# better upgrade?



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

Better upgrade?  5Dmkiii or Canon 70-200 f2.8 mkii?  My current set up is in my signature..


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

No idea and it may depend on what you shoot most often.  Not sure how well your Sigma performs, but you have the range covered already.  The jump from 70D to 5Dmkiii is a significant jump imo, so I would go for the 5Dmkiii.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

I would always always ALWAYS choose glass over digital body upgrades until my glass stable was completely where I wanted it to be, assuming the glass upgrade is a SIGNIFICANT one... for example, if it's just upgrading from 70-200 f2.8 mark 1 to mark 2, not so much... but coming from consumer glass to pro L glass, absolutely. 

You get hugely more photo-quality impact from glass than a digital body upgrade, and better glass will not only help the camera you own but also the camera you own four bodies from now after 4 more upgrades.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Agree generally with sabbath999, but I read so often how much difference FF is from croppy.  Hard to not think about the lenses I have and if I was in the same situation.


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

Most shooting would be portraits and live bands.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Agree generally with sabbath999, but I read so often how much difference FF is from croppy.  Hard to not think about the lenses I have and if I was in the same situation.



The difference between a 70D and a FF body isn't even on the same planet with the difference between a Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.5 and a Canon 70-200 f2.8 mark 2.

Sigma consumer glass vs. one of the best lenses ever made by mankind?

That's not even a close discussion, it's not even in the same ballpark. It's not even on the same planet, or even the same solar system.

Then, you throw in the fact that he can be using that 70-200 20 years from now, about 15 years after that full-frame camera became a paperweight, well... I personally think the choice is a pretty obvious one.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> Most shooting would be portraits and live bands.



Hmmm.  Tough decision.  Because of what you shoot, I would still lean towards FF (unless you are concerned about how old the 5d is and how soon a mark iv version will be out).  70-200 mark ii is a great lens that should last nearly forever.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

sabbath999 said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Agree generally with sabbath999, but I read so often how much difference FF is from croppy.  Hard to not think about the lenses I have and if I was in the same situation.
> ...



Haaa, just posted as you posted.  I was not only thinking of the Sigma, but the other lenses he has too.  I'm not disagreeing with you.  Still would be a tough decision for me.


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

I was just talking to my boss who has the 70-200mkii and a 6D...  We were discussing the lens being a long term investment that will hold well for whatever camera I shoot in the near future...  vs  the 5Dmkiii is going to be replaced next year.....   I guess my newest concern is the crop factor with the 70-200 becoming 105-300 ish..   For outdoor shoots/portraits that's a non issue.... but for indoors..... hmmmm.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I was just talking to my boss who has the 70-200mkii and a 6D...  We were discussing the lens being a long term investment that will hold well for whatever camera I shoot in the near future...  vs  the 5Dmkiii is going to be replaced next year.....   I guess my newest concern is the crop factor with the 70-200 becoming 105-300 ish..   For outdoor shoots/portraits that's a non issue.... but for indoors..... hmmmm.



The 70-200 will make better pictures indoors, outdoors, in space, on the moon, WHEREVER... than a Sigma consumer-grade lens. Portraits with a tack-sharp 70-200 at 2.8 vs portraits with a 6.5 Sigma lens? No comparison, WHATEVER, whether indoors or out. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

I've got nothing against Sigma consumer glass, it's just the difference between those two lenses is like the difference between crossing the ocean in first class on a 787 or crossing it in an open row boat. Both will probably get you there, but one IS better.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

sabbath999 said:


> Punisher911 said:
> 
> 
> > I was just talking to my boss who has the 70-200mkii and a 6D...  We were discussing the lens being a long term investment that will hold well for whatever camera I shoot in the near future...  vs  the 5Dmkiii is going to be replaced next year.....   I guess my newest concern is the crop factor with the 70-200 becoming 105-300 ish..   For outdoor shoots/portraits that's a non issue.... but for indoors..... hmmmm.
> ...



He has other glass.  No argument between the Sigma and the Canon.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> He has other glass.  No argument between the Sigma and the Canon.



