7DII for low light photography

Still making up my mind between the 5D3 and 7D2. Have both owned the 5D3 + 7D in the past, but looking for a body that compliments my Sony A6000 for faster AF and (mainly) indoor AF with decent zooms. Mirrorless is not quite there yet. I know the difference between FF and APSC so let's not make this a debate about pro's cons. What I do want to know however, is how the 7D2 stacks up against the 5D3 for indoor/lowlight focussing, with apertures from f2.8 and below.

I can't speak to the 5DIII, but I had good luck with the 7DII and 30mm 1.4 on dark rides at Disney World last month. No problem focusing in very low light conditions.

What is the ev rating for the 7d2?

-3, I believe. Someone will correct me if I am wrong,

still kinda struggling if the 7d2 will be on par with the 5d3 for portraits. i know, no ff and different dof but the cost of ff is killing me since I no longer make (enough) money woth my hobby. mind I would love the 7d2 aso for safari's and especially the kids being active. My a6000 is good but glass and speed is too limiting for now

You raise a number of issues.

a) Low light performance

I can't quote 7DII data, but it is indicated that the 7DII sensor has similar performance to the 70D sensor for how ISO. If we accept this, the 5DIII will have one stop better performance in high ISO.

price difference for bodies is not that much, but I always longed for a 24-70/2.8 when I had the 5d3 but could not justify the price, knowing a 7d2 with a 17-55/2.8 goves about the same image, keeping in mind one stop less dof and iso performance for the ff. But at a very high cost. Also, the 7d2 has advantages for reach. Loved how the 70-300l performed on my 7d a few years back.

Thinking now about the 7d2 plus 17-55/2.8 plus 70-300l and a 35/1.4 sigma for low light.

lapino wrote in post #17518043
price difference for bodies is not that much, but I always longed for a 24-70/2.8 when I had the 5d3 but could not justify the price, knowing a 7d2 with a 17-55/2.8 goves about the same image, keeping in mind one stop less dof and iso performance for the ff. But at a very high cost. Also, the 7d2 has advantages for reach. Loved how the 70-300l performed on my 7d a few years back.

Thinking now about the 7d2 plus 17-55/2.8 plus 70-300l and a 35/1.4 sigma for low light.

As long as you are going crop, consider the Sigma 30mm 1.4 Art as well. It is very good, and $400 less than the 35mm.

lapino wrote in post #17518043
price difference for bodies is not that much, but I always longed for a 24-70/2.8 when I had the 5d3 but could not justify the price, knowing a 7d2 with a 17-55/2.8 goves about the same image, keeping in mind one stop less dof and iso performance for the ff. But at a very high cost. Also, the 7d2 has advantages for reach. Loved how the 70-300l performed on my 7d a few years back.

Thinking now about the 7d2 plus 17-55/2.8 plus 70-300l and a 35/1.4 sigma for low light.

I think it is a good thought!

However, keep in mind that FOR THE SAME LENS, the FF is going to have the photos 1.x sharper (because the crop magnifies 1.6x more). So a crop with the 17-55 will not be the same as a FF with the 24-70 MkII, in terms of sharpness.

Not pretending to be an expert but this is simply not true, instead due to pixel density the 7d should be sharper (not considering lens quality of course). Correct me if I am wrong.

Let's say for the sake of the argument that a lens resolves 100 line pairs per mm (lp/mm) uniformly.

On the 7DII, on the long side (22.4 mm) we can cram in 2240 line pairs.

On the 5DIII on the long side (36 mm) we can cram in 3600 line pairs.

Printing a frame from each, the 5DIII will be sharper, even if the number of pixels is approximately the same per side.

Look at it this way, the smaller sensor will have to be magnified 1.6 times more to give you the same photo, it can't be sharper.

The crop camera can be sharper IF the lens is capable of resolving at high enough lp/mm to properly image the subject on the sensor without blur; the crop sensor's additional pixels on target will have the capability of rendering more detail. That's because the same lens will give an apparently magnified view on a crop sensor, so you'll have to take that into account when comparing images between them. If you adjust for field of view (e.g., change focal length or move) the difference will be less pronounced.

If you are doing astro or low light work, the 7D2 has superior read noise / thermal noise (not necessarily raw noise) to any other Canon at the moment. Read this article by Roger Clark for the details.

There goes the old pixel on target comparison. Yes, if you shoot the moon and have to crop, the crop camera will put more pixels on target and resolve more detail. But we have to talk about the same photo, framed the same way to have a comparison.

If you wish to take your argument conversely, Saturday I was shooting a choir performing at the local community college (small) theater. I was sitting in the last row hoping not to distract the audience with my shutter sounds (it was a packed theater).

When I tried to get the whole choir in at 70mm, the 60D left 4 persons out. I'd have to punch a hole in the wall to get them into the frame! The 5DIII obviously had no problems, I actually had to go a bit more tele to frame the choir properly. Guess which photo was sharper?... Unfortunately the 5DIII photos were from the introduction and the 60D photos were from the finale, totally different sentiments to capture.

OP, in my first post I encouraged you to go for the 7DII and I stand by this opinion. I merely tried to give you as balanced a point of view as possible.

'Reach/pixels on target vs FF' is a long argument. Life is too short for this...

lapino wrote in post #17518077
Not pretending to be an expert but this is simply not true, instead due to pixel density the 7d should be sharper (not considering lens quality of course). Correct me if I am wrong.

I agree, and so do other people: https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1425​001&page=1

Since my thread had a whole different reason, let us skip this argument and keep it on topic. Other reasons to advise for/against the 7d2. For normal zoom I always used the 5d3+24205. Can I expect about the same iq from the 7d2-1755 combo?