Current 7D MII user - wanting full frame...?

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18667951
'Micro Contrast' Which image has it better?

Image on left was shot in the Summer up close, image on right was shot in the Winter farther away. Used two different cameras.

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=186​67951&i=i247629750
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Hosted photo: posted by Two Hot Shoes in
./showthread.php?p=186​67951&i=i175191619
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Web size files isn't really the correct platform to make such a comparison.

Kim I see your point in this exercise. If images are "good" enough for print then shooting with an Xpro2 and XT2 or other brands will forever be good enough for photographers. The difference seen between older and newer models is just additional benefits.

Going 5dmk3 and 5dmk4 is truly a noticeable jump in performance in every way. This has nothing to do with $$$ justification. The images are simply different using the same exact Canon lenses with two different bodies.

Acquiring the images due to camera body performance is also something that is not noted in the final image. Using Sony eye detect puts Fuji and Canon to shame. You cannot display that in a final image because that image may not have existed :P

Kim why not sport an Xpro1 and X-t1 or even X-E1 fuji body if new products reap identical images??? There is alot more to the story as we all know!!

Alot of my friends ask me why I lug my 5dmk4 or other cameras when I shoot my instagram images........HA! majority of all of those photos are taken with my Iphone 8+

We view most of our images online surely you can tell which has the better micro contrast. Neither was shot on a Fuji BTW

Not saying anything about camera bodies at all.

AlanU wrote in post #18667996
Web size files isn't really the correct platform to make such a comparison.

Kim I see your point in this exercise. If images are "good" enough for print then shooting with an Xpro2 and XT2 or other brands will forever be good enough for photographers. The difference seen between older and newer models is just additional benefits.

Going 5dmk3 and 5dmk4 is truly a noticeable jump in performance in every way. This has nothing to do with $$$ justification. The images are simply different using the same exact Canon lenses with two different bodies.

Acquiring the images due to camera body performance is also something that is not noted in the final image. Using Sony eye detect puts Fuji and Canon to shame. You cannot display that in a final image because that image may not have existed :P

Kim why not sport an Xpro1 and X-t1 or even X-E1 fuji body if new products reap identical images??? There is alot more to the story as we all know!!

Alot of my friends ask me why I lug my 5dmk4 or other cameras when I shoot my instagram images........HA! majority of all of those photos are taken with my Iphone 8+

You keep saying there's a "truly noticeable" difference, yet none of us have seen you show a shred of proof for it... forgive us if we don't suspend our disbelief.

In a lot of ways I actually miss my X-E1 files compared to the newer stuff, so funny you should bring that up, even if it was an obvious straw man.

I'm not sure what Instagram has to do with this... but I would love to follow more fellow photographers on Instagram, what's your tag?

I'm also curious what medium you view your photos on. I've asked you before and never got an answer. You've stated in the past that print is not a challenging medium to determine a camera/lenses performance, and you continually state that web images aren't either... so what are you viewing/sharing your shots on that you're seeing such a clear difference between cameras?

AlanU wrote in post #18667996
Kim why not sport an Xpro1 and X-t1 or even X-E1 fuji body if new products reap identical images??? There is alot more to the story as we all know!!

Incidentally speaking of older gear, last year Bass Magazine requested an image of mine that I took on an X-E1 with an old Zeiss 35mm attached. I shoot newer gear because it usually operates better, making my job easier, & I shoot a lot of shots so it makes sense for me to upgrade every two years or so. My X-T1 is still going strong BTW shot a wedding with it a few weeks ago.

Have you figured out the image you prefer for the better micro contrast yet? Remember I shot either on a Fuji

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18667728
Prove it

You know that's not going to happen.

griesmonkey wrote in post #18666811
OK - lets play a game from here. Say I go 6D MII route. $1300-$1500 cost.

Sell
7D MII with Grip - ? $900
Sigma Art 18-35 - $550
Sigma Art 50-100 - $850
(All three in a bundle would be better as they are calibrated to the body or a combo of body and 1 lens) no discount as this is a feature of the bundle.
Canon 10-18mm STM - $175

Budget after sales - $2475 approx

Buy - Here is where my heartache lies. I do weddings and senior portraits. Seniors more than weddings though and could prob rent a zoom if needed but may like to have a nice one at some point.

