Worth it to have a Full Frame camera? (1 Viewer)

I presently have a Canon 70D, which I intend to upgrade to a 7D2 some time in the next 12 months - mainly for the benefits it will bestow for bird photography.

Next year, I was also thinking of buying a full-frame camera (probably a 5D3). The idea would be to use the 7D2 for birds/wildlife and the 5D3 for more general photography - especially landscapes (I am hoping to shoot some landscapes good enough for framed enlargements to hang on the wall in my house).

Looking at the performance of the 7D2 versus the 5D3 at the Arthur Morris website:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014...omparison-they-thought-that-it-would-be-easy/

....it seems to suggest the 7D2 is as good, perhaps even better on a like-with-like basis on bird photographs (see the heron shots)!

So, I was starting to wonder whether there would still be any advantage in owning a 5D3 as well as a 7D2 when it comes to landscapes?

Am I right in thinking that the full frame 5D3 should still produce superior images on landscapes over the 7D2? (ie on photos where no cropping would be needed from either camera).

Or maybe you would not notice any difference in quality, except for prints which were huge enlargements?

Of course, I appreciate that the 7D2 is a new camera and who is to say that the 5D4 (when it comes out) won't have even better performance still!

Any comments? - especially from folks who have full frame cameras for landscapes AND crop frame cameras for birds/wildlife.

If you can fill the frame then there is no doubt the Full Frame will give you better IQ. In low light it will produce very much better results.

I have a 7d, which I use for birds and sport, and a 6d, which is used predominantly for music photography at live gigs in very low light.

The 6d produces fantastic images. I have used the 6d for stationary birds in low light from a hide, so I can get close to the subject, and it performs very well. The central focus point will focus almost in the dark!

I think the 5diii is overkill for landscapes, the 6d is much cheaper and produces great IQ.

Hope this helps

Steve

Doesn't much depend on what lens you are using too ?

Yes of course. I am not advocating the 6d as a primary choice for bird photography, but I wouldn't buy the 5d3 as my only bird camera either.

I don't think the extra bells and whistles of the 5d3 make sense for a second camera to shoot landscapes.

Steve

Thanks for comments so far.

My main reason for suggesting a 5D3 rather than a 6D for my full frame camera was that I might on occasion use the full frame camera for birds, if they are close enough (eg from a hide). Apart from landscapes, I will probably also do some gig photography.

My main query is - will I get better landscape and gig photographs with a 5D3/6D than with a 7D2 (assuming similar lens quality in each case)?

Nick

I switched to a 5d3 from a 7d over a year ago. It's the best bird/wildlife camera I've ever owned. I would guess those saying not to get one have not tried one???

I would wait for the 7d2 and see how it works out...

Nick

You will, without a shadow of doubt, get better gig photos with a 5d3 or a 6d. Even if the 7d2 has better high ISO capability than the 7d it is only about 1 stop better.

Most of the gigs I shoot are poorly lit and require ISO 6400 even using an f1.4 or f2 lens. I love the 7d and will probably upgrade to the 7d2 but it just doesn't cut it at the high iso required for gig photography.

BW

Steve

I bought the 5D3 primarily for landscape and general photography but at the same time knowing it would also double as a bird/wildlife Camera as well if needed - I have certainly not been disappointment. For landscape stuff it is miles better than a crop Camera for me, it has given my short lenses (17-40 and 70-200) a whole new lease of life.
A big bonus for me with the 5D3 as also been for hand held macro stuff with my 100mm L IS macro lens, with macro you often need to shoot at f16 or even more and light levels are also not so good when trying to snap small beasties in a bush or in the shade - being able to up the ISO and still get clean shots is a real biggy IMHO.
Apart from the obvious high ISO noise level performance I also think the general IQ (colours, contrast ...) seems to be a lot better/cleaner/nicer than any crop Camera I have used.
The 7D2 for when you are reach limited for birds coupled with a full frame Camera for other stuff is the ideal solution I guess.

Just a thought but the price of a 5D3 and a 7D2 is getting into 1DX territory. The best of both worlds? Well I feel that it is.
The AF system, though similar to the 5D3, is much faster and (reportedly) a piece faster than the 7D2 - but we will have to wait and see. The ISO performance is significantly better than any other Canon camera (the 6D is close - but no cigar). Even a well used 1DX will have more design life left in it than either of the other two.
Much is made of the "Reach" advantage of the smaller sensors, I would have to disagree with this. Whilst there is a difference, in favour of the smaller sensors, it is far less than the 1.6 crop factor would suggest. I certainly found that my (ex) 1D4 gave up little, if any, reach to APSC cameras. Later, when I bought the 1DX, I compared them directly and found that the 1DX images would equal or exceed what I got from the 1D4 when cropped to the same field of view.
Just some food for thought?

I have to say I'm now ponding a 5D3 too, as a compliment to my 7D instead of a 7D2 being a direct replacement. When I've been photographing the red deer rut, a full frame would have been a much better pairing for my 500mm.

But I second john's suggestion of a 1DX over a 7D2/5D3 pair.

Two bodies vs One.
An interesting choice ! John makes a valid point in as much as the life expectancy of a 1DX is twice that of a 5D3 or a 7D2 but what if it does go wrong. You don't have a back up camera. Disaster, especially if you are abroad on a birding trip !
Touch wood my Canon gear has never failed me but my Nikon did twice, once when I had no back up body and it's very frustrating.
The practicalities of having two bodies are that you will rarely want to have two ready to use at the same time but there are the odd occasions when it's not a good idea to change lenses such as on a boat when there is spray about, or in a windy or dusty situation like a safari.

