7D2+F2.8 zooms vs 5D3+F4 zooms

For the record: I have owned both the 7D + 5D3 in the past. Been experimenting with mirrorless for quite a while now and while the system has its pro's, there are still quite a bit of cons too. Mainly for me: AF performance (esp in low light) and lens choice. So I'm considering to get back into the SLR 'game'. I have sold everything I've owned so I'm not stuck on either lenses nor bodies nor brands for that matter. That said, the D750 seems nice but I'm still kind of a "Canon" guy. So...

...since I do a lot of indoor, kids, lowlight stuff I need both good ISO performance but also fast lenses. Of course primes are cheap/good but I'm also someone who loves using zooms. And this brings me to my dilemma, price-wise. I know the differences between APSC and FF having used both for years, so I know what I can expect when it comes to focal length, dof etc.

The 7D2 is supposed to have very good high ISO performance, and the budget I'm thinking about to spend (around € 4.000) gets me a 7D2 + 17-55/2.8 + 70-200/F2.8 IS II. This is a major 'plus' since I would be using f2.8 zooms all the way (and I know the 17-55 is very good).

If I would go for the 5D3 and staying withing the same budget, at best I can get the 5D3 + 24-105/F4 + 70-200/F4. So I would be getting about the same DOF compared to the 7D2, but the 7D2 would get me higher shutter speeds at the same ISO settings. Of course the 5D3 is about (I think) one stop better than the 7D2 but that puts them about 'on par' right?

Am I right in this comparison, or am I missing something? Of course, the "best" thing to do would be to get the 5D3 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 but that's out of my price range for now. And I know I'll need good AF performance so the 6D is not for me. Pretty sure about that.

Curious what you guys would have to say about this.

For a competent post-processor (is this a legitimate word, or did I just make it up?... ) one can shoot to the top native ISO and achieve a reasonable NR/detail retention balance.

So you can be shooting at ISO 12800 with the 7DII and ISO 25600 with the 5DIII. I have to confess that other than experimenting with NR methods at ISO25600, I never fired my 5DIII that high in anger. Not because I didn't want the noise, but because I didn't have to. The highest I ever went was ISO18000 and even this was not necessary.

I have shot the 60D at its limit (ISO6400) numerous times and the images clean up fine in RAW. I have no trouble projecting that it will be easier with the 7DII and even more easy with the 5DIII.

On the other hand, I have trouble with the fast lens buying you shutter speed at top ISO. You loose DOF, which you may not wish to relinquish, but this is really another story.

In my opinion, ISO capability is not a real issue, rather more like bragging rights.

My bottom line is look at what other features are important for the body. Do you need the 10 FPS? Do you need the 'reach'. Can you live with the crop lens, should you decide to upgrade?

Can you live with all third party lenses? (5D3, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC).

Tell us what you decide!

I definitely will not be getting third pary lenses, due to bad experiences in the past with af.

you should be able to figure this yourself with your existing gear and your collective images. Only you will know if your image quality will be satisfactory, because both have top notch AF. It just comes down to IQ, the 7Dii will be on the level of your current A6000, and I'm sure you have older 5D3 raws.

5D3 + F4 zooms is an easy pick for me. Get 2.8 zooms for the 7D2, and your upgrade path is just about over. I'de take the image quality of the 5D3 + F4 zooms, since you're harping on ISO and DOF, those will mostly be similar, however the elephant in the room is sharpness, tonality, color fidelity, contrast. You wont be able to match that regardless of the ISO debate.

MakisM1 wrote in post #17502200
For a competent post-processor (is this a legitimate word, or did I just make it up?... ) one can shoot to the top native ISO and achieve a reasonable NR/detail retention balance.

So you can be shooting at ISO 12800 with the 7DII and ISO 25600 with the 5DIII. I have to confess that other than experimenting with NR methods at ISO25600, I never fired my 5DIII that high in anger. Not because I didn't want the noise, but because I didn't have to. The highest I ever went was ISO18000 and even this was not necessary.

I have shot the 60D at its limit (ISO6400) numerous times and the images clean up fine in RAW. I have no trouble projecting that it will be easier with the 7DII and even more easy with the 5DIII.

This; if I needed to get the shot at any cost, I know my 7D2 would deliver at ISO16000. It's about 1 stop behind the 5D3 which is just fine for me. I would note that the larger aperture lens has two advantages beyond DoF control: 1) faster, more accurate autofocus due to activating the high precision AF points; 2) low light or astrophotography - delivering more photons to the sensor during exposures than a smaller aperture lens (and I'm not just talking about f/number).

I shot an event last night with my 24-105 and the 7D2, and I can tell you that this camera will AF very quickly in low light with that lens. Yes, the 24-70 f/2.8 will do even better, but the fact that the 7D2 will AF so well at f/4 is a plus. I'm not sure if the 5D3 is as fast as the 7D2; in practical terms I can't see much difference. Image quality is just about a wash unless you're using a poor lens and maximum ISO; just remember that the higher pixel density of the 7D2 will reward a sharp lens and a stable posture/position, as well as giving you more "reach". If you can't fill the frame with the 5D3, it will definitely bias the image quality toward the 7D2.

lapino wrote in post #17502161
For the record: I have owned both the 7D + 5D3 in the past. Been experimenting with mirrorless for quite a while now and while the system has its pro's, there are still quite a bit of cons too. Mainly for me: AF performance (esp in low light) and lens choice. So I'm considering to get back into the SLR 'game'. I have sold everything I've owned so I'm not stuck on either lenses nor bodies nor brands for that matter. That said, the D750 seems nice but I'm still kind of a "Canon" guy. So...

...since I do a lot of indoor, kids, lowlight stuff I need both good ISO performance but also fast lenses. Of course primes are cheap/good but I'm also someone who loves using zooms. And this brings me to my dilemma, price-wise. I know the differences between APSC and FF having used both for years, so I know what I can expect when it comes to focal length, dof etc.

The 7D2 is supposed to have very good high ISO performance, and the budget I'm thinking about to spend (around € 4.000) gets me a 7D2 + 17-55/2.8 + 70-200/F2.8 IS II. This is a major 'plus' since I would be using f2.8 zooms all the way (and I know the 17-55 is very good).

If I would go for the 5D3 and staying withing the same budget, at best I can get the 5D3 + 24-105/F4 + 70-200/F4. So I would be getting about the same DOF compared to the 7D2, but the 7D2 would get me higher shutter speeds at the same ISO settings. Of course the 5D3 is about (I think) one stop better than the 7D2 but that puts them about 'on par' right?

Am I right in this comparison, or am I missing something? Of course, the "best" thing to do would be to get the 5D3 + 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 but that's out of my price range for now. And I know I'll need good AF performance so the 6D is not for me. Pretty sure about that.

Curious what you guys would have to say about this.

You seems to know what you are speaking about, IMO your analysis is good, so i don't see how i can help you

MakisM1 wrote in post #17502200
Can you live with all third party lenses? (5D3, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC).

Tell us what you decide!

You might rethink your opinion about third party lenses, specially with those 2 lenses