He also has an outstanding digital body already, and is considering purchasing a camera that will not be anywhere near of an upgrade as the lens would be, upgrading to a camera that is about to be replaced in the line by a newer model.


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

I didn't mean it an issue of quality of the mkii lens indoors, but more of a distance factor to the subject indoors when adding in the crop factor.  The Sigma lens, I actually stopped using once I bought the 24-105 L lens.  It really does look like the lens is the way to go here.  Specially with the mk4/5dx or whatever it ends up being called comes out next year....


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I didn't mean it an issue of quality of the mkii lens indoors, but more of a distance factor to the subject indoors when adding in the crop factor.  The Sigma lens, I actually stopped using once I bought the 24-105 L lens.  It really does look like the lens is the way to go here.  Specially with the mk4/5dx or whatever it ends up being called comes out next year....



Yup, chasing camera models could be endless.  I hate adding to dilemnas, but have you considered Tamron 70-200 2.8 latest version?


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

Not sure I've seen the "newer" Tamron version..   any links?


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> Not sure I've seen the "newer" Tamron version..   any links?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 11, 2015)

JacaRanda said:
			
		

> No idea and it may depend on what you shoot most often.  Not sure how well your Sigma performs, but you have the range covered already.  The jump from 70D to 5Dmkiii is a significant jump imo, so I would go for the 5Dmkiii.



It's interesting how this is how the thread started off, because I agree: it might very well depend on what you shoot most often, or what is most important to you. In this thread 70D was described as an outstanding camera body, and it is in terms of its feature set, but I'm familiar with its main limitation: noisy images at even moderately higher ISO settings. It'snot what I would call outstanding by today's industry-leading sensors whenever an ISO of 640 or 800 is called for...its images suffer at that ISO level. Compare it against the Canon 6D for low-light and higher ISO uses, or against the 5D-III.

The other issue is the crop-body's impact on lenses...if you're NOT using Canon EF-S or third-party lenses designed for APS-C cameras, then every lens you put on is being used as *something that it is not.* Your 24-105-L has IS and USM focus, and is a wide-angle, moderate wide-angle, semi-wide, normal, short tele, and medium telephoto lens--when used on a full-frame camera. The 85mm prime you might want: on APS-C, a full-length portrait of a man and woman forces you to be 34.5 feet back, but on a full-frame the SAME field of view is captured from 20 feet away.

To me, the body is the foundation. The body is what every,single lens is mounted to...and with a frame that's, what is it? 2.7 times larger in area? the full-frame body is the single largest determinant of how you shoot, and where you stand, with EVERYsingle lens put on it. And, with the larger sensor area, you need far less image magnification to create every,single size of image that you will output; that in itself tremendously reduces the necessity for high-performance optics. The bigger, beefier image to begin with brings a lot of advantage to the shooting situation. Bigger has benefits many times.

So...if you need higher ISO capability, almost any FF camera blows the 70D away, easily. If you want a 24-105 to be what it was designed to be, FF does that. If you want an 85mm lens that can be used indoors in a normal-sized room, FF does that. If you do not need high-performance body, the Canon 6D seems like a no-brainer to me. Not the 5D or 5D-II or III, but something like a refurb 6D and then the 70-200 f/4-L IS USM. Best of both worlds.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 11, 2015)

I'm so glad I have given up on digital after reading this thread when people talk about waiting for the upgrade to the 5D mk3 what do you do when the new camera comes out ? Wait until that is upgraded


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I'm so glad I have given up on digital after reading this thread when people talk about waiting for the upgrade to the 5D mk3 what do you do when the new camera comes out ? Wait until that is upgraded



Uhm, what?  Never said the need to jump on the newest thing bandwagon and upgrade every time the new model comes out.  My biggest question was between an upper model FF camera upgrade from my crop sensor or to buy a good lens instead.  The mkiii has been out for a few years, I only mentioned that I can hold off on upgrading my crop sensor camera to a mk3 when the newer will be out soon enough.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I'm so glad I have given up on digital after reading this thread when people talk about waiting for the upgrade to the 5D mk3 what do you do when the new camera comes out ? Wait until that is upgraded
> ...


