Any recommendations for my first full frame Canon?

[William W]

A 5D2, it's a no brainer.

Refering to another thread, (Post #63) where a similar definitive statement was made and there was confusion about the meaning of it: therefore, for clarity now, it is assumed the statement above is NOT a joke.

I disagree with the statement.

Both Rufus and Randy have proposed reasonably complex questions and both are still supplying to the conversation necessary information, which has been requested of them.

The solution for each person is certainly NOT a "no brainer" and might not necessarily be an EOS 5DMkII.

***

. . . In terms of the question of noise, I would suggest that the 7DMkII will whip the pants off almost any camera that's out there and will certainly stand alongside most of the full-frame cameras you could buy (I suspect the newly announced 80D will be the same). And with respect, far better than a 5D2.

Both Rufus and Randy may find it interesting that during 2015, several tests by reputable agencies suggested the 7D MkII as the best low light performer in the EOS range – apropos pattern noise and SNR. The next camera was the 6D.

Roger Clark's made one of these studies. Applicable to this thread his detailed technical testing for mainly Astro-photography and Night Photography using EOS 7D MkII.

If an EOS 7DMkII is presenting Final Images with undue high nose level, then it is most certainly operator error and or operator ignorance.

***

Rufus:

The EF-S 10 to 22 is a very nice lens. As funds are not unlimited, a value for money choice, would be to make considerations to keep this lens and consider buying a 7DMkII, rather than changing formats and thereafter having to buy a new set of lenses. But I am unsure of the Filter System you have bought? Is the filter system useless on the 10 to 22 wider when that lens is wider than 17mm Focal Length?

Another consideration is, whether or not you wish to employ TS-E Lenses - in which case there is much more leverage in using a 135 Format (aka "Full Frame") camera for the TS-E lenses. An EOS 6D would be worth your due consideration as a value for money option, in this case.

***

Randy:

Astro-Photography can broadly be classified into “with trails” and “without trails”. It makes sense that you’d want to avail yourself of the full FoV of the 14mm Lens that you own.

If you want predominately want “without trial” when using an F/2.8 lens, the major criterion would be to have a camera with the lowest noise values at its high ISO - i.e. ISO3200 to ISO6400 and maybe it will be necessary to extending to 128,000 when using an F2/8 Lens: the reason for this is to attain the necessary (relative) short exposure time to eliminate trails.

If you want predominately “trails” - or you do not mind if you have “trails” - then as per Dan K’s comments – you’ll mostly be shooting at or near base ISO.

So even though this genre of night photography is "low light" it does not usually necessitate using an high ISO: in fact, as an example, previously, many notable night landscape shots were made using Ektachrome Professional 64 (obviously) at exposure times longer than 1 second. (These took advantage of the rich colour effects which is an anomaly of that film's reciprocity feature).

This is mentioned because the relevant point being that Night Landscape Photographers chose "ISO" 64 for their best work, and ISO 64 is lower than the base ISO for most (all?) DSLR's . . . most Night Landscape Photographers use base or close to base ISO; you might like to research the work of Colin Southern, previously a member here at CiC.

***

A Photographer who is (supposedly) planned an prepped for either Architectural Photography and/or Night Landscape Photography and who does not include a suitable Tripod and Head in his/her kit – is simply NOT planned and prepped: thus rendering the argument of - sometimes without a tripod and being Hand-held - non sequitur at the least, or a nonsense at the most.

WW

[SuffolkGal]

Refering to another thread, (Post #63) where a similar definitive statement was made and there was confusion about the meaning of it: therefore, for clarity now, it is assumed the statement above is NOT a joke.

I disagree with the statement.

Both Rufus and Randy have proposed reasonably complex questions and both are still supplying to the conversation necessary information, which has been requested of them.

The solution for each person is certainly NOT a "no brainer" and might not necessarily be an EOS 5DMkII.

***



Both Rufus and Randy may find it interesting that during 2015, several tests by reputable agencies suggested the 7D MkII as the best low light performer in the EOS range – apropos pattern noise and SNR. The next camera was the 6D.

Roger Clark's made one of these studies. Applicable to this thread his detailed technical testing for mainly Astro-photography and Night Photography using EOS 7D MkII.

If an EOS 7DMkII is presenting Final Images with undue high nose level, then it is most certainly operator error and or operator ignorance.

***

Rufus:

The EF-S 10 to 22 is a very nice lens. As funds are not unlimited, a value for money choice, would be to make considerations to keep this lens and consider buying a 7DMkII, rather than changing formats and thereafter having to buy a new set of lenses. But I am unsure of the Filter System you have bought? Is the filter system useless on the 10 to 22 wider when that lens is wider than 17mm Focal Length?

