FF vs. Crop) or maybe "Body vs. Glass."

I also know a lot of this comes down to "what do you shoot" most. How often do you need that additional reach, etc.? Does it make sense to have a Full Frame and a Crop Body?

Thanks so much for the great input.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,289 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Mar 11, 2015 23:03 |  #2

Is that the only lens you have? In general, buying better glass is more cost-effective than getting a new camera as long as your body is reasonably recent. I'd lean toward better glass for the 5D3, based on what I have seen over the last decade in terms of system capabilities.

One downside to a crop sensor is that you need a really really short focal length to get a wide angle. I'm fortunate to be able to afford both types of body, so as to choose what's more important for a particular shoot.

I haven't used my 7D2 very long, but initial impressions are very positive. I see dramatic improvement in the autofocus capabilities over the 7D, and there is a useful reduction in high ISO noise as well. I expect I will use it more often and the 5D3 less often - which is why I bought it.


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Motor ­ On
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Feb 2007
     
Mar 11, 2015 23:36 |  #3

As far as the IQ coming out of it, I'd put the 7D2 well ahead of my 7D, but still lagging behind the 5D3 for the files it puts out. I can still tell which images came off the 5D3. That said, Canon did make the process of making the photo much smoother and I prefer the interface of the 7D2 over both the 5D3 and 7D after about a 10min rundown of customizing the controls.

You noted the 7DII price drop, if you can only do one, I'd do the glass first, it's likely to stay in the same cost for a long while, and the 7D2 price is still settling. Get the glass now, then start saving for the 7D2 and if you still feel you need the crop factor down the road (it's GAS you will feel the need for more reach), then hopefully by that point the 7D2 price point will be as such you'll save more money in the long run. I went body first with a 7D2 because my 7D died and I couldn't justify the extra cost to go up to a second 5D3 and the 7D2 is closer a gap than the 7D was.


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NBEast
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Aug 2005
Location: So Cal
     
Mar 11, 2015 23:49 |  #4

You didn't really say what your shooting style is or what other lenses you have. Do you find yourself really wanting, or is your equipment meeting your needs?

If you're doing OK then it's a question of what candy do you want. If you're seriously lacking some lens range or quality, then it seems like you should fill that before getting a redundant body.

There's one thing; a lens will depreciate a lot slower!


Gear List / Photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
texaskev
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 217
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Austin & Dallas Texas
     
Mar 12, 2015 02:42 |  #5

You have a great camera body. I'd spend the $ on glass and maybe a telaconverter.


Canon 1DX II, 1DX, 11-24 F4 L, 100 F2.8 L, 16-35 F2.8 L II, 17-40 F4 L, 24-70 F2.8 L II, 24-105 F4 L II, 70-200 F2.8 L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
colintf
Senior Member
304 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, UK
     
Mar 12, 2015 06:17 |  #6

get the 100-400 mk2 and crop :-)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,998 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1322
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Mar 12, 2015 06:19 |  #7

texaskev wrote in post #17471372 (external link)
You have a great camera body. I'd spend the $ on glass and maybe a telaconverter.

This


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,532 posts
Gallery: 1879 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11561
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Mar 12, 2015 06:47 |  #8

Roxie2401 wrote in post #17470745 (external link)
I recently sold my 7D and now have the 5D MK III, but.......there were times when I used my 70-300 (non-L) and got the 1.6x factor, making it a 480. Now, naturally, on the FF, its basically a 300mm max lens.

With the recent price drop on the 7D MK II, should I make that leap and add a crop body back into the kit, or find better glass? Does the capabilities of 7D MK II make it a positive addition? Note: Even the new 100-400mm still isn't going to get me back to where I was with the crop body, without a teleconverter.

I know this has been discussed over and over and I'm sorry to bring it up again (FF vs. Crop) or maybe "Body vs. Glass."

I also know a lot of this comes down to "what do you shoot" most. How often do you need that additional reach, etc.? Does it make sense to have a Full Frame and a Crop Body?

Thanks so much for the great input.

Heya,

I'd go with glass here. A 100-400 II costs in a similar range as the 7D2. You have a 5D3. I'd take a 5D3 + 400mm, over a 7D2 + 300mm. The 80mm difference in glass and the resulting overall change in field of view from it is negligible and I would consider no loss really.

It makes sense to have APS-C, APS-H and Full Frame, they have their spots. But it really depends on what you need. If you need reach, I would suggest you put money into physical focal length reach, before fiddling with crops. The resolution difference has to be rather significant to make it an advantage. Since you already have the 5D3, I think physical glass is the better route for cost, and just get the biggest piece of longest glass you can.

In fact, instead of the 100-400, I'd even suggest you simply look for a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 and a 1.4x, 2.0x TC and have 120 f2.8, 300 f2.8, 420 F4, 600 F5.6 as options instead for a very similar cost.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,230 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Likes: 318
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Mar 12, 2015 07:48 |  #9

Roxie2401 wrote in post #17470745 (external link)
I also know a lot of this comes down to "what do you shoot" most. How often do you need that additional reach, etc.? Does it make sense to have a Full Frame and a Crop Body?

Yes, it does come down to what and how you shoot, and unfortunately you did not share that information with us.

