Canon Body and Lens Upgrade

jaree2 · Jan 20, 2019

Hi all -

Was hopeful to get some advice from those with more experience. I am hoping to upgrade my camera body and lens this spring - I have a few trips planned for the summer and would like some time to get comfortable with a new setup.

I am currently shooting with a 70D and primarily a 100-400 Mk I. This setup has been great for me over the years and I've been quite happy with it. However, there are certainly times I've been a little unhappy with the sharpness of images, even in seemingly good light, at 400mm.

I am mostly shooting birds, enjoy the challenge of shooting birds in flight and have enjoyed the 70Ds AF system. I should note that I am 100% an amateur and do this purely for my own enjoyment, but I do produce prints for my own collection, and am willing to invest in image quality.

I plan on upgrading to the 100-400 Mk II - I had rented one of these lenses this fall, and was really pleased vs. the Mk I. I enjoy the versatility and from what I have read, image quality seems comparable even to the 300 f/4L with a 1.4 teleconverter. I do already own the 1.4 teleconverter, and lose the luxury of autofocus when using my current setup.

With this lens upgrade in mind, I would also like to take the opportunity to upgrade my camera body from the 70D. It seems both the 5dMkIV and 7DMkII would be big step ups. I think my very long-winded question would be - is the 5dMkIV full-frame upgrade and low-light performance worth the price difference for my lens usage and emphasis on image quality?

Thanks so much for your help - here are some very nitpicky examples of when I feel like my equipment was kind of maxed out with a good opportunity:

(I love these shots, but they don't hold up as prints or blown up to any degree)

Colombia (71 of 169) by Jack Reese, on Flickr

Colombia (93 of 169) by Jack Reese, on Flickr

Colombia (157 of 1) by Jack Reese, on Flickr

Derrel · Jan 20, 2019

In terms of image quality, the 70D and the 7D Mark II seem to have more or less the same ~20MP sensor,and VERY similar measured sensor performance. The Mark II has more AF points and faster firing rate. The 5D Mark IV on the other hand, has a bigger sensor, the same 7 FPS firing rate you're used to from your 70D, but significantly better sensor performance than the other two models have. Go here,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV vs Canon EOS 7D Mark II vs Canon EOS 70D | DxOMark

and click through the various tabs, scores,specifications,and measurements, and you can see that the 5D Mark IV offers better low-light performance, and what I see as being noticeably better imaging performance at ISO levels in the 800 to 1600 range--which is VERY helpful with nature shots, especially in marginal light,with long, slow-aperture lenses.

The arguments about "reach" and full-frame versus 1.6 put aside, I think it's better to be able to capture a CLEAN image, free of noise, at a somewhat higher shutter speed, to prevent subject blurring or camera motion blurring or vibration blurring, when you're shooting with a long lens that's "slow" or "slow-ish". Having a sensor that allows the photographer to deliberately under-expose (meaning use a faster shutter speed) a bit, and then in post-processing "lift up" the dark image...very,very useful things, and this is where I think the newer sensor technology gives the owner of it the advantage. The 5D Mark IV is a 2016 camera, the 70D is a 2013 model, and the 7D-II is a 2014 model. Since your current 70D came out, Canon has made some sensor updates that moved the Canon brand closer to the above ideal of being able to under-expose and then lift the dark image in software later. (Look into ISO invariant cameras for more info on what I'm talking about here.)

As far as lens versus sensor size and sensor generation; that can be tricky to evaluate, but as I see it, overall, as far as determining where we come up with the judgement of "overall visual image quality": the lens and the sensor work together to produce the image. In almost all cases I've seen tested, the larger sensor's image looks better than the smaller sensor's image, when we look at the same-sized image on-screen or in-print, when using the same lens. The larger image needs fewer diameters of enlargement to make a 20-inch wide print; the larger sensor typically does better with "marginal-quality" lenses than does the smaller sensor. This held true even before digital...medium format negatives that measure 2.25 inches across made great enlargements with modestly-performing lenses designed in the 1950's; the same is NOT true for 24x36mm negatives, which need much better-quality lens performance to approach the quality from the bigger negative shot with the lower-performing lens.

I guess what I'd say is that I think you'd do best with the 31-megapxel, newer, full frame 5D Mark IV, even with your old lens, and that overall, the 5D IV offers better technical image quality...better dynamic range, more useful ISO capabilities, and well, just a bigger, larger, better image. Bigger, cleaner pixels, and another 11 million worth of them.

I expect that yes, the 100-400 in the Mark II version is better than the older-generartion lens, but still, I see the 91 image quality score of the 5D IV, and know how that compares to various Nikon FX cameras that receive similar or higher scores from DxO Mark; I've compared DxO Mark scores to multiple cameras I have owned and used for over a decade; when you move into the 85-90 score range, the images are _easily_ seen as "better" than they are in the lower score ranges. I've compared their scores and tests on cameras I've owned...20D,5D,D610,D3x,D2x,D70,D800...the scores are valid as far as seeing which cameras make better images. The Nikon D2x versus Canon 5D is an especially telling,accurate comparison from DxO Mark.That was the specific head-to-head that showed me that DxO mark scores can easily be used and trusted for basic image quality characteristic comparisons on color, DR, and noise performance.

jaree2 · Jan 20, 2019

This is wonderful information thank you - I fortunately do not have enough equipment to necessarily be bound to one brand. I will open up my search to include some the Nikon bodies as well. Thanks very much

Overread · Jan 20, 2019

As you're considering the upgrade for the summer I've been seeing a general up-take of rumours for a new 7DMIII hitting the market potentially this year - or at least being announced. That could both mean a new camera body with a better and newer sensor over the 7DMII, but it could also mean that it helps send the prices of other cameras down once a new one is known to be coming to the market. So even if it winds up not being the camera for you it might make the prices on a few canon alternatives that are out now, a bit cheaper.

Certainly with newer sensors and higher MP cameras the crop VS fullframe debate is more complicated and tricky to navigate than it was 10 years ago. Nikon and Sony have also confused the waters with their new ISO Invariant sensors which can outstanding low light performance.

Whilst I've not used it the reviews I've read of the 100-400mm MII are very positive. Teh first lens was known as a bit of a gamble quality control wise; but the new is really delivering some outstanding performance. So it does make for a very natural upgrade for you if the zoom is something you benefit from and make regular use off (esp since the 200-400mm is a lot lot more expensive)

jaree2 · Jan 20, 2019

Thank you both for the great information. I think in general I've only really explored Canon's products in an effort to keep things a little more simple, which I suppose is a silly way to approach things in terms of maximizing value. Head to head, it seems like the Nikon D850 paired with their 200-500 offers better specs and flexibility than the 5dMkIV and the 100-400 (unless I'm missing something major). I may sit on it for a while in case Canon shakes things up with an offering this spring, but you've been a great resource for me to make a better informed decision, thanks very much for your help.