Another consideration is, whether or not you wish to employ TS-E Lenses - in which case there is much more leverage in using a 135 Format (aka "Full Frame") camera for the TS-E lenses. An EOS 6D would be worth your due consideration as a value for money option, in this case.

***

Randy:

Astro-Photography can broadly be classified into “with trails” and “without trails”. It makes sense that you’d want to avail yourself of the full FoV of the 14mm Lens that you own.

If you want predominately want “without trial” when using an F/2.8 lens, the major criterion would be to have a camera with the lowest noise values at its high ISO - i.e. ISO3200 to ISO6400 and maybe it will be necessary to extending to 128,000 when using an F2/8 Lens: the reason for this is to attain the necessary (relative) short exposure time to eliminate trails.

If you want predominately “trails” - or you do not mind if you have “trails” - then as per Dan K’s comments – you’ll mostly be shooting at or near base ISO.

So even though this genre of night photography is "low light" it does not usually necessitate using an high ISO: in fact, as an example, previously, many notable night landscape shots were made using Ektachrome Professional 64 (obviously) at exposure times longer than 1 second. (These took advantage of the rich colour effects which is an anomaly of that film's reciprocity feature).

This is mentioned because the relevant point being that Night Landscape Photographers chose "ISO" 64 for their best work, and ISO 64 is lower than the base ISO for most (all?) DSLR's . . . most Night Landscape Photographers use base or close to base ISO; you might like to research the work of Colin Southern, previously a member here at CiC.

***

A Photographer who is (supposedly) planned an prepped for either Architectural Photography and/or Night Landscape Photography and who does not include a suitable Tripod and Head in his/her kit – is simply NOT planned and prepped: thus rendering the argument of - sometimes without a tripod and being Hand-held - non sequitur at the least, or a nonsense at the most.

WW

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine

[Tronhard]

Rufus:

The EF-S 10 to 22 is a very nice lens. As funds are not unlimited, a value for money choice, would be to make considerations to keep this lens and consider buying a 7DMkII, rather than changing formats and thereafter having to buy a new set of lenses. But I am unsure of the Filter System you have bought? Is the filter system useless on the 10 to 22 wider when that lens is wider than 17mm Focal Length?

Another consideration is, whether or not you wish to employ TS-E Lenses - in which case there is much more leverage in using a 135 Format (aka "Full Frame") camera for the TS-E lenses. An EOS 6D would be worth your due consideration as a value for money option, in this case.

WW

Bill:
I stand in awe of your technical explanations, but for I would refer you to a part of my post to Rufus...

"Not only is a skills-first focus more cost-effective, but it makes us better photographers, not lesser ones with really great gear.

You will always get advice to choose a particular lens, body and make - such advice is made with genuine enthusiasm by those who have found that they get great results from them. People will quote technological statistics to confirm their choices, and I have found people who are fanatical about one brand and scorn others."

I think your discussion about the merits of various technologies is considered and has a lot of knowledge attached - I think it is a discussion with value in its own right.

However, for Rufus' purposes, while the thread began as a query about getting the right FF body, I believe that the long discussion has made (for him) a change from a technology one to a educational and developmental one.

So often we look at our photos and think "If I had a better camera with a better lens my photos would be better". Bill, as a professional yourself with a long career under your belt I am confident you will support the merits of skill over technology.

As Rufus himself has said he realizes that his big challenge is to learn to use what he has to its fullest and then consider an investment in better gear based on a greater self-knowledge of what kind of photographer he wants to be and how much he is prepared to invest. I think that is the message that is most important to reinforce for his own sake. With experience under his belt he could well revisit this question and your advice will no doubt be invaluable.

[lunaticitizen]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I don't think there was any need to write that sentence.
If you disagree please elaborate. If you don't care why bother replying? It sounds dismissive and it is unworthy of this forum.

[SuffolkGal]

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I don't think there was any need to write that sentence.
If you disagree please elaborate. If you don't care why bother replying? It sounds dismissive and it is unworthy of this forum.

Better DOF than with a cropped sensor giving a wider range of artistic choice .

Make full use of wide angle lenses. What good is it to have a 17mm lens, for example, on a cropped sensor camera when shooting landscape

Those 2 reasons alone make it common sense to me a FF camera for landscape photography.

In the landscape it rains. Gets misty and foggy. Not good for a camera without the same weather sealing as of 5d2. Not good for a 6d. Not good for an ef-s lens.