Personally, I still find occasional use for a crop body even after buying a 5D3 a couple of years ago. In my case, I kept my 7D after buying the 5D3 and use it exclusively as a dedicated wildlife body with a 100-400L (soon upgrading to a 100-400L MK II). Having two bodies setup in such a manner greatly reduces lens swapping, and allows me to be ready to shoot both landscapes and wildlife. When I had only a single camera body, when we would travel to places such as Yellowstone N.P., I would constantly be swapping lenses, as I always wanted to keep a telephoto mounted as we moved around the park -- the reason being that mountains and waterfalls will wait for you to swap lenses, but grizzly bears and wolves will not. With two bodies, I can avoid that cumbersome situation and just leave the telephoto mounted on the 7D and use either a 24-105L or 16-35L f/4 on the 5D3.

That being said, I've decided to hold off upgrading the 7D to a 7D2 for now, as the crop body only gets used 3-4 time per year. When I take a single body, it is always the 5D3. So, the cost to upgrade just isn't worth it to me for the amount the camera gets used. Maybe I would use a 7D2 more, but I have prioritized upgrading the 100-400L to the MKII first (already sold the old lens).


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roxie2401
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
355 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Western PA
Post edited over 5 years ago by Roxie2401.
     
Mar 12, 2015 08:41 |  #10

I really appreciate the input so far. I should have listed my existing lenses. I have the following:

EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 24-105mm F/4 L IS USM L
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8mm L IS II USM

And I would like to add the EF 16-35mm F/4 L IS USM as the next "wish list" item.

I do tend to shoot most everything, but really like landscape & architecture most. The crop "reach" issue comes in with things like the Indy 500 - and the 70-300 did a nice job on the crop body.

Based on what I have read so far, it looks like adding glass to the 5D3 is the way to go (and yes, I'm drooling over the new 100-400 f/4 L --- I wish I could see more examples other than BIF with that lens).

Maybe the people who already posted will be able to take a look and add more comments.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,376 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6394
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 12, 2015 10:02 |  #11

hmm, buys 5D mk3 and skimps on glass.... definitely a nono.

150-600 options if you have to get exactly 480
any version of the 100-400 cropped at 400 will give you much better results than what you were getting with the 70-300 @ 300 on apsc.

heck, even a 2xiii converter on the 70-200 mkii will do a better job.

that would be your most inexpensive solution for incidental reach.


Sony A7riii/A9 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,165 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 243
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Mar 12, 2015 10:22 |  #12

Roxie.
For years I was shooting a pair of 7D's as I would carry two bodies mounted ready to go. I wanted to get the 5D Mark II, but it did not have the AF system of the 7D which I really liked. Once the 5D Mark III as introduced with an improved AF System, I knew it was for me. For a year I was shooting almost exclusively with the 5D Mark III as the files are just that. Even sports and BIF. However the reach was an issue. So I upgraded my Canon Extender EF 1.4x II to the III. A noticeable difference in quality and speed as it was designed to do. A nice option to have on both your 5D Mark III now and a 7D Mark II down the road should you add.
I did just added a second 5D Mark III as again I can shoot two bodies without swapping lenses back and forth. Down the road I may add a 7D Mark II myself. Everything we are hearing is it is better than our old trusty 7D's.
For your lens options, adding the 16-35 f/4 L IS is a great place to start as you suggested. Last year this was not an option as it was not introduced. I did buy the 17-40 f/4 L, which is no slouch.
Having got the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS from a great Bald Eagle photographer friend of mine seven years ago, the new 100-400 II has got my eye.
So yes, put me in the group of adding more glass and the EX 1.4 III Extender as well.
Tell you pup Skippy says Woof!


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roxie2401
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
355 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Western PA
Post edited over 5 years ago by Roxie2401.
     
Mar 12, 2015 11:30 as a reply to  @ Charlie's post |  #13

Charlie,

I wasn't intentionally "skimping" on glass. My first digital was the 40D with the EF-S 17-85. The lens collection has been a situation of "add as you have the funds." The first tele was the 70-300 non-L and back then it was the best I could afford. Same with the macro - they didn't have the new one with the IS then. The 24-105L came with the 5D3 and then I added the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

200-400 are really out of the price range right now; and maybe even the new 100-400.

I have been thinking about the 1.4 III converter but maybe should look at the 2x III.

This is a very slow, deliberate process for me and I tend to buy the very best I can afford when I do finally make a decision.

I'd be interested to hear more about the 1.4 vs. 2x tele, if you have time.

Thanks




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LastX
Member
33 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Northeast
     
Mar 12, 2015 11:32 as a reply to  @ Nick5's post |  #14

If you shoot architecture and landscape the most why not get a wide angle lens?

For reach you could get a 2xiii converter to go with your 70-200 mkii




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roxie2401
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
355 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Western PA
Post edited over 5 years ago by Roxie2401.
     
Mar 12, 2015 11:32 as a reply to  @ Nick5's post |  #15

Nick,

Thanks for the great advice. If you have time, any additional comments about the 1.4 III vs. the 2x III? If I'm correct I currently only have one lens that the teleconverter will work with - the 70-200 f/2.8 L II.

Roxie is no longer a pup - she is 12 and definitely "in charge!"




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,519 views & 0 likes for this thread
Add a Body (7D MK II) or Glass?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Guashumerda
855 guests, 189 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.