Making a mistake?

[crispyphoto]

Been lurking here for a bit and found some good advice. I have had a Digital Rebel for a little more than 10 years. I originally used is fairly frequently, mainly for scenic and family photos. Over that past couple of years it has been lightly used as I kept getting frustrated with poor battery life. I know I still have a lot to learn, but think I would be better served learning with a newer body and have decided to update the camera. I have been looking at the 80D and the 7D Mark ii and have been drawn more to the 80D based on the features and what I have read and the type of shooting I would like to do. I have interests in shooting scenic, wildlife, travel and some sports (horse racing, golf, and maybe some local college teams).

Wit the Rebel I have 1 EFS lens (18-55) and 2 EF IS lenses (75-300) and (28-135). With the 80D I was looking to add an EF 70-200 f4 IS USM and came across a youtube video that downplayed the use of full frame lenses on crop bodies and the loss of picture quality.

Should I be considering something different with a budget of about $2500? Thanks!

 

[astroNikon]

EF 70-200 f4 IS USM and came across a youtube video that downplayed the use of full frame lenses on crop bodies and the loss of picture quality

Do you have a link to that video?
Picture quality should be optimum using a FF lens on a crop camera as it's using the center of the image, and not the extremes where most non-optimum image issues occur.

FYI, a new battery would solve the battery life. 10 years on a battery is probably close to it's lifespan.

Looking at your interests, though not being a Canon person, I would think the 7dm2 is bettered served for the sports and wildlife that you indicate.

 

[crispyphoto]

EF 70-200 f4 IS USM and came across a youtube video that downplayed the use of full frame lenses on crop bodies and the loss of picture quality

Do you have a link to that video?
Picture quality should be optimum using a FF lens on a crop camera as it's using the center of the image, and not the extremes where most non-optimum image issues occur.

FYI, a new battery would solve the battery life. 10 years on a battery is probably close to it's lifespan.

Looking at your interests, though not being a Canon person, I would think the 7dm2 is bettered served for the sports and wildlife that you indicate.

Here is the You Tube link:

I have probably purchased 5-6 batteries over the life of the camera.

 

[Derrel]

Full-frame lenses on crop bodies...it's what MOST 'serious' crop-body users end up doing once they get tired of the chromatic aberration, the slowish, and unreliable focusing of the cheap lenses Canon has built in their EF-S line, or the DX-Nikkor lenses Nikon has offered. In both top brands, the crop-body lenses are, with just a few exceptions, "Consumer-grade" lenses in at least one way, and sometimes are consumer-grade optics in two,or three, or four different ways--and not necessarily in "the good ways" either.

The above video....OMG...I know who Tony is, and he has a mixture of good advice, as well as some clouded ways of explaining things. And that is being kind. His "ideas" on this subject are poorly supported. He means well, but...

The Canon EF 70-200 f4 IS USM is a professional-grade 70-200 lens, fairly light, solidly made, designed for a couple of decades' worth of regular use. I've shot it just a bit on the 40D and the 6D Canons...it's a NICE lens! It balances GREAT on the 6D without grip. This is a NEW, modern optical design, and it likely better than the first-gen f/2.8 model by 15% or more in some metrics. It focuses well, and it's well-balanced on grip-less, half-height Canons.

The real issue though is focal lengths, not lens performance: for a party/event lens, one WANTS a 17-55mm lens for an APS-C Camera; the same lens on a FF Canon would be a 24-70mm lens. INDOORS>>>the 70-200mm lens is not the best length on APS-C, unless "indoors" is a football stadium or convention hall...the bottom end of 70mm makes the shortest length very narrow-angle when indoors! Buuuuuuut...at a softball game, that makes a 70-200 a lot more useful on an APS-C body than on a FF body for the parent whose child plays second base!

There are a FEW EF-S Canon lenses that offer pretty good optics, and there are many full-frame lenses that simply are all the camera makers offer; 35mm,50mm,85mm,100mm,135mm, 24-105-L, 16-35-L, 16-40-L, 24-70-L, 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8...those lenses might be considered full-frame in Canon--but they are also good, solidly-built, long-lasting, high-performance lenses, so buying and using them makes a lot of sense. No matter what TN says. The idea of "using all the sharpness" of a lens...OMG...

 

[crispyphoto]

Thanks for the responses and feedback!