The 17-40mm L f4 lens is widely considered to be one of the best in the Canon line up and it is so very affordable.

The low light shots I saw from the 7d2 were sooc, perfectly exposed and taken by a very experienced professional photographer. I did not consider the images good enough for my clients. That may be purely subjective, but that is my decision.

As I said previously. I would like a cropped camera sometimes for the extra reach, but high ISO performance is crucial to me.

The 5d2 is an incredible bargain right now.

I'm sure I could give even more reasons given time, but, for me, the reasons I have given here make choosing a 5d2 a no brainer as the OPs first Canon FF camera.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion.

I would appreciate it if you made at least some attempt at being polite, please.

[William W]

. . . I would refer you to a part of my post to Rufus... "Not only is a skills-first focus more cost-effective, but it makes us better photographers, not lesser ones with really great gear. "

I agree that Rufus should consider improving his skills with the gear that he has. It occurs to me that none of my previous disagreed with that message.

I think that improving skill is best done with the best available/attainable/affordable and best suited equipment.

I think Rufus should balance his research to include both and excluded neither of those points from the choices that he makes.

*

You will always get advice to choose a particular lens, body and make - such advice is made with genuine enthusiasm by those who have found that they get great results from them. People will quote technological statistics to confirm their choices, and I have found people who are fanatical about one brand and scorn others. "

On re-reading my commentary, especially the part that you quoted, it occurs to me that nowhere in it was advice provided with enthusiasm because I have attained great results from that gear, nor was it fanatical about gear or brand nor did it scorn others.

If fact, au contraire: my advice was - objective, metered and specifically to the considerations about which path to take, notwithstanding nor eliminating, taking no path.

And in any case: no discussion is owed by or limited to the OP – it is a public forum and it is often more than the OP who benefits from the ideas which are presented.

***

. . . However, for Rufus' purposes, while the thread began as a query about getting the right FF body, I believe that the long discussion has made (for him) a change from a technology one to a educational and developmental one.

Perhaps it has.

***

. . . So often we look at our photos and think "If I had a better camera with a better lens my photos would be better". Bill, as a professional yourself with a long career under your belt I am confident you will support the merits of skill over technology.

I support the merits of skill. And as you asked the question of me - this is not only and not necessarily because I have been a Photographer for a long time. I have had a particular value for education, training and attaining a personal best at any endeavour, since an age of about 12years. Participating in comparatively high level sport mainly drove that, combined with a very competitive high-school environment.

I also support the merits of technology. I also advocate the use of the appropriate technology both for the best results and also for the best learning and skills improvement.

On the other hand and a result of my Broadcast & Telecast career I was requested to prepare for presentation to the Parliament's Standing Senate Committee, a study on technology upgrade - one of the salient points revealed in that study was the inefficiency and waste generated by what I defined as 'acquiring technology for technology's sake' .

My having had experience and having attained a good insight into both the value of skills and education - AND - the value of technology: it is obvious that these factors are not exclusive of each other. According you should certainly NOT be confident that I will: "support the merits of skill over technology".

In fact I rarely support any such either "this or that view" because doing so usually is fraught with danger in so far as such usually results in: very poor and limited thinking; inefficient problem solving; and sub-par outcomes.

***

As Rufus himself has said he realizes that his big challenge is to learn to use what he has to its fullest and then consider an investment in better gear based on a greater self-knowledge of what kind of photographer he wants to be and how much he is prepared to invest. I think that is the message that is most important to reinforce for his own sake.

As mentioned already, I certainly agree that improving skills is worthwhile.

But also as alluded, improving skills does not exclude buying another new camera based upon what Rufus knows now and in the consideration of knowledge that he gains from other sources.

Self teaching and experience is not the only way to learn. In fact if one only does that, it is often very limiting and can lead to poor choices.

Also, as already mentioned, learning on better quality and/or more suitable tools has great relevance.

*

As a general comment I do not view the aim of conversations here at CiC is to generally: quantify, contrast, compare, how "valuable" anyone's advice or opinion relative one to another.

However, since you have opened a discussion on that particular topic: my opinion is that you make a good point (amongst other good points) that Rufus should improve his skills.

BUT - I do not see any particular great value in Rufus (or anyone) having to wait for some time in the future to ask a question and moreover I do not see any intrinsic value to NOT take on advice now that might be useful in the future.

My opinion also is that I make good points apropos what are the considerations if and when he buys a new camera body. All these good points can co-exist in the one conversation. More importantly as already mentioned, the conversation is not owned by or limited to Rufus’s position.

