FF or 1.6X for life......

windozewindoze Registered Users Posts: 2,830 Major grins
edited April 12, 2012 in Cameras
:scratch Ive never owned a FF camera, ive always been grateful for the 1.6x on my 40D when shooting birds or going to the zoo. I dont understand why but Gee Whiz, those pics from the 5D mark III look so much better in terms of IQ than anything ive ever taken with a 1.6X cammy. And those low light pics are to die for! Im just thinking how useful would the Mark III be to guy who likes birds and zoos.... Im guessing its not a smart move but maybe i dont realize the potential for using a Mark III at the zoo or when shooting birds....
Given that I own 100-400, 70-200 f2.8 would it "make sense" to add the Mark III or just or continue to lust with envy at my neighbor's camera.....


windoze

Comments

  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    I'm not a birder, so the "reach" is not that much in my list of priorities. However, the image quality is, and I can attest that the image quality of 5D2 was noticeably better than 7D, ant 5D3 tops that.
    I'd suggest you to rent 5D3 and 1.4x and 2.0x extenders for a weekend and see if this is something that works for you. Taping the extender pins may be a necessary evil, but it works (I tried:-).
    FWIW I have the same/similar glass (100-400 and 70-200/2.8 IS USM Mk II)
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    Apply the 1.6x crop yourself in post, and you still have 8.6mp. Is that so different than the 10mp of your 40D?

    If you can afford it, why not? The big viewfinder is waiting for you!

    Only consideration might be if your primary walk-around lens is an EF-S lens, which won't work on FF, then you're looking at a bigger outlay.

    Or if you really want more reach, your upgrade path is to the 7D, which is a nice upgrade from a 40D.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • windozewindoze Registered Users Posts: 2,830 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    jmphotocraft wrote: »
    Apply the 1.6x crop yourself in post, and you still have 8.6mp. Is that so different than the 10mp of your 40D?

    If you can afford it, why not? The big viewfinder is waiting for you!

    Only consideration might be if your primary walk-around lens is an EF-S lens, which won't work on FF, then you're looking at a bigger outlay.

    Or if you really want more reach, your upgrade path is to the 7D, which is a nice upgrade from a 40D.

    7D was my plan till I saw the IQ from the 5D mark III. Maybe photogs who own 5d's are better coz maybe those photogs are more likely to be professionals. Whatever the reason I'm drooling over the apparent superior IQ from the 5D III
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    Where you checking out the IQ of the 5D3 from unedited test shots or from post processed images?
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • thegridrunnerthegridrunner Registered Users Posts: 235 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    The potential of the camera can be in film speed. You can shoot at a faster shutter speed with a small aperture/high iso and come out with killer shots.
    Nikon D800, D7000, 14-24,24-70, 70-200 Nikkor and stuff
    http://www.youtube.com/user/NYCFilmmakersGroup
    http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Filmmakers-and-Actors-Meetup-Group/
  • OverfocusedOverfocused Registered Users Posts: 1,068 Major grins
    edited April 12, 2012
    windoze wrote: »
    headscratch.gif Ive never owned a FF camera, ive always been grateful for the 1.6x on my 40D when shooting birds or going to the zoo. I dont understand why but Gee Whiz, those pics from the 5D mark III look so much better in terms of IQ than anything ive ever taken with a 1.6X cammy. And those low light pics are to die for! Im just thinking how useful would the Mark III be to guy who likes birds and zoos.... Im guessing its not a smart move but maybe i dont realize the potential for using a Mark III at the zoo or when shooting birds....
    Given that I own 100-400, 70-200 f2.8 would it "make sense" to add the Mark III or just or continue to lust with envy at my neighbor's camera.....


    windoze

    If you're not really chasing birds and more or less just snapping pics close by at zoos etc, the MKII is more than enough.

    Personally I find the 7D to be much better for birds in the wild, but it has to be under the right settings to even come close to the resolve of the MKII at %100.
    www.overfocused.com
Sign In or Register to comment.