All good reasons to upgrade 70d to 5D III

I see it is a big jump/upgrade from APSC to FF, and I have never used a FF camera except I rented a 5D3 recently for few days

I am trying to figure out how worthy and all reasons to upgrade from 70d to 5D3 and why I need to do that

This is my scenario

I use 70d mainly for fast action photography, like BMX, soccer, Horse race, BIF, and lot of water sports (wake surf, wake board )

I use 1-2 times a week mostly in weekend

70D has been excellent for fast action, but ONLY in Bright light. My lens is 70-200 f4L on IS,

80% of the time in that 1-2 times/week has been bad light, due to cloudy, rainy reason and 70d gave me hard time in this light, as I couldn’t go more than iso 800/1600 max.

even I did try 200mm f2.8 for few days, which is better than f4, but it didn’t help much

Bad light days

30 mins before and after sunset

All cloudy days – very bad light

Intermittent weather days – this has killed me this reason. It would be sunny when I start, then becomes dull, again becomes sunny, not easy

Pl comment or correct

1) 5D3 has good keepers than 70d due to upto high iso.6400 usable?

2) also in Good light, keepers of fast action are more in 5D3 than 70d due to it’s AF and tracking capability

3) can use in Low light scenarios, for wide angle as well

4) Higher IQ due to FF sensor compared to APSC

5) Dynamic range better in FF?

Any more reasons ?

Cons

1) I am not sure I am right here, but I have learnt that due to FF sensor, no crop, we lose reach here. I wont get advantage of FL multiplier, so APSC gets 1.6x, so 70-200 in 5D, becomes 105-300 in 70d. am I right here? Or it is just FF gives FOV?

2) my wallet will be less heavy with $3,500 Bill for 5D3

I might live with this due to this fact. 7 events out of 10 events and 3 out of 4 vacations (short) in last 8 months, turned out to be those bad light days and came out with frustrating outcome of screwy images. so I am consoling the extra cost would save my vacations and not go a waste of vacations do cost a lot of money

Appreciate your comments as always

Kumaresh, Dallas, TX

clearzoom said:

I see it is a big jump/upgrade from APSC to FF, and I have never used a FF camera except I rented a 5D3 recently for few days

I am trying to figure out how worthy and all reasons to upgrade from 70d to 5D3 and why I need to do that

This is my scenario

I use 70d mainly for fast action photography, like BMX, soccer, Horse race, BIF, and lot of water sports (wake surf, wake board )

I use 1-2 times a week mostly in weekend

70D has been excellent for fast action, but ONLY in Bright light. My lens is 70-200 f4L on IS,

80% of the time in that 1-2 times/week has been bad light, due to cloudy, rainy reason and 70d gave me hard time in this light, as I couldn’t go more than iso 800/1600 max.

even I did try 200mm f2.8 for few days, which is better than f4, but it didn’t help much

Bad light days

30 mins before and after sunset

All cloudy days – very bad light

Intermittent weather days – this has killed me this reason. It would be sunny when I start, then becomes dull, again becomes sunny, not easy

Pl comment or correct

1) 5D3 has good keepers than 70d due to upto high iso.6400 usable?

Click to expand...

The 5d3 has less noise at higher ISO's than the 70d. Whether or not a certain ISO is usable or not is highly subjective and different for every user. I would guess that if 1600 was your max on the 70d, you could probably go to 6400 on the 5d3 and feel ok with it.

clearzoom said:

2) also in Good light, keepers of fast action are more in 5D3 than 70d due to it’s AF and tracking capability

Click to expand...

I haven't used either camera enough to know this... 5d3 has a great AF system, but the 70d is no slouch either. Someone who has used both can chime in, but I bet you will find that the 5d3 is better, but only slightly

clearzoom said:

3) can use in Low light scenarios, for wide angle as well

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here... yes, it's good in low light. Yes, people often buy FF for wide angle because of the crop factor.

clearzoom said:

4) Higher IQ due to FF sensor compared to APSC

Click to expand...

Yes, but the 70d has pretty nice IQ. I don't know that you'll notice this a lot unless you look real closely.

clearzoom said:

5) Dynamic range better in FF?