I trust that clarifies the general and common raison d'être of my commentaries, here.

***

With experience under his belt he could well revisit this question and your advice will no doubt be invaluable.

I think making rules like that is very limiting.

Moreover and generally speaking, the position taken to make the suggestion of that as a rule to be invoked, occurs as out of order, apropos the respect and courtesy which is due to both any Proposer and any Respondent.

WW

[William W]

A few points, only addressing the Opening Post asking about the best suited FF Camera for - landscape, architecture and some studio and macro work with occasional action shots and HDR on a limited budget:

Better DOF than with a cropped sensor giving a wider range of artistic choice .

Not sure that I understand, but if the meaning is that a FF camera has the ability to make a more SHALLOW DoF, then there is limited relevance of that to “landscape, architecture and some studio and macro work with occasional action shots and HDR” - which begs the question as to whether a FF camera is even in the offing as the answer, let alone the 5DMkII being a ‘no brainer’ answer.

*

Make full use of wide angle lenses. What good is it to have a 17mm lens, for example, on a cropped sensor camera when shooting landscape . . . The 17-40mm L f4 lens is widely considered to be one of the best in the Canon line up and it is so very affordable.

But the OP already has a 10 to 22 and is on a limited budget. If he buys any FF camera new lens (for example the 17 to 40) will also have to be acquired. But taking into account the limited budget - that also begs the question as to whether a FF camera is even in the offing as his answer, let alone the 5DMkII being a ‘no brainer’ answer.

*

In the landscape it rains. Gets misty and foggy. Not good for a camera without the same weather sealing as of 5d2. Not good for a 6d. Not good for an ef-s lens.

Weather resistant sealing is not attained (nor is it maintained guaranteed nor within the camera's AND lens's warrentees) without: a weather sealed lens; the prescribed weather sealing filter on the lens at all times; and the prescribed Canon Authorized maintenance of the seals.

The low light shots I saw from the 7d2 were sooc, perfectly exposed and taken by a very experienced professional photographer. I did not consider the images good enough for my clients. That may be purely subjective, but that is my decision.

I would not consider any image “SOOC” from any camera good enough for Clients.

*

As I said previously. I would like a cropped camera sometimes for the extra reach, but high ISO performance is crucial to me.

I refer to the link the noise tests of the 7DMkII already provided

*

The 5d2 is an incredible bargain right now.

It is. there are also other bargains on other EOS models. Depending upon location Canon refurbished with warrantee can be a good option.

*

I'm sure I could give even more reasons given time, but, for me, the reasons I have given here make choosing a 5d2 a no brainer as the OPs first Canon FF camera. Of course, that's just my personal opinion.

Thank you for expanding on the reasons why you think a 5D MkII is a “no brainer”.

I still do not agree that a 5D MkII is a "no brainer" and that is explained by the reasons above supplied.

Accordingly I advise Rufus to make careful consideration and not jump in simply because the 5DMkII is a bargain.

WW

[SuffolkGal]

A few points, only addressing the Opening Post asking about the best suited FF Camera for - landscape, architecture and some studio and macro work with occasional action shots and HDR on a limited budget:


Not sure that I understand, but if the meaning is that a FF camera has the ability to make a more SHALLOW DoF, then there is limited relevance of that to “landscape, architecture and some studio and macro work with occasional action shots and HDR” - which begs the question as to whether a FF camera is even in the offing as the answer, let alone the 5DMkII being a ‘no brainer’ answer.

*



But the OP already has a 10 to 22 and is on a limited budget. If he buys any FF camera new lens (for example the 17 to 40) will also have to be acquired. But taking into account the limited budget - that also begs the question as to whether a FF camera is even in the offing as his answer, let alone the 5DMkII being a ‘no brainer’ answer.

*



Weather resistant sealing is not attained (nor is it maintained guaranteed nor within the camera's AND lens's warrentees) without: a weather sealed lens; the prescribed weather sealing filter on the lens at all times; and the prescribed Canon Authorized maintenance of the seals.




I would not consider any image “SOOC” from any camera good enough for Clients.

*



I refer to the link the noise tests of the 7DMkII already provided

*



It is. there are also other bargains on other EOS models. Depending upon location Canon refurbished with warrantee can be a good option.

*



Thank you for expanding on the reasons why you think a 5D MkII is a “no brainer”.

I still do not agree that a 5D MkII is a "no brainer" and that is explained by the reasons above supplied.

Accordingly I advise Rufus to make careful consideration and not jump in simply because the 5DMkII is a bargain.