I didn't mean you, this is all you bloody hear on hear, wait for the upgrade, crop sensors are rubbish full frame is best and so on


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

Okee dokee.  I'll buy that.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very well said.  The technology seems to have gotten so good in each area, that it's probably more important to think of what the use will be as opposed to other factors.  Like I said, I have read so many times what a difference a FF frame camera does in comparison to APS-C  so many times that I am convinced without ever having used one myself.

Even the OP has concerns about indoor space.  Everything should be considered imo.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I didn't mean you, this is all you bloody hear on hear, wait for the upgrade, crop sensors are rubbish full frame is best and so on



I agree! 

The EOS-1N I was shooting last night has the same exact resolution and image quality as any 35mm camera manufactured 25 years later (not that there are many of those left). 

Funny thing is everybody thinks I am shooting digi when am using my EOS-1N or my Nikon F5... but everybody thinks I am shooting film when I break out my Nikon DF or Fuji X100T. Makes me chuckle.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Punisher911 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



To the point that where, how, when, and what in terms of usage, don't seem to matter.  But shouldn't they matter?


----------



## gsgary (Nov 11, 2015)

sabbath999 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't mean you, this is all you bloody hear on hear, wait for the upgrade, crop sensors are rubbish full frame is best and so on
> ...


People alway come up to  me and ask to see the screen on my M4P I tell them it's not even got a lightmeter


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

I am definitely not disappointed with the quality of my 70D or it's work, but I know that FF will provide a usable higher ISO advantage.  My concern with using the 70-200 as an indoor portrait lens was the distance required for me to be back away from the subject with the crop factor on my 70D.  So that's why I was wondering what would provide the better impact/usage to my current state between the two...  Would the FF be more advantageous, or would getting the great lens make a more noticeable improvement...


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I didn't mean you, this is all you bloody hear on hear, wait for the upgrade, crop sensors are rubbish full frame is best and so on


I'm waiting for the Nikon d799 which should be released in 2045 with the Extended 3D UHD FF micro-sensor and 75 fps spinning mirror. ( <-- sarcasm on waiting for the latest and greatest )

If you have need for the camera "now" then there's no reason to wait.
The newer camera will be more expensive though may help push down the 5dmk3 price a bit more.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 11, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't mean you, this is all you bloody hear on hear, wait for the upgrade, crop sensors are rubbish full frame is best and so on
> ...


I'm waiting for my rewards from Film Ferrania and then all the new film they will be coming out with


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I am definitely not disappointed with the quality of my 70D or it's work, but I know that FF will provide a usable higher ISO advantage.  My concern with using the 70-200 as an indoor portrait lens was the distance required for me to be back away from the subject with the crop factor on my 70D.  So that's why I was wondering what would provide the better impact/usage to my current state between the two...  Would the FF be more advantageous, or would getting the great lens make a more noticeable improvement...



No advantage if you don't have the room for the shot in regards to portraits (which you mentioned first).  Would the lack of space cost you clients/money?  Live bands?  How much light/indoors/outdoors, and how close will you be to the stage?  Things you have to consider I think.


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 11, 2015)

I guess in reality, I will end up with both..  A FF body and the 70-200.   Maybe the better question is which is a better first purchase....


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I guess in reality, I will end up with both..  A FF body and the 70-200.   Maybe the better question is which is a better first purchase....


It guess in reality it always comes down to budget.

Can you get a (new or used ) 6d and the Canon 70-200 together
or maybe the 6D and Tamron 70-200 for a little less
or 5dm3 and Canon or Tamron
it all comes down to money in the end.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> Better upgrade?  5Dmkiii or Canon 70-200 f2.8 mkii?  My current set up is in my signature..


As a rule of thumb I always go first for the camera and then lens but in this case I say first the lens simply because the 5D III is VERY long in the tooth and should be replaced soon.
Once the 5D IV comes out then get it.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Punisher911 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess in reality, I will end up with both..  A FF body and the 70-200.   Maybe the better question is which is a better first purchase....
> ...



And, doing all those portraits outside during the winter in Michigan because there is no room inside.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

goodguy said:


> Punisher911 said:
> 
> 
> > Better upgrade?  5Dmkiii or Canon 70-200 f2.8 mkii?  My current set up is in my signature..
> ...