Click to expand...

Yes, but again, you may or may not notice it.

clearzoom said:

Any more reasons ?

Cons

1) I am not sure I am right here, but I have learnt that due to FF sensor, no crop, we lose reach here. I wont get advantage of FL multiplier, so APSC gets 1.6x, so 70-200 in 5D, becomes 105-300 in 70d. am I right here? Or it is just FF gives FOV?

Click to expand...

Yes, and this is the big one for you I think. I was surprised how short my 70-200 was on my 6d compared to my old 550d. It was wonderful indoors, but outdoors made me long for more reach often. You said you shoot BIF sometimes. This will probably mean big expensive lenses if you want the same reach you had with a crop. It's a 1.6x so it should actually be 112-320 on Crop. Now of course, there will be some who will step in and say all sorts of things about crop factor and all that... but what you will see coming out of your camera is the same as what a 112-320mm lens would be on a full frame.

clearzoom said:

2) my wallet will be less heavy with $3,500 Bill for 5D3

I might live with this due to this fact. 7 events out of 10 events and 3 out of 4 vacations (short) in last 8 months, turned out to be those bad light days and came out with frustrating outcome of screwy images. so I am consoling the extra cost would save my vacations and not go a waste of vacations do cost a lot of money

Click to expand...

Obviously it's up to you whether or not the cost is worth it to you... The two biggest factors are these..

Pro - High ISO - you will be gaining probably about 2 stops here

Con - losing the crop factor - because you do a sports/BIF and such, you will be looking at big/expensive lenses with full frame.

Here's something to at least consider. You could try some primes and see if those would help you with your 70d. For example you could try a 135 f2. This would give you a 2 stop advantage over your 70-200 f4 (same as the High ISO of FF) and 135mm would be about the same on your crop camera as the 200mm would be on a Full frame. You could also try some other primes for different lengths if needed. 100mm f2, 85mm 1.8. Obviously primes give up the ability to zoom, but if the 2.8 wasn't good enough, it's worth a try. Otherwise you could just go with the 5d3 and be ok with losing the reach.

clearzoom said:

I see it is a big jump/upgrade from APSC to FF, and I have never used a FF camera except I rented a 5D3 recently for few days

I am trying to figure out how worthy and all reasons to upgrade from 70d to 5D3 and why I need to do that

This is my scenario

I use 70d mainly for fast action photography, like BMX, soccer, Horse race, BIF, and lot of water sports (wake surf, wake board )

I use 1-2 times a week mostly in weekend

70D has been excellent for fast action, but ONLY in Bright light. My lens is 70-200 f4L on IS,

80% of the time in that 1-2 times/week has been bad light, due to cloudy, rainy reason and 70d gave me hard time in this light, as I couldn’t go more than iso 800/1600 max.

even I did try 200mm f2.8 for few days, which is better than f4, but it didn’t help much

Bad light days

30 mins before and after sunset

All cloudy days – very bad light

Intermittent weather days – this has killed me this reason. It would be sunny when I start, then becomes dull, again becomes sunny, not easy

Pl comment or correct

1) 5D3 has good keepers than 70d due to upto high iso.6400 usable?

2) also in Good light, keepers of fast action are more in 5D3 than 70d due to it’s AF and tracking capability

3) can use in Low light scenarios, for wide angle as well

4) Higher IQ due to FF sensor compared to APSC

5) Dynamic range better in FF?

Any more reasons ?

Cons

1) I am not sure I am right here, but I have learnt that due to FF sensor, no crop, we lose reach here. I wont get advantage of FL multiplier, so APSC gets 1.6x, so 70-200 in 5D, becomes 105-300 in 70d. am I right here? Or it is just FF gives FOV?

2) my wallet will be less heavy with $3,500 Bill for 5D3

I might live with this due to this fact. 7 events out of 10 events and 3 out of 4 vacations (short) in last 8 months, turned out to be those bad light days and came out with frustrating outcome of screwy images. so I am consoling the extra cost would save my vacations and not go a waste of vacations do cost a lot of money

Click to expand...

IMO, the two primary reasons for moving to FF over APS-C are better high ISO performance and shallower dof. Sounds like better high ISO performance would be helpful to you; shallower dof not so much.