WW

I can tell that you are not to be reasoned with.
£600 for a camera IS budget price.
The 17-40 is a fantastic price for the lens, typically £350.

If you don't like my posts, kindly ignore them because I did not join this forum to talk to humourless trolls.

If I can find a way to block you I will.

I just read your occupations. One would have thought that you would have people skills. People like you are why so many great photographers stay away from forums altogether.

[SuffolkGal]

How do I block an idiot on here?

[Tronhard]

Bill, you really have to work on your people skills mate. I bent over backwards trying to be diplomatic to you, but I find your contributions, peppered with self-aggrandizement, come across as self-important to the point of arrogance. I don't try to impress people with my history, I try to let the value of my logic speak for itself on its own merits. Furthermore you use language as a weapon to intimidate people (I've been in the corridors of power too and I know a player when I see one).

For an example (and only one... ) I don't know where you got the idea of a "rule" from in your comment to my quote:
I wrote: "With experience under his belt he could well revisit this question and your advice will no doubt be invaluable." I was SUGGESTING that given some time to work on his technique he may find that he has other questions to ask and may be able to express his needs more specifically." The No Doubt part was an encouragement to engage with him at that point.

Your Response: " I think making rules like that is very limiting.
Moreover and generally speaking, the position taken to make the suggestion of that as a rule to be invoked, occurs as out of order, apropos the respect and courtesy which is due to both any Proposer and any Respondent."

The wording you have just used is both clumsy and obscure - it would sit well in a legal document really.

I am only happy that Rufus seems to have found a way forward that works for him. He initiated this and in my book that made him the client, and it was far more important to support him than score points or argue technicalities.

[William W]

Bill, you really have to work on your people skills mate. I bent over backwards trying to be diplomatic to you, but I find your contributions, peppered with self-aggrandizement, come across as self-important to the point of arrogance. I don't try to impress people with my history, I try to let the value of my logic speak for itself on its own merits. Furthermore you use language as a weapon to intimidate people (I've been in the corridors of power too and I know a player when I see one).

For an example (and only one... ) I don't know where you got the idea of a "rule" from in your comment to my quote:
I wrote: "With experience under his belt he could well revisit this question and your advice will no doubt be invaluable." I was SUGGESTING that given some time to work on his technique he may find that he has other questions to ask and may be able to express his needs more specifically." The No Doubt part was an encouragement to engage with him at that point.

Your Response: " I think making rules like that is very limiting.
Moreover and generally speaking, the position taken to make the suggestion of that as a rule to be invoked, occurs as out of order, apropos the respect and courtesy which is due to both any Proposer and any Respondent."

The wording you have just used is both clumsy and obscure - it would sit well in a legal document really.

I am only happy that Rufus seems to have found a way forward that works for him. He initiated this and in my book that made him the client, and it was far more important to support him than score points or argue technicalities.

Thank you for the advice to work on my people skills.

Much of the remainder of your post does not address the systematic point by point responses relevant the main conversation to the points that YOU raised, but rather is, in fact, simply a direct personal attack and has been reported as same.

WW

[William W]

I can tell that you are not to be reasoned with. If you don't like my posts, kindly ignore them because I did not join this forum to talk to humourless trolls.

All opinions which are expressed are open to challenge and debate: being able to be “reasoned with” does not mean one should accept another's view as the most useful solution.

However what is not acceptable is personal attack, eg: “to humourless trolls”.

WW

[William W]

How do I block an idiot on here?

Definitively a personal attack.
Reported.

WW

[Tony M]

I think that this thread has come to an end and suggest that the moderators close it.

[davidedric]

I was just about to post the same please close it.

[Rob Ekins]

I was just about to post the same please close it.

I am sure the troll that has been a member since Feb 2016 would love that outcome..but she will be back.

Jenny,
Care to share your website with us, maybe lose a bit of the "SuffolkGal" anonymity. I am sure your "clients" would love to see your input on social media pop up on SEO enquiries.

[Rufus]

I value the opinions and suggestions in response to my OP. It is a shame that the thread has degenerated as it may be useful to others in the future.

Anyway I shall continue my deliberations I the light of the parts of the thread that I feel are the most relevant. Thank you for the insights. I will also delve into the tutorials on this wonderful website.

[Rob Ekins]

Rufus,
I am glad you can see through the BS of this thread and take what you need from it, it is very rare that this site goes down the bun fight road.

Please feel free to ask more questions or add an image for review that you think may help on your photographic journey.

[Donald]

This thread is now closed.

A number of PMs have been sent in relation to its content.