 

[Overread]

I can only second what has been said and to ignore Tony - that video is pretty much standing alone against the sea of logic in basically everything. I think Tony is smarter than some thing, but deliberately words some of his videos and views so that they sound like they are extreme views that go against the grain of common advice - this tends to work well at getting attention and because some of his facts are sort-of correct from a certain angle he's not totally telling lies even if the common interpretation of his video might well be a lie/mistruth/very opinionated viewpoint.

So I'd not use him as a trusted source for information; I think you'd get confused in a few areas because you don't see the whole picture and if you only see the small window he (and most tutorials) show then you'll get conflicted as to who to listen to.

 

[table1349]

Perfect example of why I ignore blogs. Most bloggers are the MWC of the blogging world.

 

[Derrel]

I can only second what has been said and to ignore Tony - that video is pretty much standing alone against the sea of logic in basically everything. I think Tony is smarter than some thing, but deliberately words some of his videos and views so that they sound like they are extreme views that go against the grain of common advice - this tends to work well at getting attention and because some of his facts are sort-of correct from a certain angle he's not totally telling lies even if the common interpretation of his video might well be a lie/mistruth/very opinionated viewpoint.

So I'd not use him as a trusted source for information; I think you'd get confused in a few areas because you don't see the whole picture and if you only see the small window he (and most tutorials) show then you'll get conflicted as to who to listen to.

Overread, I find your post to be an AMAZINGLY reserved and very well-articulated description of the aforementioned YouTuber. You did it with class and dignity. This video has been discussed here before, and some of the comments were not for the ears of the faint-hearted.

 

[greybeard]

That was the 1st time I have ever heard the f/stop thing. He was saying that a 50mm f/1.4 is a 75mm f/2.1 on a crop body. Is that correct? When I put my 50mm on my D7000 and open it all the way up, the aperture says 1.4 and not 2.1???????????????????

 

[Derrel]

That was the 1st time I have ever heard the f/stop thing. He was saying that a 50mm f/1.4 is a 75mm f/2.1 on a crop body. Is that correct? When I put my 50mm on my D7000 and open it all the way up, the aperture says 1.4 and not 2.1???????????????????

Well...it's a lot to explain, but he's preaching the "equivalence" theory in terms of the way using a different, smaller camera format, affects the MINIMUM depth of field possible under normal (non-macro) image magnifications. What he means is that, since APS-C is a smaller image area, to get the same degree of out-of-focus backgrund on a crop-frame camera, the maximum aperture value of f/1.4 on the full-frame gives a more-in-focus background rendering whrn that 50 f/1.4 is mounted on a smalelr-format APS-C camera; the "equivalent" degree of background defocus would be that of an f/2.1 lens, not an f/1.4 lens; as you can see, that's about a one-f/stop difference, from f/1.4 to f/2.1.

This equivalence theory assumes that the MOST-important quality is how blurry one can get the background! Again, I will write it once more: this assumes that the MOST-important quality we want to calculate is how blurry we can make a background.

Different sized capture formats use different lenses to capture identical types of photos. A "normal" lens on 6x6 120 rollfilm is a 75mm or 80mm f/2.8; a normal lens on 24x26mm 35mm film is a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8; on APS-C a normal lens is even shorter; on 4x5 sheet film, a normal lens is a 210mm to 240mm f/5.6 lens.

Mathematically translating equivalent field of view AND maximum defocus capability on the APS-C format, from 24x 36mm format, yields the calculation that the f/1.4 50mm lens behaves, in terms of DEFOCUS, like a lens of f/2.1 aperture. The smaller APS-C capture format means the 50mm length lens "behaves a lot like" a 75mm lens would on FF, in angular view/magnification.

Buuuuuuut: this hare-brained way of thinking ALSO IGNORES the fact that the smaller format camera gives DEEPER depth of field potential, for the times when we actually WANT MORE to be in-focus! There's an implicit bias toward de-focusing the backdrop as some type of holy grail. And for some uses, this makes sense: when you use an APS-C camera for full-length studio photography, and get down into the 30-35mm focal length zone, background papper rolls start being too narorow, or not tall enough; ugly backdrops in group shots start to become VERY, very challenging to de-focus, epecially on lenses like the 18-55mm f/3.5~5.,6 type kit lens. By the time we move to an iPhone, de-focus backgrops are almost impossible.

Again...the idea of "using all the information" blah-blah-blah...YouTube is filled with clickbait artists, and people pushing half-truths and so on. Re-read overread's comments in Post #6.