But for your kind of shooting, I really think you'll miss the extra reach your 70D's sensor provides. (BTW the extra reach comes from the 70D's higher pixel density sensor, rather than the so-called crop factor).

FWIW, if I were you, I'd wait and see what the rumored (but likely) new 7D2 looks like. Might be just what you're looking for.

...shooting the effective reach is almost never quite good enough !! And it is not always possible to get closer to action (esp. true in water sports, but this just one of most obvious examples).

So, the reach advantage and excellent cropability of modern sensors (like 20 Mpx on 1.6x 70d, or 24 Mpx on 1.5x Sony's a6k = the latter equivalent to about 54 Mpx on FF) are not factors to be treated lightly and to easily give up when trading for the FF.

And yes, it is excellent advice to look at possibilities offered by super bright primes, like the EF 135/2L or the 200/2L IS - they do go long way in augmenting reach and low-light situations on 1.6x (or 1.3x but those are rarity now in the canon-land)

jpr2

bhollis said:

IMO, the two primary reasons for moving to FF over APS-C are better high ISO performance and shallower dof. Sounds like better high ISO performance would be helpful to you; shallower dof not so much.

Click to expand...

ok, how would a FF help in shallower dof. APSC with a 1.8 lens can do shallow DOF as well

thks for to all for feedback and listing diff. yes, I can either choose one of these routes

1) 5D3 to help in bad weather conditions

2) try again 135 f2.0 on 70d. I do have a question.

if I attach kenko 1x +135mm f2.0, would it become close to 200mm f2.8 ?

5D3 is no longer at original list price $3500 since awhile ago. You actually only pay $3200 from B&H after $200 mail-in-rebate. If don't care buy from non-authorized dealers in eBay that you still will receive warranty service as Canon doesn't care, you will pay much less and even around $2600 sometime. I bought my copy two years ago at $2500 from BVI (an non-authorized dealer) with USA warranty registration card and was told by Canon firmly it will be covered by in/out warranty service.

5D3 has much better IQ and generates much sharper photos overall even at low ISO when you view/print at very large size, for example 70D has no comparison when you view photos at respective full size. For sports and wildlife, however you'd need longer lens such as 70-300L if you are unable to move closer. FF 5D3 is especially much better in portrait and landscape as well as under low light.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

I made a similar move to the 5DMIII from a 7D. I shoot high school football and baseball and also use my 5DMIII for a variety of other uses, which influenced my move to full frame. I am an enthusist and not anywhere near a pro and have been quiet satisfied with the move. As the previous post suggested, I would recommend the 70-300L, which is my work horse for sports shooting. It is great for shooting in most daylight situations. Its performance does drop off for night shooting under the lights. I only need to shoot night games occasionally, and when I do, I rent a 70-200L f/2.8 II. Overall though, I have been quite satisfied and have never looked back.

clearzoom said:

2) try again 135 f2.0 on 70d. I do have a question.

if I attach kenko 1x +135mm f2.0, would it become close to 200mm f2.8 ?

Click to expand...

indeed, it will be 189/2.8, AND... if you'd use the 1.4x pro300dg version (Kenko offered also a cheaper MC5 alternative - a non-reportinig TC, with just 8 contacts instead of 11) the IQ will be pretty close to L-class, even in the corners, but... not as good as with the original EF 200/2.8L.

The 70-300L is a very good alternative, yet lets not forget it is after all a f4.5-5.6 zoom, which means rather dark glass despite being the genuine "L" , the EF 70-300/4.5-5.6 (non-L, non-DO) offers the same range and brightness in much lighter (and cheaper) package . OTOH the 70-300L is a quicker and more sure focuser; BUT... it is also white-black-white_again zebra pattern attention grabber, which in many settings is not all that beneficial !!

jpr2

--
~
Nex-7 classic:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157629823874033/
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

clearzoom said:

bhollis said:

IMO, the two primary reasons for moving to FF over APS-C are better high ISO performance and shallower dof. Sounds like better high ISO performance would be helpful to you; shallower dof not so much.