6D MII - $1500 afer tax
Canon 50mm STM 1.8 - just because its inexpensive and decent $125
Need a wide lens equivelent to the 10-18 - $300?
85mm Variant - huge range. 1.8 good enough? 1.4 preferred $250-$1500

I'd prefer IS to be in the lens lineup as I was missing that from the Sigma ART lens zooms.

Tamron 24-70 G2? 70-200 G2?

The weight of the ART lenses with a grip was very heavy. I'd like to avoid that if I could.

The first thing I would get lighting (2 speedlite, modifiers, etc)

For seniors,
I would get a
6D or 5D mark II
($)85mm f/1,8 USM or ($$$)85mm f/1,4L IS USM or ($$)Zeiss Classic Planar 1,4/85mm
($)35mm f/2 IS or ($$$)35mm f/1,4 mark I or ($$) Zeiss Distagon 2/35mm

For weddings,
I would get or rent
5D mark III or 5D mark II
zooms (24-70mm / 70-200mm)
specialty (makro, fisheye, uwa, etc)

I must say the Sigma 18-35mm is a versatile lens, I haven't tried the 50-100mm but I believe it is also good.
I love my Sigma 18-35mm

saea501 wrote in post #18661744
I don't think making this change is going to get you any more 'wow factor'.

If you're not overly thrilled with your pictures new hardware is not the answer. I think the cure for your perceived problem lies in the improvement of your skills and technique.

Seriously. I have no idea why so many people think a FF camera produces some kind of magical results they can't get in an APS-C sensor lol. Ive had a 5DII, 70D and T6i at the same time before and I could post a shot taken with each one and I guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell a difference between the 3 once they have been compressed and resized for posting online. You couldn't even tell the difference looking at them in print from any magazine Ive been published in. The only reason Ive ever reached for my FF camera over an APS-C camera is because there is no crop factor and the 135 f/2 and 70-200 are two of my favorite lenses. However, the 85 f/1.4 on a crop body is pure magic too.

If that were the case then why is the 5D IV so prevalent in professional settings for high paid high quality work? There is obviously some substaintial difference. The 135 and 70-200 look very different on a full frame vs a crop. The other thing too is physical space you have to work with on those two lenses to achieve the same visible focal length photo. You can run out of room very quickly on a crop shooting long lenses like that.

While i'm not a pro, I still seek the great photos. Keeping my 7D MII and grabing a 6D with an 85mm 1.8 will prob be my first step. Gives me two bodies and some great options for what I'm looking for.

I also have two Flashpoint R2 flashes. I am trying to figure out if there is an external trigger I can use for these flashes other than setting one to master and the other to slave.

Of course comparing 2008 FF to 2012 or newer crop bodies will yield a smaller delta in noticeable differences when printing small or resizing down. Some of us don't do that, some of us crop and print large.

Compare same generation FF to same generation APS-C, and you will see the differences in ISO performance, DR, etc. Crop and print pretty large and the differences can be seen a bit more. There are certain lenses on FF that can produce results which APS-C cannot replicate as well.

The crop body advantage is two-fold: budgetary and usually pixel density/reach (like a built in 1.6 TC). However the latter advantage is diminishing due to high MP FF bodies. Build a small FF with great AF and high pixel density at the price of APS-C and there would be no need for crop bodies, other than perhaps to use one with a few of the very good EFS lenses. This is why Canon needs to come out with a killer mirrorless, it should tick off most everything other than price.

Do you mean the Xpro or the older cheaper X1T?

I had both for a while, and finally sold the X1T. The Xpro has a better user experience, but don't always like the tilt when the camera is on a tripod.

griesmonkey wrote in post #18668535
If that were the case then why is the 5D IV so prevalent in professional settings for high paid high quality work? There is obviously some substaintial difference.