At one time I had both the 7D and the 5D3 and did lots of test to evaluate if cropping a 5D3 image to the same FOV as the 7D would yield as much detail - the answer was a resounding no. The cropped 5D3 images did not come close to the detail captured from the 7D. I conducted these test shooting on a tripod and using a self timer - using the same lens on each of course, I also did the test from varying distances.
The 5D3 is fine for birds as long as you can get close to the target, either physically or with a long lens but to rely on cropping heavily is not an option in my experience. As a passing thought a 400mm lens on a full frame gives the same amount of 'reach' as 250mm on a 1.6 cropper and 250mm is defo not enough for me.
BTW I am not knocking the 5D3 as I absolutely love it but if I ever got back into bird photography regularly again I would have to get a 7D2 or a longer lens that's for sure. 400mm on a full frame is just not on for me unless I am snapping in the garden from around 10 feet and even then I have to use a 1.4x tc unless I want to crop heavily.

Roy, but for general photography (such as landscapes) when there is no need for any cropping - would you say the 5D3 produces better IQ photos than the 7D?

And if the answer is yes, do you think the 5D3 would produce better landscape shots than a 7D2?

I have read that the Nikon D800 enables you to switch from FX to DX which did make me wonder why not simply do the same job in PP. One of the comments made was that when you enabled the DX mode your focus points covered a larger area of the viewfinder so tracking and focussing was easier, a point which certainly caught my attention.
The AF points on the 5D3 and 1DX don't cover a wide area at all, in fact if you do get close to your subject you have to recompose rather than move the focus point which can sometimes be tricky depending on your situation.
The big advantage of the 7D2 is that you are less likely to need TC's, after all the naked 7D2 reaches further than the 5D3 with a 1.4TC using the same lens, better still it out reaches the 2.0x on a 5D3 when it has the 1.4TC attached.
The difference in available AF points in the latter situation is quite huge. Of course when the subject is a long way off you still have the availability to AF at F8 too, something the 7D1 couldn't do and so the 2.0x isn't redundant either.
This is a bird forum so naturally the main reason for camera body discussion is wildlife photography and in that the 7D2 may well be the best option, certainly it's one of the most economic, but for many things I would think that an FX body is better, particularly landscapes and portraits.
As for the 5D3 vs 1DX , well I bought the 1DX for two reasons. The much faster FPS and the fact I was told the difference in AF performance with the 5D3 was as if it was on steroids. I don't think the latter is the case to be honest, from an IQ point of view I don't really see too much difference either but interestingly the 1DX has fewer pixels than the 5D3 but the 1D series seem to produce better pixels. You can't beat the build quality and ruggedness of a 1D body either. They are made for outdoor work like wildlife and sports but there are also times when the smaller size of the 7D or 5D has it's advantages too.
Having gone FX I would never be without one again but I do wonder should I trade one of my two bodies for a 7D2.If I do I guess it's the 5D3 that would be the one to go.

Nick Leech said:

Roy, but for general photography (such as landscapes) when there is no need for any cropping - would you say the 5D3 produces better IQ photos than the 7D?

And if the answer is yes, do you think the 5D3 would produce better landscape shots than a 7D2?

Click to expand...

Referring to my earlier comment , much also depends on which lenses you have available Nick.
Whereas in nature photography it's handy to have more reach in other areas less is often better. In a confined space you can't simply step backwards to get all your subject in the frame, even landscapes have their problems too.

Nick Leech said:

Roy, but for general photography (such as landscapes) when there is no need for any cropping - would you say the 5D3 produces better IQ photos than the 7D?

And if the answer is yes, do you think the 5D3 would produce better landscape shots than a 7D2?

Click to expand...

I would say a resounding yes to both questions Nick, even though I miss the 'reach' of a 1.6 cropper for birds and the like I would be loathed to go back to a crop Camera after shooting the 5D3 and certainly would not entertain doing landscapes on anything but a full frame.
If you did not need a full frame for Wildlife/action photography you could always get the cheaper 6D, which is every bit as good as the 5D3 for landscapes/still life. If the 7D2 lives up to all the hype then I would be quite happy with a 6D + 7D2.

Nick, I am the first to admit that I am a raw novice when it comes to landscape/stilllife photography but here are a couple of landscapes (handheld) that I have taken with the 5D3 using a 17-40 lens that I have had for many years. It could be just me but there is something about the full frame landscape shots that I just could not get with any crop Camera I have used.

Roy C said:

Nick, I am the first to admit that I am a raw novice when it comes to landscape/stilllife photography but here are a couple of landscapes (handheld) that I have taken with the 5D3 using a 17-40 lens that I have had for many years. It could be just me but there is something about the full frame landscape shots that I just could not get with any crop Camera I have used.

Click to expand...

Lovely Roy. I admire other peoples landscape work and wish I could capture similar. Recently bought a 24-105 f4 to try. How do you get that high definition look ? In camera settings or PP ?

Wow Roy those are amazing landscape shots - the sky on the second one is amazing!

Am interested to hear your answer to Dave's question.

Dave, as regards lenses. I have a Canon 15-85 EF-S IS USM lens currently for my 70D (to be upgraded to a 7D2). If I was to buy a 6D or 5D3 I would probably go for a 24-105 f4 lens. So the query about IQ on landscape shots would be:

7D2 wth 15-85; versus
6D or 5D3 with 24-105

cheers,
Nick

Dave Williams said:

Lovely Roy. I admire other peoples landscape work and wish I could capture similar. Recently bought a 24-105 f4 to try. How do you get that high definition look ? In camera settings or PP ?

Click to expand...

A bit of both I suppose Dave, both were at f16 I think and I was using a circular polarising filter which saturates the image. In post I often run a few selective filters (via layer masks) especially on the sky.
I just wish I could drum up more enthusiasm for landscape stuff but I just cannot get into it like I could with birds/wildlife.