Click to expand...

ok, how would a FF help in shallower dof. APSC with a 1.8 lens can do shallow DOF as well

Click to expand...

And if you put the same f/1.8 lens on a full frame, and move in to give you the same framing you'd have with the APS-C, the depth of field will be shallower with the full frame shot.

Scroll down about half way to the discussion on depth of field.

There are many possible permutations and combinations in this situation. Just a few thoughts:

1. You can keep your 70D, get a faster lens, and up the ISO one stop. This will give you 2 stops extra compared to what you have now. Using the 70D at ISO 3200 can give acceptable results, where do your photos end up? On the web? Newspaper? I suppose they will be displayed no larger than A4? Shooting RAW and carefully handling noise can make a ISO 3200 shot quite acceptable.

2. You can get a 5DMKIII, keep your current lens, and up the ISO to 6400. What you need to do is carefully check for real world examples of the same type of shots you take, at that ISO, to see if the results are good enough to you.

3. You can get the 5DMKIII and a faster lens, this would give you the best of both worlds, but it would also be more expensive.

4. Finally, you could also get Nikon's current PJ and sports camera, the one with the fantastic 16 Mpx sensor on it, and fantastic high ISO performance. This would mean a system change, but one gets the right tool for the job.

biza43 said:

4. Finally, you could also get Nikon's current PJ and sports camera, the one with the fantastic 16 Mpx sensor on it, and fantastic high ISO performance. This would mean a system change, but one gets the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

what do you mean?

Btw. the equivalent lenses from the Dark Side are all usually a bit bigger, weight a bit more, and the asking prices are rather stiffer as well !!

jpr2

--
~
Nex-7 classic:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157629823874033/
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

again, thks for all suggestions. as this is big change and upgrade, I am writing down my choices and finalize

and I am in photo club of about 25 folks, mostly enthusiasts and n bad weather at the event, 22 of them use FF (these guys have both), moment they see cloud, they pull out FF, and I saw images at iso 6000 to 10,000 of both 5D3 and D800, they were just amazingly sharp. from image, i couldnt tell that was bad weather. most of them used 70-200 f2.8. no wonder they keep getting closer to riders due to less reach on FF than me.

other hand, I haven't checked f2.8 or f2.0 in 70d, but I am tired of testing last 3 months. I had 2.8 lens for few days, which gave me iso 2500 at low light and wasnt enough, but need to try a lot before telling you that this didnt work in 70d, but i dont own this lens, some one in club lend me as a friend.

jpr2 said:

biza43 said:

4. Finally, you could also get Nikon's current PJ and sports camera, the one with the fantastic 16 Mpx sensor on it, and fantastic high ISO performance. This would mean a system change, but one gets the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

what do you mean?

Btw. the equivalent lenses from the Dark Side are all usually a bit bigger, weight a bit more, and the asking prices are rather stiffer as well !!

Click to expand...

I mean sometimes getting the right tool for the job. If you need FF for sports or PJ work, and shoot professionally, or take the photographic hobby very seriously, and have money, you get the best FF sensor for sports and PJ: the Sony sensor that equips the Nikon D4 and D4S. 16 mpx, with really clean really high ISO's.

I know the costs entailed, that is why it was listed as option number 4...

biza43 said:

jpr2 said:

biza43 said:

4. Finally, you could also get Nikon's current PJ and sports camera, the one with the fantastic 16 Mpx sensor on it, and fantastic high ISO performance. This would mean a system change, but one gets the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

what do you mean?

Btw. the equivalent lenses from the Dark Side are all usually a bit bigger, weight a bit more, and the asking prices are rather stiffer as well !!

Click to expand...

I mean sometimes getting the right tool for the job. If you need FF for sports or PJ work, and shoot professionally, or take the photographic hobby very seriously, and have money, you get the best FF sensor for sports and PJ: the Sony sensor that equips the Nikon D4 and D4S. 16 mpx, with really clean really high ISO's.

I know the costs entailed, that is why it was listed as option number 4...

Click to expand...

