02-10-2018 01:51 PM
02-10-2018 02:20 PM
A full-fame camera would give you a nice boost in ISO performance but this assumes you shoot in low light at high ISO. But a full-frame camera also completely changes the angle of view. You would not be able to use your "EF-S" lens on a full-frame body.
Also keep in mind if you use flash, that full-frame cameras don't have a built-in flash ... they require external hot-shoe mounted flash or off-camera flash (and a way to trigger it).
A crop-frame body such as an 80D would also give you a nice performance boost (not quite as good in the low ISO department as a full-frame body).
A full-frame camera isn't necessarily "better" ... it's just "different".
02-10-2018 05:45 PM
I stayed with my 1D Mark II (1.3x crop) for MANY years only recently upgrading it to a 1DX Mark II and the primary reason was for the much better ISO sensitivity and far better AF for sports in low light. Although the 1DM2 was an "oddball" 1.3X crop in between the classic full frame and common APS-C sensor size the crop factor was never a concern with my old camera and it will stay in service with my 14 year old daughter - of course now I have to buy some glass for her
I wouldn't let sensor crop factor be the deciding factor, the improvement for me was primarily from great advancement in sensor, processing, and AF technology and not from the sensor size/crop factor. In decent lighting my now ancient in DSLR terms 1DM2 still produces excellent images like it always did but it can't keep up in the ISO/noise department and for extreme blowups the extra pixel density of the newer model will be useful. If I hadn't become frustrated by trying to get decent results in a poorly lit indoor sports facility I probably would have procrastinated a bit longer about finally upgrading to modern technology.
I agree with Tim that the 80D would be a logical step up in terms of performance but I would also throw out that although more expensive than the 80D body your first upgrade might be to the excellent Canon 24-70 f2.8 lens for your current camera body which provides good lower light coverage of an important range AND will be useful with any Canon DSLR body you upgrade to in the future. You might consider carefully looking at a similar lens from other makers but I am a big fan of Canon glass. Overwhelmingly my two most frequently used lenses are my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and if I am taking a camera somewhere no matter how light I travel these two will be with me.
My view has always been that you budget for lens first and body second and a great lens on a good camera body is going to provide consistently superior results to a top end body with a so so lens. More advanced bodies can provide better results under more difficult conditions but superior optics are superior in all conditions. Your 70-200 F4.0 is an excellent choice and it would pair well with Canon's 24-70 offering.
02-10-2018 06:16 PM
In terms of addictions it is a very good addiction!
My twin addictions are photography and vintage ham radio gear restoration and photograhpy is the safer of the two addictions. I can't electrocute myself with the camera and I am unlikely to suffer back injury lifting a camera and lens.
It will be interesting to see where this hobby and associated industry goes in the future since the great majority feel no need to move beyond a smartphone for images and a friend in consumer electronics told me many have the same concern in that industry because for many highly compressed audio files heard through earbuds of dubious quality are all many consumers experience or care to experience. Technology has provided an incredible array of tools and quality to the budding photographer at the same time it seems interest has dropped in owning and using a "real" camera.
02-11-2018 10:41 AM
My current bodies of choice:
77D - APS-C
6D2 - FF
I'd only do an 80D if video was more important than still images.
If you add a 24-70 lens to your kit and stick with APS-C, you'll still have good wide coverage with the 10-18mm (great lens!). I sold mine last week to a guy that had a 70D.
You'll then have coverage for 10-18, 38-112mm, 80 (fixed) and 112-320mm.
Tim pointed out the biggest differences between APS-C and FF sensors. ISO and angle of view.
wq9nsc also makes an excellent point regarding the benefits of investing in good quality glass over a higher priced body. It's true, glass matters.
The reason why I like my 6D2 so much.. because of its articulating screen. I had it on my T6s and can't do without it now. If I was a pro, I'd have to give in and get a 5D4, but I wouldn't be happy with the fixed screen.
Budget is also a factor. But like wq9nsc said the technology advancements alone that have ocurred in the last 8 years will make going from a Digic4 > something more current a worthwhile investment.
02-11-2018 02:43 PM
"My current bodies of choice:
77D - APS-C
6D2 - FF
I'd only do an 80D if video was more important than still images."
I would beg to differ. There are other significant differences between the 80D and 77D. Aside from the 77D having a smaller body and battery life, the AF systems are significantly different.
While both bodies have 45 cross-type AF points, 27 of those points can focus at f/8 in the 80D, compared to none in the 77D.
02-11-2018 04:40 PM
02-11-2018 05:06 PM - edited 02-11-2018 05:07 PM
IS will only help you with camera shake, it makes it easier to get sharp handheld photos particularly with telephoto lenses. But with wildlife it is ususally the subject itself that is moving and IS won't help with that problem. So you are back to the exposure triangle of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and to freeze wildlife movement you will have to go with a fairly fast shutter speed which will sometimes force you into a higher ISO than you wish and also forces you to shoot with the aperture near wide open since most wildlife doesn't cooperate by sitting out in the bright sun. With aperture wide open depth of field decreases so point of optimal focus becomes more critical and you are probably best choosing a single focus point for most wildlife shots unless it is truly moving rapidly making it hard to track with the lens.
90% of my recent shooting has been in an indoor soccer arena and the best overall setting for me is ISO 16,000, shutter 1/500, and aperture F4.0 (the best I can do with my 70-200 F2.8 with the 1.4X extender). It works pretty well but I would be happier with a little faster shutter speed, the aperture stepped down slightly for more depth of field, and ISO of 6,400 or less (a little better detail and dynamic range). But the conditions dictate the settings and these are as good as it gets for me until the team moves outside for the regular Spring season. And because I am still getting used to the best settings for capturing and processing images with this new body I am pretty sure there is a lot more capability in the camera than I have gotten out of it thus far. When compared to some of the action shots I have captured in recent years with my much older Canon 1DM2 it is a little depressing what I have achieved with the 1DX M2 thus far but then I realize that the older body cannot produce usable action images under the lighting conditions and I know I will also get better in utilizing the new camera.
02-11-2018 05:29 PM
I appreciate the info everyone. Really helps me open my options. I am just hoping that this new 70-200 gets me out far enough when trying to capture deer/elk.
One thing I have noticed tends to happen on my pictures is they do look blurred. Not sure if that has something to do with IS. Again, I am definitley just getting into photography and have a lot of learning ahead of me.
The 70-200mm f/4 lens is a little short for most wildlife photography. But, if you're shooting big game, maybe not. It really depends upon how close you can get. Raising your shutter speed might be the cure for blurry images. I have not seen them.
I am not a fan of creeping up on big beasts in the wild. I have seen what a bull moose can do to the front of car with one hit. Cracked the radiator. Made a real big mess, too.