Yup, long in the tooth and probably won't work much longer. And probably won't be even more affordable once the whatever version comes out.

I wonder why people even bother to suggest used or replaced models.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 11, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Punisher911 said:
> ...


BOTH
I live next to a park.
So all the winter portraits are of the people standing on the snow covered home plate of the baseball diamond as I shoot from my kitchen window.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 11, 2015)

6d plus 70-200mm f4. I'd try to sell the siggy 18-250 and maybe get a siggy 18-35 f1.8 to give your 70d a better fighting chance in low light. That set up would be a good dual set up in my opinion


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 11, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



Oh shoot.  Didn't cross my mind that you are there also.  I should have known


----------



## gsgary (Nov 11, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Punisher911 said:
> ...


Just what I thought, my best camera is 33 years old and will still be going when his D750 is long gone


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I'm waiting for my rewards from Film Ferrania and then all the new film they will be coming out with



126 PLEASE PLEASE PLEAS!!!


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I guess in reality, I will end up with both..  A FF body and the 70-200.   Maybe the better question is which is a better first purchase....



Same answer, but yeah, choosing to buy both is the best answer


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Just what I thought, my best camera is 33 years old and will still be going when his D750 is long gone



That's good advice for a film camera, but digi? NOBODY but somebody who enjoys playing with antiques will be shooting any of today's digi cameras in 10 years, whereas these lenses may last a lifetime.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 11, 2015)

gsgary said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


 
You know what I like about you Gary ?
You are very predictable, will always act in an offensive arogant and ignorent way, very predictable indeed.
In the past it touched me, now when you are acting in a nearly nice way I am surprise, nice to see your true self again mate, welcome back.


----------



## goodguy (Nov 11, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > Punisher911 said:
> ...


JacaRanda, may I ask what did I say so wrong that demanded such a response from you ?
I dont think the 5D III is a bad camera but I am a sucker of new technology, if I know a new model is going to come out soon I would never want an older model as good as it might be.
OP can choose what he/she wants, this is my look of things, I meant no disrespect to him/her or anyone else nor do I think my reply or resoning was disrespectful to get such a reply from you.


----------



## weepete (Nov 11, 2015)

Glass.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 12, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


Funniest thing is I've been asked a couple times by parents to get their kids baseball pictures of them at bat and hitting the ball.

The best vantage point I have is from my back porch or kitchen window.


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 12, 2015)

I was at a Tigers game earlier this year....   Got one shot almost perfect of the ball coming off the bat....  Made me wish I had a higher fps burst on the 70D.  So hard to get that shot.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 12, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I was at a Tigers game earlier this year....   Got one shot almost perfect of the ball coming off the bat....  Made me wish I had a higher fps burst on the 70D.  So hard to get that shot.



Yuppers.  Sometimes it's all about timing, but other times it's pure luck.  More fps can certainly help with the luck part.  Knowing the sport, knowing the play, expectation and all that helps.  However, when an Avocet is mating and you want to get that split second wing position of the male - you can know it's happening all you want, but if that shutter doesn't flap like a hummingbird wing - Good Luck.  Same thing with football.  You may anticipate where a play is going, but do you anticipate a fumble and if the ball is in the air one frame or already on the ground in the next frame (or the ball is blocked by a player entering the frame) etc.

Good timing = good luck in many photos.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 12, 2015)

It also doesn't help when the player totally misses the ball and gets a strike / strikes out ...


----------



## jaomul (Nov 12, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> I was at a Tigers game earlier this year....   Got one shot almost perfect of the ball coming off the bat....  Made me wish I had a higher fps burst on the 70D.  So hard to get that shot.



To be fair 7fps is pretty respectable, not long ago the best of the best was barely faster


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 12, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Punisher911 said:
> 
> 
> > I was at a Tigers game earlier this year....   Got one shot almost perfect of the ball coming off the bat....  Made me wish I had a higher fps burst on the 70D.  So hard to get that shot.
> ...



From T3I to 60D to 70D, big difference.


----------