..to D4 or D4s, although I much prefer the "all black" Nikon lenses = much less obnouxious and attention grabbing, esp. on streets

jpr2

jpr2 said:

biza43 said:

jpr2 said:

biza43 said:

4. Finally, you could also get Nikon's current PJ and sports camera, the one with the fantastic 16 Mpx sensor on it, and fantastic high ISO performance. This would mean a system change, but one gets the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

what do you mean?

Btw. the equivalent lenses from the Dark Side are all usually a bit bigger, weight a bit more, and the asking prices are rather stiffer as well !!

Click to expand...

I mean sometimes getting the right tool for the job. If you need FF for sports or PJ work, and shoot professionally, or take the photographic hobby very seriously, and have money, you get the best FF sensor for sports and PJ: the Sony sensor that equips the Nikon D4 and D4S. 16 mpx, with really clean really high ISO's.

I know the costs entailed, that is why it was listed as option number 4...

Click to expand...

..to D4 or D4s, although I much prefer the "all black" Nikon lenses = much less obnouxious and attention grabbing, esp. on streets

Click to expand...

You can put on Lenscoat with different colors including black and pattern (such as foliage) on the lens, also for protection. One reason to have white-color coating is to reflect sunlight more under hot climate for example so lens absorbs less heat and therefore performs better.

I put Lenscoat on 500L/4.0 IS and 70-200L/2.8 IS II and they are great and I worry much less with bumps that scratch lenses.

jpr2 said:

jpr2

--
~
Nex-7 classic:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157629823874033/
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

qianp2k said:

5D3 is no longer at original list price $3500 since awhile ago. You actually only pay $3200 from B&H after $200 mail-in-rebate. If don't care buy from non-authorized dealers in eBay that you still will receive warranty service as Canon doesn't care, you will pay much less and even around $2600 sometime. I bought my copy two years ago at $2500 from BVI (an non-authorized dealer) with USA warranty registration card and was told by Canon firmly it will be covered by in/out warranty service.

Click to expand...

you right, I found some very good deal and posted in separate thread as could help some one else looking for the same

Sounds like you want full frame. Can you try one of theirs for a little bit at an event? Otherwise, just go with the 5d3 and the 70-200 2.8 and enjoy! (easy for me to spend your money...) Others have suggested the 70-300L, and I would not recommend it for you. It's a great lens, but with a 5.6 aperture at the long end, you would be better off just using a 70-200 2.8 on a crop if you are desperately in need of light (which it sounds like you are).

diness said:

Sounds like you want full frame. Can you try one of theirs for a little bit at an event? Otherwise, just go with the 5d3 and the 70-200 2.8 and enjoy! (easy for me to spend your money...) Others have suggested the 70-300L, and I would not recommend it for you. It's a great lens, but with a 5.6 aperture at the long end, you would be better off just using a 70-200 2.8 on a crop if you are desperately in need of light (which it sounds like you are).

Click to expand...

Agree. I am desperately need to get good shots in low light / dark weather , as my vacations and visiting local events does cost money driving around and wasted quite a bit last 3-4 months that includes several local events. So I am creating a case study to convince my wife  beside convince myself, but it is true. Yes it does cost a lot to resolve this. And loads of time testing and frustrations

I might try both FF and also 135/200mm on 70d and keep one

jpr2 said:

biza43 said:

jpr2 said:

biza43 said:

4. Finally, you could also get Nikon's current PJ and sports camera, the one with the fantastic 16 Mpx sensor on it, and fantastic high ISO performance. This would mean a system change, but one gets the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

what do you mean?

Btw. the equivalent lenses from the Dark Side are all usually a bit bigger, weight a bit more, and the asking prices are rather stiffer as well !!

Click to expand...

I mean sometimes getting the right tool for the job. If you need FF for sports or PJ work, and shoot professionally, or take the photographic hobby very seriously, and have money, you get the best FF sensor for sports and PJ: the Sony sensor that equips the Nikon D4 and D4S. 16 mpx, with really clean really high ISO's.

I know the costs entailed, that is why it was listed as option number 4...

Click to expand...

..to D4 or D4s, although I much prefer the "all black" Nikon lenses = much less obnouxious and attention grabbing, esp. on streets

Click to expand...

They will be inferior if you really need to up the ISO a lot, and still want your shots to come up relatively clean. But of course this will depend from person to person.