I know many top notch pros who still shoot with 40 year old medium format film cameras in their studios. I know many pros who use 70 and 80Ds. Ive been a pro photographer for 15 years and I just used my 77D to shoot ads for an international clothing company two weeks ago. But please, tell me again how superior the 5DIV is. You sound an awful lot like a guy on DPReview forum who gets mad at people who tell him going FF wouldn't be any real upgrade from what he already has for the type of work he does. Hmmm....

Mbell1975 wrote in post #18668754
I know many top notch pros who still shoot with 40 year old medium format film cameras in their studios. I know many pros who use 70 and 80Ds. Ive been a pro photographer for 15 years and I just used my 77D to shoot ads for an international clothing company two weeks ago. But please, tell me again how superior the 5DIV is. You sound an awful lot like a guy on DPReview forum who gets mad at people who tell him going FF wouldn't be any real upgrade from what he already has for the type of work he does. Hmmm....

Again, depends on what you shoot. Shooting ads for clothing in a controlled studio condition isn't the same as shooting sports or drama in a poorly lit venue. Just like others cannot paint FF as the end-all, you cannot state that FF has no real advantage. Certain conditions and desired output will dictate one format over another, along with lens selection.

Interestingly, you are exhibiting the same behavior you are belittling, just in reverse from the APS-C side of the house. But... I am sure you know that already.

Mbell1975 wrote in post #18668754
I know many top notch pros who still shoot with 40 year old medium format film cameras in their studios. I know many pros who use 70 and 80Ds. Ive been a pro photographer for 15 years and I just used my 77D to shoot ads for an international clothing company two weeks ago. But please, tell me again how superior the 5DIV is. You sound an awful lot like a guy on DPReview forum who gets mad at people who tell him going FF wouldn't be any real upgrade from what he already has for the type of work he does. Hmmm....

Who's mad? You're using some seemingly strong verbage to dictate your point. Please excuse the 5-10 small sample size you are referring to when it comes to old schoolers, or one offers to make your point. I didn't have any tone inferred in my post but you sure took offense it seemed. Good for them on using some great older equipment who obviously know more than me when it comes to shooting. I guess I need to be more specific when I over generalize 'professional' work. My original post eluded to senior shoots, weddings, sports, etc... So given that context your examples don't quite line up with the subject matter to which I'm referring to when it comes to camera choices. But I'm sure you'll try to name other examples to the contrary anyway...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18668796
Again, depends on what you shoot. Shooting ads for clothing in a controlled studio condition isn't the same as shooting sports or drama in a poorly lit venue. Just like others cannot paint FF as the end-all, you cannot state that FF has no real advantage. Certain conditions and desired output will dictate one format over another, along with lens selection.

Interestingly, you are exhibiting the same behavior you are belittling, just in reverse from the APS-C side of the house. But... I am sure you know that already.

Oh it wasn't shooting in a studio, it was outdoors on the beach in rather challenging natural light but thats my specialty. You are right though, shooting a stationary subject isn't as demanding as shooting sports or really low light performances but I stand by what I said for the most part. FF cameras dont have some kind of magic technology that APS-C sensor cameras dont that makes photos inherently better just based off the fact that they are FF, despite so many newer photographers thinking they do. The same way that a camera with more megapixels in no way means better quality images than one with less. Its mostly marketing gimmicks to sell new cameras. I usually have both a FF and an APS-C camera with me and the crop gets 80% of the use unless its for a job thats going to require excessively large prints, like billboard size or close to it. For web work, magazine print work and even larger print like 24x36 posters, a crop sensor camera is more than adequate.

Well I did call out where FF is an improvement over crop, which are objective assessments, and not subjective. Shooting outside in the sunlight still isn't challenging for a sensor, but rather a challenge of the photographer to get the lighting correctly laid out as to overpower that natural light or fill in shadows. Shooting a ton of available natural and artificial lighting just isn't a good argument either way for either format.

I have owned so many of the Canon offerings, and currently sport both APS C and FF. The FF gets used more simply due to its advantages over my crop. There is indeed times I use crop, and sometimes where I use both during a shoot.

However in cases of DR, ISO, and general IQ (where the FF pulls sharper images than the APSC), the FF wins.

I can shoot this with both bodies, but the FF is always cleaner and its files easier to use.